The Issue Whether the certificate of need application to convert 30 acute care beds to 30 adult psychiatric beds at Broward General Medical Center meets the statutory and rule criteria for approval.
Findings Of Fact The North Broward Hospital District (NBHD) is a special taxing district established by the Florida Legislature in 1951 to provide health care services to residents of the northern two-thirds of Broward County. NBHD owns and operates four acute care hospitals: Coral Springs Medical Center, North Broward Medical Center, Imperial Point Medical Center (Imperial Point), and Broward General Medical Center (Broward General). NBHD also owns and/or operates primary care clinics, school clinics, urgent care centers, and a home health agency. FMC Hospital, Ltd., d/b/a Florida Medical Center (FMC) is a 459-bed hospital with 74 inpatient psychiatric beds, 51 for adults separated into a 25-bed adult unit and a 26-bed geriatric psychiatric unit, and 23 child/adolescent psychiatric beds. FMC is a public Baker Act receiving facility for children and adolescents and operates a mental health crisis stabilization unit (CSU) for children and adolescents. FMC also operates separately located facilities which include a partial hospitalization program, an adult day treatment program, and a community mental health center. At Florida Medical Center South, FMC operates another day treatment program and partial hospitalization program. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is the state agency which administers the certificate of need (CON) program for health care services and facilities in Florida. The NBHD applied for CON Number 8425 to convert 30 acute care beds to 30 adult psychiatric beds at Broward General. Broward General operates approximately 550 of its total 744 licensed beds. It is a state Level II adult and pediatric trauma center and the tertiary referral center for the NBHD, offering Level II and III neonatal intensive care, pediatric intensive care, cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services. Broward General has 68 adult psychiatric beds and is a public Baker Act receiving facility for adults. Public Baker Act receiving facilities have state contracts and receive state funds to hold involuntarily committed mental patients, regardless of their ability to pay, for psychiatric evaluation and short-term treatment. See Subsections 394.455(25) and (26), Florida Statutes. Although they serve different age groups, both FMC and Broward General are, by virtue of contracts with the state, public Baker Act facilities. When a Baker Act patient who is an indigent child or adolescent arrives at Broward General, the patient is transferred to FMC. FMC also typically transfers indigent Baker Act adults to Broward General. At Broward General, psychiatric patients are screened in a separate section of the emergency room by a staff which has significant experience with indigent mental health patients. If hospitalization is appropriate, depending on the patient's physical and mental condition, inpatient psychiatric services are provided in either a 38-bed unit on the sixth floor or a 30- bed unit on the fourth floor of Broward General. In July 1995, Broward General also started operating a 20-bed mental health CSU located on Northwest 19th Street in Fort Lauderdale. Prior to 1995, the County operated the 19th Street CSU and 60 CSU beds on the grounds of the South Florida State Hospital (SFSH), a state mental hospital. Following an investigation of mental health services in the County, a grand jury recommended closing the 60 CSU beds at SFSH because of "deplorable conditions." In addition, the grand jury recommended that the County transfer CSU operations to the NBHD and the South Broward Hospital District (SBHD). As a result, the SBHD assumed the responsibility for up to 20 CSU inpatients a day within its existing 100 adult psychiatric beds at Memorial Regional Hospital. The NBHD assumed the responsibility for up to 40 CSU inpatients a day, including 20 at the 19th Street location. The additional 20 were to be redirected to either the 68 adult psychiatric beds at Broward General or the 47 adult psychiatric beds at Imperial Point. CSU services for adult Medicaid and indigent patients in the NBHD service area were transferred pursuant to contracts between the NBHD and Broward County, and the NBHD and the State of Florida, Department of Children and Family Services (formerly, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services). Based on the agreements, the County leases the 19th Street building in which Broward General operates the CSU. The County also pays a flat rate of $1.6 million a year in monthly installments for the salaries of the staff which was transferred from the County mental health division to the NBHD. The County's contract with the NBHD lasts for five years, from December 1995 to September 2000. Either party may terminate the contract, without cause, upon 30 days notice. The State contract, unlike that of Broward County, does not provide a flat rate, but sets a per diem reimbursement rate of approximately $260 per patient per day offset by projected Medicaid revenues. The State contract is renewable annually, but last expired on June 30, 1997. The contract was being re-negotiated at the time of the hearing in November 1997. Based on actual experience with declining average lengths of stay for psychiatric inpatients, the contract was being re-negotiated to fund an average of 30, not a maximum of 40 patients a day. If CON 8425 is approved, NBHD intends to use the additional 30 adult psychiatric beds at Broward General to meet the requirements of the State and County contracts, while closing the 19th Street CSU and consolidating mental health screening and stabilization services at Broward General. NBHD proposes to condition the CON on the provision of 70 percent charity and 30 percent Medicaid patient days in the 30 new beds. By comparison, the condition applicable to the existing 68 beds requires the provision of 3 percent charity and 25 percent Medicaid. When averaged for a total of 98 beds, the overall condition would be 23.5 percent charity and 26.5 percent Medicaid, or a total of 51 or 52 percent. The proposed project will require the renovation of 10,297 gross square feet on the fourth floor of Broward General at a cost of approximately $450,000. The space is currently an unused section of Broward General which contains 42 medical/surgical beds. Twelve beds will be relocated to other areas of the hospital. The renovated space will include seclusion, group therapy, and social rooms, as well as 15 semi- private rooms. Twelve of the rooms will not have separate bathing/showering facilities, and seven of those will also not have toilets within the patients' rooms. Need in Relation to State and District Health Plans - Subsection 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes The District 10 allocation factors include a requirement that a CON applicant demonstrate continuously high levels of utilization. The applicant is given the following evidentiary guidelines: patients are routinely waiting for admissions to inpatient units; the facility provides significant services to indigent and Medicaid individuals; the facility arranges transfer for patients to other appropriate facilities; and the facility provides other medical services, if needed. Broward General does not demonstrate continuously high utilization by having patients routinely waiting for admission. Broward General does meet the other criteria required by allocation factor one. The second District 10 allocation factor, like criterion (b) of the first, favors an applicant who commits to serving State funded and indigent patients. Broward General is a disproportionate share Medicaid provider with a history of providing, and commitment to continue providing, significant services to Medicaid and indigent patients. In fact, the NBHD provides over 50 percent of both indigent and Medicaid services in District 10. See also Subsection 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes. Allocation factor three for substance abuse facilities is inapplicable to Broward General which does not have substance abuse inpatient services. Allocation factor 4 for an applicant with a full continuum of acute medical services is met by Broward General. See also Rule 59C-1.040(3)(h), Florida Administrative Code. Broward General complies with allocation factor 5 by participating in data collection activities of the regional health planning council. The state health plan includes preferences for (1) converting excess acute care beds; (2) serving the most seriously mentally ill patients; (3) serving indigent and Baker Act patients; (4) proposing to establish a continuum of mental health care; (5) serving Medicaid-eligible patients; and (6) providing a disproportionate share of Medicaid and charity care. Broward General meets the six state health plan preferences. See also Rule 59C-1.040(4)(e)2., Florida Administrative Code, and Subsection 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes. Broward General does not meet the preference for acute care hospitals if fewer than .15 psychiatric beds per 1000 people in the District are located in acute care hospitals. The current ratio in the District is .19 beds per 1,000 people. Rule 59C-1.040(4)(3)3, Florida Administrative Code, also requires that 40 percent of the psychiatric beds needed in a district should be allocated to general hospitals. Currently, approximately 51 percent, 266 of 517 licensed District 10 adult inpatient psychiatric beds are located in general acute care hospitals. On balance, the NBHD and Broward General meet the factors and preferences of the health plans which support the approval of the CON application. See also Rule 59C- 1.040(4)(e)1. and Rule 59C-1.030, Florida Administrative Code. Numeric Need The parties stipulated that the published fixed need pool indicated no numeric need for additional adult inpatient psychiatric hospital beds. In fact, the numeric need calculation shows a need for 434 beds in District 10, which has 517 beds, or 83 more than the projected numeric need. In 1994- 1995, the District utilization rate was approximately 58 percent. The NBHD asserts that the need arises from "not normal" circumstances, specifically certain benefits from closing the 19th Street CSU, especially the provision of better consolidated care in hospital-based psychiatric beds, and the establishment of a County mental health court. The NBHD acknowledges that AHCA does not regulate CSU beds through the CON program and that CSU beds are not intended to be included in the calculation of numeric need for adult psychiatric beds. However, due to the substantial similarity of services provided, NBHD contends that CSU beds are de facto inpatient psychiatric beds which affect the need for CON- regulated psychiatric beds. Therefore, according to the NBHD, the elimination of beds at SFSH and at the 19th Street CSU require an increase in the supply of adult psychiatric beds. The NBHD also notes that approval of its CON application will increase the total number of adult psychiatric hospital beds in Broward County, but will not affect the total number of adult mental health beds when CSU and adult psychiatric beds are combined. After the CSU beds at SFSH closed, the total number of adult mental health beds in the County has, in fact, been reduced. NBHD projected a need to add 30 adult psychiatric beds at Broward General by combining the 1995 average daily census (ADC) of 48 patients with its assumption that it can add up to 10, increasing the ADC to 58 patients a day in the existing 68 beds. Based on its contractual obligation to care for up to 40 CSU inpatients a day, the NBHD projects a need for an additional 30 beds. The projection assumed that the level of utilization of adult inpatient psychiatric services at Broward General would remain relatively constant. With 40 occupied beds added to the 48 ADC, NBHD predicted an ADC of 88 in the new total of 98 beds, or 90 percent occupancy. The assumption that the ADC would remain fairly constant is generally supported by the actual experience with ADCs of 48.1, 51.5, and 45.8 patients, respectively, in 1995, 1996, and the first seven months of 1997. NBHD's second assumption, that an ADC of 40 CSU patients will be added is not supported by the actual experience. Based on the terms of the State and County contracts, up to 20 CSU patients have already been absorbed into the existing beds at the Imperial Point or Broward General, which is one explanation for the temporary increase in ADC in 1996, while up to 20 more may receive services at the 19th Street location. In 1996 and 1997, the ADC in the 19th Street CSU beds was 15.3 and 14.2, respectively, with monthly ranges in 1997 from a high of 17 in April to a low of 12 in June. The relatively constant annual ADCs in psychiatric and CSU beds are a reflection of increasing admissions but declining average lengths of stay for psychiatric services. The NBHD also projects that it will receive referrals from the Broward County Mental Health Court, established in June 1997. The Court is intended to divert mentally ill defendants with minor criminal charges from the criminal justice system to the mental health system. Actual experience for only three months of operations showed 7 or 8 admissions a month with widely varying average lengths of stay, from 6 to 95 days. The effect of court referrals on the ADC at Broward General was statistically insignificant into the fall of 1997. Newspaper reports of the number of inmates with serious mental illnesses do not provide a reliable basis for projecting the effect of the mental health court on psychiatric admissions to Broward General, since it is not equipped to handle violent felons. One of Broward General's experts also compared national hospital discharge data to that of Broward County. The results indicate a lower use rate in Broward County in 1995 and a higher one in 1996. That finding was consistent with the expert's finding of a growth in admissions and bed turnover rate which measures the demand for each bed. The expert also considered the prevalence of mental illness and hospitalization rates. The data reflecting expected increases in admissions, however, was not compared to available capacity in the County nor correlated with declining lengths of stay. The District X: Comprehensive Health Plan 1994 includes an estimate of the need for 10 CSU beds per 100,000 people, or a total of 133 CSU beds needed for the District. FMC argues that the calculation is incorrect because only the adult population should be included. Using only adults, FMC determined that 116 CSU beds are needed which, when added to 434 adult psychiatric beds needed in the February 1996 projection, gives a bed need for all mental health beds of 550. That total is less than the actual combined total number of 567 mental health beds, 517 adult psychiatric beds plus 50 CSU beds in 1995. Whatever population group is appropriate, the projection of the need for CSU beds is not reliable based on the evidence that, since the end of 1995, CSU services have been and, according to NBHD, should continue to be absorbed into hospital- based adult psychiatric units. For the same reason, the increase in adult psychiatric bed admissions from 1995 to 1996 does not establish a trend towards increasing psychiatric utilization, but is more likely attributable to the closing of CSU beds at SFSH. FMC's expert's comparison of data from three selected months in two successive years is also not sufficient to establish a downward trend in utilization at the 19th Street CSU, neither is the evidence of a decline in ADC by one patient in one year. Utilization is relatively static based on ADCs in existing Broward County adult psychiatric beds and in CSU beds. FMC established Broward General's potential to decrease average lengths of stay by developing alternative non-inpatient services as FMC has done and Broward General proposes to do. See Finding of Fact 37. Based on local health council reports, FMC's data reflects a rise in the ADC at Broward General to 52.7 in 1996, and a return to 46 in the first seven months of 1997. Using a 14.2 ADC for the 19th Street CSU, FMC projects that Broward General will reach an ADC of approximately 60 in the first year of operations if the CON is approved, not 88 as projected. Broward General acknowledged its capacity to add 10 more patients to the ADC without stress on the system. Having already absorbed 20 of up to 40 CSU patients at Imperial Point and Broward General in 1996 and 1997 resulting in an ADC of 48, and given the capacity to absorb 10 more, the NBHD has demonstrated a need to accommodate an ADC of 10 more adult psychiatric patients at Broward General, or a total ADC of 68 patients. The need to add capacity to accommodate an additional 10 patient ADC was not shown to equate to a need for 30 additional beds, which would result in an ADC of 68 patients in 98 beds, or 69 or 70 percent occupancy. Special Circumstances - Rule 59C-1.040(4)(d) The psychiatric bed rule provides for approval of additional beds in the absence of fixed numeric need. The "special circumstance" provision applies to a facility with an existing unit with 85 percent or greater occupancy. During the applicable period, the occupancy at Broward General was 74.15 percent. However, occupancy rates have exceeded 95 percent in the CSU beds on 19th Street. If up to 20 patients on 19th Street are added to the 48 ADC at Broward General, the result is that the existing 68 beds will be full. A full unit is operationally not efficient or desirable and allows no response to fluctuations in demand. Therefore, the state has established a desirable standard of 75 percent occupancy for psychiatric units, a range which supports the addition of 10 to 15 psychiatric beds at Broward General. Available Alternatives - Subsection 408.035(1)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59C-1.040(4)(e)4., Florida Administrative Code The psychiatric bed rule provides that additional beds will "not normally" be added if the district occupancy rate is below 75 percent. For the twelve months preceding the application filing, the occupancy rate in 517 adult psychiatric beds in District 10 was approximately 58 percent. FMC's expert noted that each day an average of 200 adult psychiatric beds were available in District 10. Broward General argues that the occupancy rate is misleading. Five of the nine facilities with psychiatric beds are freestanding, private facilities, which are ineligible for Medicaid participation. Historically, the freestanding hospitals have also provided little charity care. One facility, University Pavilion, is full. Of the four acute care hospitals with adult psychiatric beds, Memorial Hospital in the SBHD, is not available to patients in the NBHD service area. Imperial Point, the only other NBHD facility with adult psychiatric beds, is not available based on its occupancy rate for the first seven months of 1997 of approximately 81 percent, which left an average of 9 available beds in a relatively small 47-bed unit. That leaves only Broward General and FMC to care for Medicaid and indigent adult psychiatric patients. FMC is the only possible alternative provider of services, but Broward General was recommended by the grand jury and was the only contract applicant. The occupancy rate in FMC's 51 adult beds was approximately 80 percent in 1995, 73 percent in 1996, and 77 percent for the first seven months in 1997. FMC has reduced average lengths of stay by having patients "step down" to partial hospitalization, day treatment and other outpatient services of varying intensities. The same decline in average lengths of stay is reasonably expected when Broward General implements these alternatives. Adult psychiatric services are also accessible in District 10 applying the psychiatric bed rule access standard. That is, ninety percent of the population of District 10 has access to the service within a maximum driving time of forty- five minutes. The CSU license cannot be transferred to Broward General. Broward County holds the license for CSU beds which, by rule, must be located on the first floor of a building. Although Broward General may not legally hold the CSU license and provide CSU services on the fourth floor of the hospital, there is no apparent legal impediment to providing CSU services in psychiatric beds. Quality of Care - Subsection 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes and Rule 1.040(7), Florida Administrative Code Broward General is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. The parties stipulated that Broward General has a history of providing quality care. Broward General provides the services required by Rule 59C-1.040(3)(h), Florida Administrative Code. Services Not Accessible in Adjoining Areas; Research and Educational Facilities; Needs of HMOs; Services Provided to Individuals Beyond the District; Subsections 408.035(1)(f),(g),(j), and (k), Florida Statutes Broward General does not propose to provide services which are inaccessible in adjoining areas nor will it provide services to non-residents of the district. Broward General is not one of the six statutory teaching hospitals nor a health maintenance organization (HMO). Therefore, those criteria are of no value in determining whether this application should be approved. Economics and Improvements in Service from Joint Operation - Subsection 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes The consolidation of the psychiatric services at Broward General is reasonably expected to result in economies and improvements in the provision of coordinated services to the mentally ill indigent and Medicaid population. Broward General will eliminate the cost of meal deliveries and the transfer of medically ill patients, but that potential cost-saving was not quantified by Broward General. Staff and Other Resources - Subsection 408.035(1)(h), Florida Statutes The parties stipulated that NBHD has available the necessary resources, including health manpower, management personnel, and funds to implement the project. Financially Feasibility - Subsection 408.035(1)(h) and (i), Florida Statutes The parties stipulated that the proposed project is financially feasible in the immediate term. The estimated total project cost is $451,791, but NBHD has $500,000 in funds for capital improvements available from the County and $700,000 from the Florida Legislature. As stipulated by the parties, NBHD has sufficient cash on hand to fund the project. Regardless of the census, the County's contractual obligation to the NBHD remains fixed at $1.6 million. The State contract requires the prospective payment of costs offset by expected Medicaid dollars. If the number of Medicaid eligible patients decreases, then state funding increases proportionately. The state assumed that 20 percent of the patients would qualify for Medicaid, therefore it reimburses the per diem cost of care for 80 percent of the patients. One audit indicated that 30 percent of the patients qualified for Medicaid, so that State payments for that year were higher than needed. The State contract apparently makes no provision to recover excess payments. The application projects a net profit of $740,789 for the first year of operations, and a net profit of $664,489 for the second year. If the State contract with NBHD is renewed to contemplate an average of 30 patients per day as opposed to up to 40 patients per day, then annual revenue could be reduced up to $400,000. Projected net profit will, nevertheless, exceed expenses when variable expenses are reduced correspondingly. If 20 state funded patients are already in psychiatric beds, and 20 more could be transferred from 19th Street, the result is an ADC of 68. Based on the funding arrangements, there is no evidence that the operation of a total of 98 beds could not be profitable, even with an ADC of 68, although it would be wasteful to have 30 extra beds. Impact on Competition, Quality Assurance and Cost-Effectiveness - Subsection 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes With a maximum of 68 inpatients or more realistically, under the expected terms of a renegotiated State contract, 58 to 60 inpatients in 98 beds, Broward General will reasonably attempt to expand the demand for its inpatient psychiatric services. Within the NBHD's legal service area, one-third of adult psychiatric patients not admitted to Broward General are admitted to FMC. Assuming a proportionate impact on competitors, FMC's expert projected that one-third of approximately 30 unfilled beds at Broward General will be filled by patients who would otherwise have gone to FMC. The projection of a loss of 9 patients from the ADC of FMC is reasonably based on an analysis showing comparable patient severity in the most prevalent diagnostic category. Given the blended payor commitment of approximately 51 or 52 percent total for Medicaid and charity in 98 beds, Broward General will be able to take patients from every payor category accepted at FMC. The loss of 9 patients from its ADC can reduce revenues by $568,967 at FMC. The impact analysis is reasonably based on lost patient days since most payers use a per diem basis for compensating FMC. For example, although Medicare reimbursement is usually based on diagnosis regardless of length of stay, it is cost-based for the geriatric psychiatric unit. Net profit at FMC, for the year 1996-1997, was expected to be approximately $4.5 million. FMC will also experience increased costs in transporting indigent patients from FMC to Broward General for admission and treatment. Because of the additional distance, the cost to transfer indigent patients is $20 more per patient from FMC to Broward General than it is from FMC to the 19th Street CSU. FMC typically stabilizes indigent adult psychiatric inpatients, then transfers them to either the 19th Street CSU or Broward General. From March through September of 1997, FMC transported approximately 256 indigent patients from FMC to the 19th Street CSU. In terms of quality assurance, the consolidation of psychiatric services at Broward General will allow all patients better access to the full range of medical services available at Broward General. The NBHD's operation of the 19th Street CSU is profitable. Approval of the CON application should reasonably eliminate all costs associated with operation of the 19th Street facility, and shift more revenues from the State and County contracts to Broward General. Some savings are reasonably expected from not having meal deliveries to 19th Street or patient transfers for medical care. The NBHD did not quantify any expected savings. Costs and Methods of Construction - Subsection 408.035(1)(m), Florida Statutes Broward General will relocate 12 of 42 medical/surgical beds and convert 30 medical/surgical beds to 30 adult psychiatric beds on one wing of the fourth floor, which is currently unused. Fifteen semi-private medical/surgical patient rooms will be converted into semi-private adult psychiatric rooms. Existing wards will be converted to two social rooms, one noisy and one quiet. With the removal of the walls of some offices, the architect designed a group therapy room. An existing semi-private room will be used as a seclusion room. Of the fifteen semi-private rooms, twelve will not have bathing or showering facilities and seven will not have toilets within the patients' rooms. At the time the hospital was constructed, the state required only a lavatory/sink in each patient room. AHCA's architect agreed to allow Broward General to plan to use central bathing and toilet facilities to avoid additional costs and diminished patient room sizes. Because the plan intentionally avoids construction in the toilets, except to enlarge one to include a shower, there is no requirement to upgrade to Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Therefore, the $23,280 construction cost contingency for code compliance is adequate. Although the projected construction costs are reasonable and the applicable architectural code requirements are met, the design is not the most desirable in terms of current standards. Patient privacy is compromised by the lack of toilets for each patient room. Past and Proposed Provision of Services to Promote a Continuum of Care in a Multi-level System - Subsection 408.035(1)(o), Florida Statutes Broward General is a tertiary acute care facility which provides a broad continuum of care. Because it already operates the CSU and provides CSU services in adult psychiatric beds, the proposal to relocate patients maintains but does not further promote that continuum of care. Broward General's plan to establish more alternatives to inpatient psychiatric care does promote and enhance its continuum of care. Capital Expenditures for New Inpatient Services - Subsection 408.035(2), Florida Statutes Broward General is not proposing to establish a new health service for inpatients, rather it is seeking to relocate an existing service without new construction. The criteria in this Subsection are inapplicable. Factual Conclusions Broward General did not establish a "not normal" circumstance based on the grand jury's findings and recommendations. The grand jury did not recommend closing 19th Street facility. Broward General did generally establish not normal circumstances based on the desirability of consolidating mental health services at Broward General to provide a single point of entry and to improve the quality of care for the 19th Street facility patients. Broward General failed to establish the need to add 30 beds to accomplish the objective of closing the 19th Street facility. Although the existing beds at Broward General may reasonably be expected to be full as a result of the transfer of 19th Street patients, the addition of 30 beds without sufficient demand results in an occupancy rate of 69 or 70 percent, from an ADC of 68 patients in 98 beds. Broward General has requested approximately twice as many beds as it demonstrated it needs. Broward General's CON application on balance satisfies the local and state health plan preferences. In general, FMC is the only alternative facility in terms of available beds, but is not the tax-supported public facility which the grand jury favored to coordinate mental health services. Broward General meets the statutory criteria for quality of care, improvements from joint operations, financial feasibility, quality assurance, cost-effectiveness, and services to Medicaid and indigent patients. The proposal is not the most desirable architecturally considering current standards. More importantly, Broward General did not demonstrate that it can achieve its projected occupancy without an adverse impact on FMC. The NBHD proposal will add too many beds to meet the targeted state occupancy levels in relatively a static market. Broward General's application does not include a partial request for fewer additional beds which would have allowed the closing of 19th Street, while maintaining some empty beds for demand fluctuations and avoiding an adverse impact on FMC.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration deny the application of the North Broward Hospital District for Certificate of Need Number 8425 to convert 30 medical/surgical beds to 30 adult psychiatric beds at Broward General Medical Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Paul Vazquez, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Underwood, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 David C. Ashburn, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli & Stewart, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 830 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Certificate of Need Application No. 8614, filed by Vencor Hospitals South, Inc., meets, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule criteria. Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration relied upon an unpromulgated and invalid rule in preliminarily denying CON Application No. 8614.
Findings Of Fact Vencor Hospital South, Inc. (Vencor), is the applicant for certificate of need (CON) No. 8614 to establish a 60-bed long term care hospital in Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), the state agency authorized to administer the CON program in Florida, preliminarily denied Vencor's CON application. On January 10, 1997, AHCA issued its decision in the form of a State Agency Action Report (SAAR) indicating, as it also did in its Proposed Recommended Order, that the Vencor application was denied primarily due to a lack of need for a long term care hospital in District 8, which includes Lee County. Vencor is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vencor, Inc., a publicly traded corporation, founded in 1985 by a respiratory/physical therapist to provide care to catastrophically ill, ventilator-dependent patients. Initially, the corporation served patients in acute care hospitals, but subsequently purchased and converted free-standing facilities. In 1995, Vencor merged with Hillhaven, which operated 311 nursing homes. Currently, Vencor, its parent, and related corporations operate 60 long term care hospitals, 311 nursing homes, and 40 assisted living facilities in approximately 46 states. In Florida, Vencor operates five long term care hospitals, located in Tampa, St. Petersburg, North Florida (Green Cove Springs), Coral Gables, and Fort Lauderdale. Pursuant to the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, filed on October 2, 1997, the parties agreed that: On August 26, 1996, Vencor submitted to AHCA a letter of intent to file a Certificate of Need Application seeking approval for the construction of a 60-bed long term care hospital to be located in Fort Myers, AHCA Health Planning District 8; Vencor's letter of intent and board resolution meet requirements of Sections 408.037(4) and 408.039(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59C-1.008(1), Florida Administrative Code, and were timely filed with both AHCA and the local health council, and notice was properly published; Vencor submitted to AHCA its initial Certificate of Need Application (CON Action No. 8614) for the proposed project on September 25, 1996, and submitted its Omissions Response on November 11, 1996; Vencor's Certificate of Need Application contains all of the minimum content items required in Section 408.037, Florida Statutes; Both Vencor's initial CON Application and its Omissions Response were timely filed with AHCA and the local health council. During the hearing, the parties also stipulated that Vencor's Schedule 2 is complete and accurate. In 1994, AHCA adopted rules defining long term care and long term care hospitals. Rule 59C-1.002(29), Florida Administrative Code, provides that: "Long term care hospital" means a hospital licensed under Chapter 395, Part 1, F.S., which meets the requirements of Part 412, Subpart B, paragraph 412.23(e), [C]ode of Federal Regulations (1994), and seeks exclusion from the Medicare prospective payment system for inpatient hospital services. Other rules distinguishing long term care include those related to conversions of beds and facilities from one type of health care to another. AHCA, the parties stipulated, has no rule establishing a uniform numeric need methodology for long term care beds and, therefore, no fixed need pool applicable to the review of Vencor's CON application. Numeric Need In the absence of any AHCA methodology or need publication, Vencor is required to devise its own methodology to demonstrate need. Rule 59C-1.008(e) provides in pertinent part: If no agency policy exists, the applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict, or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Vencor used a numeric need analysis which is identical to that prepared by the same health planner, in 1995, for St. Petersburg Health Care Management, Inc. (St. Petersburg). The St. Petersburg project proposed that Vencor would manage the facility. Unlike the current proposal for new construction, St. Petersburg was a conversion of an existing but closed facility. AHCA accepted that analysis and issued CON 8213 to St. Petersburg. The methodology constitutes a use rate analysis, which calculates the use rate of a health service among the general population and applies that to the projected future population of the district. The use rate analysis is the methodology adopted in most of AHCA's numeric need rules. W. Eugene Nelson, the consultant health planner for Vencor, derived a historic utilization rate from the four districts in Florida in which Vencor operates long term care hospitals. That rate, 19.7 patient days per 1000 population, when applied to the projected population of District 8 in the year 2000, yields an average daily census of 64 patients. Mr. Nelson also compared the demographics of the seven counties of District 8 to the rest of the state, noting in particular the sizable, coastal population centers and the significant concentration of elderly, the population group which is disproportionately served in long term care hospitals. The proposed service area is all of District 8. By demonstrating the numeric need for 64 beds and the absence of any existing long term care beds in District 8, Vencor established the numeric need for its proposed 60-bed long term care hospital. See Final Order in DOAH Case No. 97-4419RU. Statutory Review Criteria Additional criteria for evaluating CON applications are listed in Subsections 408.035(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, and the rules which implement that statute. (1)(a) need in relation to state and district health plans. The 1993 State Health Plan, which predates the establishment of long term care rules, contains no specific preferences for evaluating CON applications for long term care hospitals. The applicable local plan is the District 8 1996-1997 Certificate of Need Allocation Factors Report, approved on September 9, 1996. The District 8 plan, like the State Health Plan, contains no mention of long term care hospitals. In the SAAR, AHCA applied the District 8 and state health plan criteria for acute care hospital beds to the review of Vencor's application for long term care beds, although agency rules define the two as different. The acute care hospital criteria are inapplicable to the review of this application for CON 8614 and, therefore, there are no applicable state or district health plan criteria for long term care. (1)(b) availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services in the district; and (1)(d) availability and adequacy of alternative health care facilities in the district. Currently, there are no long term care hospitals in District 8. The closest long term care hospitals are in Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Fort Lauderdale, all over 100 miles from Fort Myers. In the SAAR, approving the St. Petersburg facility, two long term care hospitals in Tampa were discussed as alternatives. By contract, the SAAR preliminarily denying Vencor's application lists as alternatives CMR facilities, nursing homes which accept Medicare patients, and hospital based skilled nursing units. AHCA examined the quantity of beds available in other health care categories in reliance on certain findings in the publication titled Subacute Care: Policy Synthesis And Market Area Analysis, a report submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, on November 1, 1995, by Levin-VHI, Inc. ("the Lewin Report"). The Lewin Report notes the similarities between the type of care provided in long term care, CMR and acute care hospitals, and in hospital-based subacute care units, and subacute care beds in community nursing homes. The Lewin Report also acknowledges that "subacute care" is not well-defined. AHCA has not adopted the Lewin Report by rule, nor has it repealed its rules defining long term care as a separate and district health care category. For the reasons set forth in the Final Order issued simultaneously with this Recommended Order, AHCA may not rely on the Lewin Report to create a presumption that other categories are "like and existing" alternatives to long term care, or to consider services outside District 8 as available alternatives. Additionally, Vencor presented substantial evidence to distinguish its patients from those served in other types of beds. The narrow range of diagnostic related groups or DRGs served at Vencor includes patients with more medically complex multiple system failures than those in CMR beds. With an average length of stay of 60 beds, Vencor's patients are typically too sick to withstand three hours of therapy a day, which AHCA acknowledged as the federal criteria for CMR admissions. Vencor also distinguished its patients, who require 7 1/2 to 8 hours of nursing care a day, as compared to 2 1/2 to 3 hours a day in nursing homes. Similarly, the average length of stay in nursing home subacute units is less than 41 days. The DRG classifications which account for 80 percent of Vencor's admissions represent only 7 percent of admissions to hospital based skilled nursing units, and 10 to 11 percent of admissions to nursing home subacute care units. Vencor also presented the uncontroverted testimony of Katherine Nixon, a clinical case manager whose duties include discharge planning for open heart surgery for patients at Columbia-Southwest Regional Medical Center (Columbia-Southwest), an acute care hospital in Fort Myers. Ms. Nixon's experience is that 80 percent of open heart surgery patients are discharged home, while 20 percent require additional inpatient care. Although Columbia-Southwest has a twenty-bed skilled nursing unit with two beds for ventilator-dependent patients, those beds are limited to patients expected to be weaned within a week. Finally, Vencor presented results which are preliminary and subject to peer review from its APACHE (Acute Physiology, Age, and Chronic Health Evaluation) Study. Ultimately, Vencor expects the study to more clearly distinguish its patient population. In summary, Vencor demonstrated that a substantial majority of patients it proposes to serve are not served in alternative facilities, including CMR hospitals, hospital-based skilled nursing units, or subacute units in community nursing homes. Expert medical testimony established the inappropriateness of keeping patients who require long term care in intensive or other acute care beds, although that occurs in District 8 when patients refuse to agree to admissions too distant from their homes. (1)(c) ability and record of providing quality of care. The parties stipulated that Vencor's application complies with the requirement of Subsection 408.035(1)(c). (1)(e) probable economics of joint or shared resources; (1)(g) need for research and educational facilities; and (1)(j) needs of health maintenance organizations. The parties stipulated that the review criteria in Subsection 408.035(1)(e), (g) and (j) are not at issue. (f) need in the district for special equipment and services not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. Based on the experiences of Katherine Nixon, it is not reasonable for long term care patients to access services outside District 8. Ms. Nixon also testified that patients are financially at a disadvantage if placed in a hospital skilled nursing unit rather than a long term care hospital. If a patient is not weaned as quickly as expected, Medicare reimbursement after twenty days decreases to 80 percent. In addition, the days in the hospital skilled nursing unit are included in the 100 day Medicare limit for post-acute hospitalization rehabilitation. By contrast, long term care hospitalization preserves the patient's ability under Medicare to have further rehabilitation services if needed after a subsequent transfer to a nursing home. (h) resources and funds, including personnel to accomplish project. Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated that Vencor has sufficient funds to accomplish the project, and properly documented its source of funds in Schedule 3 of the CON application. Vencor has a commitment for $10 million to fund this project of approximately $8.5 million. At the hearing, AHCA also agreed with Vencor that the staffing and salary schedule, Schedule 6, is reasonable. (i) immediate and long term financial feasibility of the proposal. Vencor has the resources to establish the project and to fund short term operating losses. Vencor also reasonably projected that revenues will exceed expenses in the second year of operation. Therefore, Vencor demonstrated the short and long term financial feasibility of its proposal. needs of entities serving residents outside the district. Vencor is not proposing that any substantial portion of it services will benefit anyone outside District 8. probable impact on costs of providing health services; effects of competition. There is no evidence of an adverse impact on health care costs. There is preliminary data from the APACHE study which tends to indicate the long term care costs are lower than acute care costs. No adverse effects of competition are shown and AHCA did not dispute the fact that Vencor's proposal is supported by acute care hospitals in District 8. costs and methods of proposed construction; and (2)((a)-(c) less costly alternatives to proposed capital expenditure. The prehearing stipulation includes agreement that the design is reasonable, and that proposed construction costs are below the median in that area. past and proposed service to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Vencor has a history of providing Medicaid and indigent care in the absence of any legal requirements to do so. The conditions proposed of 3 percent of total patient days Medicaid and 2 percent for indigent/charity patients proposed by Vencor are identical to those AHCA accepted in issuing CON 8213 to St. Petersburg Health Care Management, Inc. Vencor's proposed commitment is reasonable and appropriate, considering AHCA's past acceptance and the fact that the vast majority of long term care patients are older and covered by Medicare. services which promote a continuum of care in a multilevel health care system. While Vencor's services are needed due to a gap in the continuum of care which exists in the district, it has not shown that it will be a part of a multilevel system in District 8. (2)(d) that patients will experience serious problems obtaining the inpatient care proposed. Patients experience and will continue to experience serious problems in obtaining long term care in District 8 in the absence of the project proposed by Vencor. Based on the overwhelming evidence of need, and the ability of the applicant to establish and operate a high quality program with no adverse impacts on other health care providers, Vencor meets the criteria for issuance of CON 8614.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue CON 8614 to Vencor Hospitals South, Inc., to construct a 60-bed long term care hospital in Fort Myers, Lee County, District 8. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Kim A. Kellum, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Blank, Rigsby & Meenan, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Assuming a need for additional hospital beds in Broward County by 1987, the agreed "planning horizon," the question becomes which, if any, of the six or seven proposals advanced in these proceedings would be the best means of meeting the need. Central to the bed need issue in this case is the parties' enigmatic stipulation: 2/ that there is a need for acute care beds in Broward County in 1987, and this need should be determined on a regionalized basis. Pembroke Pines joins in this stipulation only to the extent that a need does not exist in the proposed service area of SBHD. Prehearing Stipulation C.8. The parties were unable to agree on where these regional boundaries should be drawn, among other things.
Findings Of Fact There is a glut of hospital beds in Broward County. Twenty hospitals have some 6,000 licensed or authorized beds in the county exclusive of free- standing psychiatric hospitals and their beds. In 1980, when Broward County's population numbered 1,018,200, six thousand beds would have been at least a quarter again too many by accepted standards. In 1987, Broward County's population has been projected to be between 1,137,160 and 1,276,911 by the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). Other population projections for the year 1987 range all the way to 2,260,700, but it is highly unlikely that so many people will ever live in Broward County, much less by the year 1987. There is no assurance that even BEBR's high projection of 1,276,911 will be reached by 1987. If it should be, the ratio of beds to population in Broward County as a whole would only then fall within the upper reaches of arguably appropriate levels, assuming no additional beds in the interim. CENTROID MOVES WEST Whatever its magnitude, there is no reason to expect population growth to cluster around existing hospitals. Contrary trends have, indeed, already emerged. Population growth in western Broward County is expected to continue at a rate in excess of the rate for the county as a whole. From 1970 to 1980, the population in Broward County's western and central planning subregions (see Appendix) combined went from 140,581 to 417,461 while the population in eastern Broward County went from 479,518 to 600,736. Broward County is most densely populated in its eastern portion, but, increasingly, people have been moving into housing further west in the county. The result has been rapidly growing occupancy at Bennett, the county's westernmost hospital; and high occupancy, often to capacity, at University, which is further north than Bennett but almost as far west. Occupancy rates at Pembroke Pines, the southwestern most hospital in the county, have also increased. If additional hospital beds could be added in the west without affecting the efficiency of operations at other hospitals in the west, their addition would still have the effect of depressing demand for hospital beds in eastern Broward County or, at least, of slowing the rate of increase in demand. The four public hospitals along the Atlantic seaboard are operating at efficient occupancy levels and, in the case of SBHD's Memorial Hospital (Memorial), at capacity, but many hospitals in eastern Broward County are operating extremely inefficiently, including HCA's North Beach Medical Center (North Beach) with 1981 average occupancy of 37.1 percent, and Humana's Community Hospital of South Broward (Community), with 1981 average occupancy of 42.7 percent. THE PROPOSALS HCA, NBHD and Humana, the three organizations which together already own and operate half of the short-term hospitals in Broward County are vying for the right to build a new hospital in the northwest part of the county. In addition to its contention that a new hospital should be built in the northwest to open in 1987, HCA argues that present conditions justify expansion of University long before then, and Humana put on evidence tending to show a need for expansion at Bennett by 1987. SBHD has proposed a new hospital for southwest Broward to open at 84 beds in 1987 and go to 128 beds in 1988. Bennett's expansion is the only other proposal to meet (at least in part) the bed need alleged to exist in southwest Broward. THE NORTHWEST By anybody's reckoning, HCA's Margate is located in northwest Broward already. Depending on how far south the boundary of a northwest region is drawn, HCA's University can also be said to be located in northwest Broward. Humana's Cypress Community Hospital (Cypress), the closest hospital to the east, lies north of University and south of Margate; and Bennett is almost due south of University. NBHD's North Broward Hospital lies further east and considerably north of Cypress. HCA acquired Margate by acquiring or merging with Hospital Affiliates International (HAI) the for-profit hospital chain that formerly owned Margate. Even before the acquisition, planning had begun (by HAI) to replace the facility. Licensed at 150 beds, its effective capacity is significantly lower. Situated on 3.7 acres that do not provide adequate parking, Margate is, in numerous respects, an example of how hospitals should not be built. Hospital ancillary departments were added to a physical plant originally designed as a nursing home and the result has been narrow, dead end corridors and a pathetic 400 gross square feet per bed. There was uncontroverted testimony that the corridors amounted to "life and safety code" violations. No other such violations were specified, however, nor was any statute or regulation cited with respect to the corridors. The testimony was, in fact, that HRS has granted a variance for the corridors based on a similar variance by the Joint Commission on Accreditation. The evidence revealed no request by any licensing or other authority to renovate or to replace Margate, nor any threat to delicense so much as a single bed at Margate. HCA proposes nevertheless to close Margate down when it opens a new 250-bed hospital on 15-acres of a 21-acre site two miles to the north, at a total project cost of $33,750,577. Alternatively, HCA argues it is statutorily entitled to build a 150- bed replacement hospital, and uncontroverted testimony put the project cost at $25,696,403, rather than three-fifths of the 250-bed hospital cost used by HRS. Replacing Margate on its existing site, like renovating it, would not be economical, and for many of the same reasons. Whether at 150 or 250 beds, the HCA proposals include 24 intermediate care, 20 obstetric, 14 pediatric and 12 critical care beds. The proposed hospital would have Margate's medicare and medicaid provider numbers, so that it would not be a "new hospital" under TEFRA regulations. At 150 beds, 929 square feet per bed are contemplated at a cost of $171,309 per bed. At 250 beds, 766 square feet per bed are contemplated at a cost of $135,002 per bed. Humana proposes to build a new 150 bed hospital on a site yet to be acquired in northwest Broward at a project cost of $27,772,500. As proposed, 3/ Coral Ridge General Hospital would have 20 obstetrical beds, 20 pediatric beds, 10 critical care beds and 100 medical-surgical beds. There would be 972 square feet per bed at a cost per bed of $185,150. Larger by a third but in many other ways comparable to Humana's proposed Coral Ridge is NBHD's proposal for a new hospital. At 200 beds, the total project cost would be $37,203,658 or $186,018 per bed and there would be some 950 square feet per bed. Twenty-four obstetric, 20 pediatric, 16 critical care and 140 medical-surgical beds are proposed. A site of approximately 20 acres has been donated, subject to CON approval of the project. University seeks immediate authority to house 73 additional medical- surgical beds in shelled-in space now available on site. University's 209 beds had 83.2 percent average occupancy in 1981, and, at the time of hearing, when it was full to overflowing, University had experienced 87 percent average occupancy for 1982. The uncontroverted evidence was that University can add 73 beds at a total project cost in the neighborhood of $310,000, or $4,227 per bed, resulting in 576 square feet per bed at University. These figures do not reflect associated ancillary costs already or to be incurred. SOUTH AND CENTRAL Although Bennett has not yet reached efficient occupancy levels, a strong trend in that direction has been demonstrated. Average occupancy in 1981 was 63.5 percent, up from 58.5 percent in 1980. By CON number 1996, dated March 15, 1982, Bennett was authorized to spend $8,780,100 to build a parking garage, establish a separate day surgery and expand ancillaries. In these proceedings it seeks authority to add 64 beds in existing shelled-in space. Of these beds 30 would be "minimal care" beds and the remainder would be medical-surgical beds. Exclusive of ancillary costs already authorized, the project cost would be $1,600,000 or $25,000 per bed. Finally SBHD's proposed WBH would have 128 beds at a total project cost of $38,386,000 or $299,891 per bed. WBH would have 852 square feet per bed, 8 critical care beds and 120 medical-surgical beds, and would be built with a view toward expansion. It would operate as a "satellite" of Memorial. DRAWING LINES In order to analyze the County by regions, boundaries must be drawn. Each applicant for a certificate of need (CON) to add hospital beds in northwest Broward county defined "northwest" differently. Both Humana and NBHD saw the hospitals they proposed as serving the 1987 need each identified in its particular northwest planning area. For its purposes, Bennett defined a west central region of Broward County; and SBHD defined its proposed service area for WBH to include the southwest and part of the south central Broward County planning regions. Objections to the WBH proposal focused on southern Broward County, an aggregate of planning subregions extending east to the ocean. SBHD, HCA and Bennett all analyzed bed need on the basis of regions coterminous with the service areas of specific institutions: that of the proposed WBH, in the case of the SBHD; the combined service areas of University and Margate, in the case of HCA; and Bennett's own service area. Defining the service area of an existing institution is a different problem than forecasting the perimeters of a hospital's service area, before the hospital is built. The key to defining historical service areas is information about where patients served by a hospital lived. Hospitals keep data on patient origin by zip code, and the South Florida Hospital Association compiled some of this information for 1979, in its Hospitalization Utilization and Patient Origin Project (HUPOP). Studies like HUPOP provide a basis for judgments about whether a particular zip code furnishes a hospital a great enough fraction of its total patients (or patient days) to be considered part of the hospital's primary or secondary service area. A lightly populated zip code might be included in a hospital's service area on the basis of the size of the share of all patients it sends to hospitals who go to that particular institution, even if the number is a small fraction of the total for the hospital. As the parties demonstrated at great length, it is possible to attach undue significance to regional or other boundaries. They are not, after all, magical barriers through which persons seeking hospital care cannot pass. Beds available to people living within a region do not cease to exist just because they are located on the other side of some arbitrary line. No hospital in Broward County meets the need of the whole population within its service area, or serves nobody outside its service area. There are substantial overlaps in hospital service areas. Any calculation of need must take beds already available into account. The parties' stipulation that there is a need for an unspecified number 3/ of additional beds in an unspecified northwest region does not address the question of what beds outside any such area are nevertheless available to residents of the area. DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS Once an area is defined, the next step is forecasting its population for the year 1987. Such forecasts begin with census counts or population estimates, which require judgment and extrapolation themselves, unless an actual count in a census block or other census division is relied on. Taking points at either end of a time interval, future projections are made using linear extrapolation, proportional growth, shift-share and other methodologies. Forecasts represent a weighted average of these projections, informed by a judgment on such things as "ultimate build out," and the likely effects of anticipated transportation improvements. Forecasts of population cohorts or components are also pertinent because child bearing women and children have special needs, and because older people are more likely to use hospital beds than younger people. John Short and Associates, Inc., forecast a total population of 256,800 in the northwest area defined by HCA (NW-HCA) in 1987, based on medium projections by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida. Urban Decision Systems, Inc. forecast a total population of 110,053 for the northwest Broward County planning subregion used by NBHD (NW-NBHD), and Dr. Ladner projected a population increase in the northwest area as defined by Humana (NW-HU) of 76,812 between 1982 and 1987. In making his only population projection for NW-HU, Dr. Ladner assumed an 8.6 percent compound annual growth rate, which the weight of the evidence showed to be unrealistically high. For that and other reasons, Dr. Ladner's population forecast has not been deemed reliable. The John Short and Urban Decisions forecasts are theoretically compatible, pertaining, as they do, to two different areas, They represent compound annual growth rates of 6.69 and 5.86 percent, respectively, and together indicate the likely order of magnitude of the growth of population in northwest Broward County by 1987. The population in western Broward generally, and northwest Broward in particular, is younger on average than the population of the county as a whole. In the northwest planning subregion, 21.7 percent of the population was under 15, 59 percent was 15 to 64, and 19.3 percent was 65 or older in 1980. Also in 1980, women aged 15 to 44 comprised 20.1 percent of the population. Assuming the population of the northwest planning subregion ages slightly in line with the projections for the county as a whole, 19.4 percent of the population in 1987 should be under 15, 80.2 percent should be under 65 and 19.8 percent should be 65 or over. The proportion of women 15 to 44 should grow to 20.8 percent. Dr. Ladner's 1987 projection for Bennett's service area, zip codes 33313, 33314, 33317, 33322, 33323, 33324, 33325, 33326, 33327, 33328, 33330, 33331 and 33332, reflects the same methodology he used for the northwest. Even though the part of Bennett's service area to the south and west of the hospital is not as well developed as northwest Broward, so that there is more justification for Dr. Ladner's growth rate assumption there, his projections for Bennett's service area of 252,644 5/ in 1985 and 368,050 in 1990 are probably too high. Thousands of acres of residential and other development are planned or under construction in these zip codes, however. If Arvida sells 2,680 housing units between now and 1987 in its Indian Trace development in zip code 33327 (whether it can depends on interest rates and other factors) and if household size there averages 2.7, as projected, that development alone would house 7,236 additional persons in 1987. Some time between 1984 and 1988, construction of I-75 will be completed, and southwest Broward will become a 30-minute commute from Miami. When 1-95 was completed in south Palm Beach County, annual population growth jumped from 5,000 to 33,000. The land in Palm Beach County cost less to develop and is closer to the ocean, although further from Miami, than land in southwest Broward County. Population forecasts for the southwest and south central Broward planning regions have been made by Dr. Stanley Smith and by Urban Decisions Systems, Inc. For the two regions combined, their projections for 1987 are 183,700 and 173,800, respectively. For the WBH proposed service area, as revised, zip codes 33025, 33026, 33027, 33028, 33029, 33326, 33327, 33328, 33330, 33331 and 33332, Dr. Smith forecast a 1987 population of 69,128. This number was arrived at without reference to the projected opening of Interstate Highway 75, but Dr. Smith did not think that prospect called for an adjustment in the forecast. For south Broward County, as a whole, i.e., the southwest, southeast and south central planning subregions combined, Dr. Smith projected a population of 380,711 in 1986, and 388,795 in 1987. Gateway's Exhibit No. 16. In 1980, 10.6 percent of the population in the revised WBH proposed service area was 65 or over, as compared to 21.7 percent in the three south regions as a whole. NBHD FORMULAE If facilities in an area serve only that area and nobody enters or leaves the area for hospitalization, the use rate of the population will be the sum of draw rates of the hospitals in the area. In analyzing the need for a specific institution, or assessing the likely draw of a new institution, it is necessary to assign some fraction of the whole population in its service area as its market share. Existing institutions have historical market shares which can be used where historical conditions are not predicted to change, while, for new institutions, other assumptions have to be made. Demand-based need formulae express utilization rates as patient days per 1,000 population. Translating patient days per thousand persons per year to beds needed per thousand persons requires dividing by 365 to get an average daily census per thousand persons then multiplying by the inverse of the optimal average occupancy rate assumed. One hundred percent occupancy of hospital beds on a regular basis would be undesirable, if achievable, because of the lack of reserve capacity to meet fluctuating demand. As a practical matter the problems of matching patients in hospital rooms with more than one bed on the basis of gender, service, smoking habits, and diagnosis prevent 100 percent utilization. For acute care medical-surgical beds, an average occupancy of 80 percent is a desideratum with which no health care planner who testified disagreed, although Dr. Schoeman spoke in terms of 80 to 85 percent average occupancy. Even lower average occupancies are recommended for certain specialty beds, including obstetric (75 percent), pediatric (65 percent) and cardiac intensive care (75 percent) beds. Eighty percent average occupancy as a health planning goal for all short-term beds taken together is supported by the weight of the evidence. (The Florida Task Force on Institutional Needs calls for a 79.4 percent weighted average occupancy). The goal of 80 percent occupancy underlies the national standard of 4 beds per 1,000 persons. This average also reflects the age distribution of the national population and other nationally average conditions. In 1980, 11.3 percent of the population in the United States was 65 or over, while the 65 and older age group made up 22 percent of Broward County's population. In Broward County, where the population is older on average than the population of the country as a whole and where there is significant seasonal variation in population (so that greater reserve capacity is desirable), the consensus is that 4.5 beds per 1,000 persons is a more appropriate rule of thumb. Based on historical demand in Broward County, Mr. Baehr of Amherst Associates, Inc. made an "area specific" analysis. In 1981, 752.1 patient days in Broward County hospitals were attributed on average to every 1,000 persons in Broward County under 65, while 3,442.8 patient days were attributed on average to every 1,000 Broward County residents 65 and older. Mr. Baehr also calculated service specific use rates and, on that basis, the need for, obstetric and pediatric beds. These specialized use rates are reflected in the aggregate use rates for the under 65 age cohort, but breaking them out separately permits the use of service specific occupancy rates. Mr. Baehr's 1981 Broward County use rates correspond to 2.58 beds per 1,000 persons under 65 (at 80 percent occupancy for all services) and 11.79 beds per 1,000 persons 65 and older. Free-standing psychiatric facilities were excluded from the calculations. To the extent the number of people leaving Broward County for hospitalization exceeds the number entering Broward County for that purpose, these utilization rates understate demand. A net outflow of this kind can be inferred from Medpar data reflecting such movement by medicare patients. Dr. Schoeman adjusted Broward County use rates for out-migration and concluded that county-wide use rates were 810.2 patient days per 1,000 population under age 65 and 3623.8 patient days per 1,000 population 65 and over. Dr. Schoeman's 1981 Broward County use rates correspond to 2.7747 beds per 1,000 under 65 (at 80 percent occupancy for all services) and 12.41 beds per 1,000 persons 65 and older (at 80 percent occupancy). The Health Systems Plan, which lacks any legal significance, but purportedly reflects local conditions, uses 861.8 patient days per 1,000 population under 65 and 3204.6 patient days per 1,000 population 65 and over. These numbers correspond to 2.95 and 10.97 beds per 1,000, respectively. At least in the absence of area-specific utilization rates, other utilization rates are used by health care planners. Dr. Kennedy calculated use rates specific to five zip codes in South Broward County for the year 1979 for each of four age cohorts, but testified that the most reasonable utilization rates to use in South Broward were those developed by the Florida Task Force on Institutional Need (TFIN), viz.: Medical-Surgical Patient Days per 1,000 Persons 0-64 565.9 65 and over 2982.2 ICC and CCU 0-64 43.1 65 and over 321.1 Psychiatric 0-64 44.9 65 and over 44.6 Obstetrics Females 15-44 186.3 Pediatrics 0-14 149.2 Gateway's Exhibit No. 12, Table 2, page 4. These figures supposedly represent the experience in Florida statewide. Finally, in the southern United States in 1980, utilization rates calculated from the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) were 348.2 patient days per 1,000 population under 15, 796.5 patient days per 1,000 population aged 15 to 44, 1,554.9 patient days per 1,000 population aged 45 to 64 and 3,994.2 patient days per 1,000 population 65 or over. The choice of appropriate utilization rates is complicated by the fact that there is no guarantee that historic rates will persist. Advances in medical science may make hospitalization for some conditions obsolete. Aging of the population over 65 on account of continued disproportionately elderly in- migration may result in greater utilization rates. Aging of the 15 to 64 age cohort would presumably result in greater utilization of certain services but might result in less utilization of obstetric beds, and so forth. The 1981 Broward County use rates adjusted for out-migration may prove an unreliable guide to future hospital utilization rates but no other use rates were shown by the evidence to be more reliable. Assuming these rates and applying the average occupancy rate of 80 percent, bed need in Broward County can appropriately be predicted by a weighted average of 2.7747 beds per 1,000 population under age 65, and 12.41 beds per 1,000 population 65 and older. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY The two-tined "immediate and long-term" financial feasibility criterion was described by HRS' Mr. Konrad as a "go-no go gauge." With respect to each application, the questions are 1) whether financing for start-up costs is available and 2) whether the facility will have enough revenue to support operations, on a long-term basis. GO It is clear from the evidence that HCA and Humana each have access to massive amounts of capital, much more than needed to accomplish any or all of their respective expansion and construction proposals in Broward County. HCA proposes to use 100 percent equity for each of its projects. Humana plans 22.3 percent equity and 77.7 percent debt for the new hospital; and 86 percent equity and 14 percent debt for its expansion project at Bennett. Issue was not joined as to their contentions, amply supported by expert opinion, that operations at proposed facilities would quickly become profitable. Although HCA's showing in this regard as to the proposed 150-bed version of NWBRMC was fairly broad brush, nothing in the evidence raised any doubt but that, with substantial occupancy assured (by Margate's closing) almost from the start, NWBRMC would be profitable at 150 beds. NBHD is a legislatively created tax district charged with serving the hospital needs of residents of the district. NBHD has ad valorem taxing authority and also has a healthy operating margin, partly because it charges indigent care against tax revenues, not at cost, but at full charges. In addition, it has accumulated, in a funded depreciation account, all the equity it plans to use to build a new 200-bed hospital in northwest Broward. NBHD had originally planned to issue bonds for the total project cost but changed its plans for fear medicare and medicaid reimbursement for the additional interest expense might be jeopardized, because the additional borrowing might be deemed unnecessary. In the past, NBHD has expended five or six million dollars annually for routine equipment and other capital costs. At the time of the hearing, NBHD had CONs authorizing work (to be done over periods of time not specified in the record) at a cost of at least $58,000,000, including expenditures for revenue- generating extra beds at its North Broward Hospital. NBHD's debt capacity is on the order of $100,000,000, in the event it becomes necessary to issue bonds in an amount greater than the $16,815,000 now contemplated. NBHD also has a line of bank credit ($35,000,000 at half of prime) that should give it some flexibility in timing going to market for its permanent financing, even though, under its charter, NBHD's short-term borrowing is limited to no more than 15 percent of its assets for no more than one year. HCA sought to show that NBHD's proposal was not financially feasible by trying to show that NBHD could not muster the capital necessary to build a new 200 bed hospital, sustain the loss anticipated during the initial year of operations, and meet its other commitments, but these efforts fell short of the mark. There was no attempt to discredit the revenue projections for the 200-bed hospital or to prove that it would not become profitable in the second year of operations, if built. NO GO The evidence showed that WBH is not financially feasible as far as financing construction, unless planned renovations at SBHD's Memorial are scaled down to levels significantly below those contemplated in an outstanding CON, or delayed past completion times contemplated when the outstanding renovation CON was applied for. At the time of the hearing, no amendment of the renovation CON had been obtained, nor, as far as the evidence showed, had any been applied for. SBHD filed its application for a CON for the modernization of Memorial at or about the time (in the same batching cycle) as it filed its application for a CON for WBH. In the Memorial modernization application it sought, and it has since received, authorization to make capital improvements to Memorial costing $95,419,000 to be completed in November of 1985. Gateway's Exhibit No. In order to accomplish this, it planned to borrow $75,245,000 by issuing tax-exempt bonds. In order to build WBH, which it planned to open (at 84 beds) in January of 1987, SBHD planned to issue tax-exempt bonds in the amount of $31,930,000. Arthur R. Guastella, a municipal investment banker retained by SBHD, testified that SBHD was not in a position to incur additional indebtedness of more that $80,000,000, in May of 1981. (Vol. 36, 37) Because of tax revenues, SBHD's revenues have exceeded expenses in the last few years despite operating losses at Memorial and the walk-in center SBHD operates near Pembroke Pines. SBHD has nevertheless been able to put aside only $1,000,000 for WBH. Management conceded that building WBH was incompatible with renovating Memorial on schedule. In short, SBHD is in the posture of seeking authority for projects which, taken together, it lacks the financial wherewithal to accomplish. SBHD failed to demonstrate financial feasibility in another important respect, counsel's heroic efforts notwithstanding. The basic assumptions of average annual occupancy at WBH in the beginning years, which underlie the Price, Waterhouse projections, were not established as reasonable by competent evidence. These assumptions were first predicated on an analysis, prepared by Herman Smith Associates, of demand in the service area originally proposed by WBH; but faulty population projections came to light and the work of Herman Smith Associates was not relied on at hearing. Instead, a much larger service area was drawn, including some zip codes closer to other hospitals than to the site proposed for WBH, and various problematic assumptions were made (e.g., a 100 percent draw rate from several zip codes). This work was done by a certified public accountant with an admitted lack of expertise in projecting bed need, and no health care planner or other qualified expert testified that the utilization or occupancy rates projected for WBH were reasonable. Detailed information about the population of south Broward County and its likely growth was put on by SBHD and other parties. The record is replete with competent evidence of various methods of projecting a population's bed need, based on the number, age and sex of the population. It is thus possible to calculate bed need for southern Broward County, each of the three planning subregions there, and the service areas proposed for WBH. Even when reduced by the number of beds already available in an area, bed need does not automatically translate into demand for beds at a particular institution, however; and SBHD failed to prove the reasonableness of its demand or utilization assumptions for WBH. SBHD has argued that Gateway's expert, Dr. Kennedy, supplied this omission with his Newtonian "spatial interaction model," but the record does not support this contention. For one thing, the model was shown to be a highly unreliable predictor of real world phenomena. For another, time unrelated to population change is not a variable in the model, nor is a lag in utilization at a new hospital otherwise taken into account, so that the 46 percent occupancy figure for WBH in 1987 on which SBHD seeks to rely is, according to Dr. Kennedy, unrealistically high for an initial operating year. Even if WBH opened in 1986, Dr. Kennedy predicted something like 33 percent average occupancy for 1987. Gateway's Exhibit No. 12, p. 28. For 1989, the Price, Waterhouse compilation that SBHD offered in an effort to prove WBH's financial feasibility, SBHD Exhibit No. 184, assumes 39,274 patient days at WBH, which represents an average daily census of 107.6 or average occupancy for 1989 of 84 percent. Without the "start-up curve" adjustment, Dr. Kennedy's model predicts less than 50 percent occupancy on average for 1989 at WBH. With the adjustment, the figure is lower. SBHD has also argued that evidence of record of utilization projections at other proposed hospitals should be looked to in order to show the reasonableness of its utilization assumptions for WBH. For the first two years, occupancy levels projected at WBH do closely parallel similar projections for, e.g., the new 200 bed hospital proposed by NBHD, but this in no way shows the reliability of the utilization assumptions used for the projections at WBH. Assuming some bed need arguendo, WBH's draw rate and so its utilization and occupancy levels would depend on, among other things, its location vis-a-vis physicians' offices, other hospitals, patients' residences and so forth, factors that differ in south Broward from conditions in northwest Broward. As proposed, WBH would be smaller, have fewer services and a different medical staff than the hospital proposed by NBHD. Among the consequences of the opening of Interstate 75 may be a dramatic shift to utilization of Dade County hospitals by the population of southwest Broward County. Lifemark, who owns and operates Palmetto General located in North Dade County on I-75, did not prove, however, that any such shift can be counted on to occur. Palmetto is currently operating at efficient levels and management is contemplating expansion based on the prospect of population growth in Dade County alone, although no letter of intent to apply for a CON has yet been filed. While Palmetto serves about four percent of the need for patient days attributable to southwest Broward's population, this represents something under one percent of Palmetto's total patient days. EXPANSION PROPOSALS COMPARED University hospital, at the time of the hearing, had occupancy rates which interfered with its efficient operation and required frequent emergency room to emergency room and other transfers. The parties stipulated: that University has experienced an occupancy level for the past year of approximately 87 percent including an occupancy level in excess of 90 percent during certain winter months. The parties further stipulate that in the case of University such occupancy levels have resulted in an adverse impact on certain aspects of patient care. Specifically, there have been problems in treating emergency room patients because of the emergency room being used as a holding area for patients that are waiting for beds to be available. There is difficulty in assuring continuity of care as patients have had to receive hospital care at facilities for which their regular physician does not have staff privileges, and a new physician had to be involved. There have been significant problems and inconveniences to patients as a result of the unavailability of beds. Furthermore, there have been difficulties encountered in spouses, relatives, and friends being able to visit patients when such patients have had to receive their care at other hospitals because of transportation difficulties (which is particularly a problem for the elderly). The demand for University's services has been convincingly demonstrated by real people seeking hospital care there. Beginning with a 1987 population forecast (extrapolated linearly from Dr. Ladner's 1985 and 1990 projections) that was probably too high for the area within zip codes 33313, 33314, 33317, 33322, 33323, 33324, 33325, 33326, 33327, 33328, 33330, 33331, and 33332 (Bennett's service area), Mr. Richardson multiplied by a use rate that was probably too low and assumed an 80 percent occupancy rate to calculate a 1987 bed need for the area of 1,291 beds. The understated use rate tends to compensate for the overstated population projection, and the end result is not unreasonable. From 1,291, beds already available at Bennett (204), Florida Medical Center (400), Plantation General (262) and Doctors General (202) were subtracted and a net bed need of 221 was forecast for Bennett's service area. Proceeding in the same manner with reference to Bennett's primary service area only (the same area except for zip codes 33317, 33330, 33331 and 33332), a net bed need of 145 was forecast there for 1987. Finally, applying the same utilization rate to the increment by which the population of Bennett's service area is projected (extrapolation from Ladner) to increase between 1982 and 1987 yields a prediction that the incremental population alone will use 323 beds a day on average. Allotting 177 of these full beds (average daily census) among Bennett and the other hospitals in the service area would bring each of them to 80 percent average occupancy and still leave an average daily census of 146, which, again assuming 80 percent occupancy, is a prediction of bed need in Bennett's service area of 183 for 1987. These predictions assume that the hospitals in Bennett's service area will draw no more patient days from outside the service area in 1987 than they do in 1982, but also unrealistically assume that the hospitals in the service area will have a combined 100 percent draw of patients in the service area. Bennett's primary service area overlaps University's secondary service area. No allowance has been made for any increase in University's draw that might result from expansion at University, nor has the historical draw of hospitals outside the service area been taken into account. Due east of Bennett is the largest aggregation of underutilized hospital beds in the county. In the east central planning subregion, the ratio of beds to population is 7.1 per 1,000. Among the 64 beds Bennett proposes to add are 30 "minimal care" beds. At least by that name, there are no such hospital beds in Florida, and only 52 in the United States. The room charge for a "minimal care" bed is expected to be 25 or 30 percent less than the comparable charge for a medical-surgical bed, reflecting lower nurse to bed ratios for "minimal care" beds than for ordinary medical-surgical beds. A condominium medical office complex adjacent to Bennett is expected to be finished by the fall of this year. The complex' 55,000 square feet are expected to provide office space for 41 physicians who together already account for 34 percent of Bennett's admissions. These condominium offices are already sold even though construction has not been completed. NEW HOSPITAL PROPOSALS FOR NORTHWEST COMPARED HCA contends that 73 new beds are needed in NW-HCA now and an additional 100 by 1987, for a total of 173; HRS and NBHD contend that 200 new beds are needed in NW-NBHD in 1987; and Humana contends that 223 beds are needed in NW-HU, plus 64 beds at Bennett, for a total of 287 by 1987. In making its case for the low number, HCA unilaterally assumed it should have the same market share it now enjoys in NW-HCA in 1987, and ignoring the increased attractiveness of a new 250 bed facility, as compared to Margate, put on evidence tending to show that, if all 173 beds were allotted to HCA, population increase in NW-HCA would assure their efficient utilization in 1987 without increasing the proportion of patient days from NW-HCA at University and the proposed 250-bed NWBRMC combined over the proportion now received by Margate and University combined. The evidence showed that adding 173 beds in NW-HCA would still leave a bed NBHD of 76 assuming 80 percent average occupancy, to be met by hospital beds outside of NW-HCA. NBHD put on evidence tending to show that the 1987 population in NW- NBHD could efficiently use 471 hospital beds. Assuming Margate or a hospital replacing Margate supplied 150 beds, 321 beds would still be needed in 1987 to serve the residents of NW-NBHD, NBHD contends. These forecasts ate based on the most conservative population and utilization predictions for northwest Broward County. Humana tried to prove that 254 additional beds will be needed in NW-HU by 1987, of which an expansion at University would supply 73, leaving 181. The 181 figure should be reduced by 34, Humana contends, because "since Margate experienced an average occupancy of 57.5 percent in 1981, it must be allocated an additional 34 patients per bed [sic] to raise it to the 80 percent occupancy level," Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order of Petitioners, Humedicenter, Inc. d/b/a Coral Ridge General Hospital and Humana of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Bennett County Hospital, p. 72, leaving 147 beds needed which Humana's proposed 150 bed hospital would supply. This argument is difficult to follow, but Humana's incremental analysis (with low use rates tending to compensate for exaggerated population projections) does suggest that opening 250 or so beds in NW-HU in 1987 would not depress patient flows to hospitals outside NW-HU below current levels. Unlike HCA, neither Humana nor NBHD has a hospital in northwest Broward County (NW-NBHD, NW-HU or NW-HCA). Competition would be enhanced there by building a new non-HCA hospital in the area, although it is true that most people presently leave the area to go to non-HCA hospitals. It is possible to overstate the advantage of competition in this context, moreover, inasmuch as people generally go to the hospital a physician recommends or, in emergencies, to the closest hospital. Competition may only foster better amenities for the medical staff rather than lower charges to the patients, but efforts by physicians or others to improve quality of care for patients would presumably have more chance of success in a competitive environment. Miami-Dade puts on continuing education programs for nurses at Humana's five south Florida hospitals and a new Humana hospital in northwest Broward would presumably also make space available for them. HCA and NBHD also have various training programs at their Broward County facilities. There was no showing that facilities for training in Broward County were limited. Humana publishes pamphlets about new medical technology for physicians on staff at its hospitals. With respect to expansion and new hospital proposals alike, the parties stipulated: The applicants and HRS agree that each applicant can adequately staff its project with all necessary personnel, including technical, nursing, and-medical personnel, and that this is not a comparative issue in this proceeding. Pembroke Pines does not join in this stipulation. The applicants and HRS agree that each applicant has adequate community support for its proposed project, and that this is not a comparative issue in this proceeding. Pembroke Pines does not join in this stipulation. 11. The parties agree that a new hospital in the northwest Broward area would attract a large number of physicians presently practicing in that area to join the medical staff of the new hospital. The need to cover this hospital, in addition to hospitals currently being covered, will result in physician inconvenience and more travel time. The most important comparative issues joined by the parties involved financial projections. FINANCIAL COMPARISONS The parties' proposed construction costs are not strictly comparable. The incremental costs per bed stated by Bennett, University and for the "additional" 100 beds at the proposed 250 bed version of NWBRMC do not reflect all of the costs that are properly associated with making a hospital bed available for occupancy. But it is true that construction costs for expansion are less than those for new construction when there is excess ancillary capacity and ordinarily even where there is not. Even among the non-incremental projections for new hospitals, there have been different assumptions about, among other things, inflation rates for different items and the dates operations would begin. Under one view, the site donated to NBHD, and any other gifts to NBHD for a new hospital, should be counted as costs of the new hospital. The parties have stipulated that projected construction costs are reasonable, and the costs of constructing a hospital are only the beginning, in any event. Once occupancies projected for the second or third year of operations are reached, any of the three new hospitals proposed for the northwest will have gross revenues every year well in excess of the "total project costs" expected to be incurred to build the hospital in the first place. CHARGE COMPARISONS Since people are hospitalized for a whole range of maladies, and receive different kinds and combinations of diagnostic and therapeutic services while in hospital, it is difficult to compare the charges for or cost of care at one hospital with the charges for or cost of care at another. It will not do to look at room charges only as a sort of gauge, because the medicare program has created pressure to keep room charges down, and hospitals have responded to the pressure by increasing charges for ancillary services. To take the most recent increases into account, therefore, ancillaries have to be included, even though they vary from patient to patient. NBHD's Exhibit 55 reflects one approach to comparing hospital charges. There charges for the 30 services most frequently "sold" by hospitals are listed for three of the four HCA Broward County hospitals, two of Humana's three Broward County hospitals and all three of NBHD's hospitals, for fiscal years ended in 1982. One difficulty with this approach is that at least one service listed on this exhibit (as "chemical profile"), evidently means one thing to one hospital laboratory and something else to another. Affecting all the comparisons on the chart is the difference among fiscal year ends for NBHD (June 30), Humana (August 31), and HCA (December 31). With hospital charges in Broward County escalating at annual rates on the order of 14 or 15 percent, a half year's difference in fiscal year ends can make essentially identical charge structures appear to differ significantly. HCA complains, in addition, that there is no justification for including one (Margate) but not the other (North Beach) of the Broward County hospitals it acquired from HAI. Humana's Community Hospital of South Broward was also omitted. Both Community and North Beach have extremely low occupancy rates, however, well below what anybody is projecting for a new hospital in northwest Broward County. Even making a rough adjustment for inflation, NBHD's charges were lower, on average, in more categories than the two Broward Humana Hospitals' average charges, than vice versa; and the same is true as between NBHD's average charges and the three Broward HCA hospitals' average charges. Invoking formulas developed by the Health Care Cost Containment Board, the parties made various comparisons using "gross revenue per adjusted patient day, gross revenue per admission," "total net revenue per adjusted patient day," and "total net revenue per adjusted admission." See NBHD Exhibit No. 71. The for-profit hospitals, but not NBHD's hospitals, subtract income taxes in arriving at "total net revenue." Using the same HCA and Humana Broward County hospitals whose charges were compared to all of NBHD's hospitals in NBHD Exhibit No. 55, average gross revenues were computed for fiscal years ended 1981 and stated per adjusted patient day ($340.60 for NBHD, $475.72 for HCA and $476.38 for Humana) and per adjusted admission ($2,870.70 for NBHD $3,154.67 for HCA, and $3,365.70 for Humana). NBHD Exhibit No. 56. On average, HCA's Florida hospitals' total net revenue per adjusted patient day is about five percent lower than the average for Humana's hospitals in Florida in 1980. HCA Exhibit No. 20. In 1980, the average total net revenue per adjusted patient day for HCA's Plantation General and University Community was $291.50 as compared to the $252.80 average for the two smaller of the three NBHD hospitals. HCA Exhibit No. 18. On the other hand, the 1980 average total net revenue per adjusted admission for the same two HCA hospitals was $1,842.60, as opposed to $2,363.60 for the same two NBHD hospitals. HCA Exhibit No. 18. Since indigent patients have longer average stays than other hospital patients, and NBHD treats significantly more indigent patients than HCA's University, Margate and Plantation, or Humana's Bennett and Cypress, the NBHD "adjusted admission" in charge or cost per adjusted admission comparisons represents more patient days. COST COMPARISONS In Broward County historically, average net operating expense per adjusted patient day and per adjusted admission at HCA's Plantation and University exceeded the NBHD averages in 1981. HCA Exhibit No. 25. For fiscal years ended 1981, HCA (Margate, University and Plantation) Humana (Cypress and Bennett) and NBHD incurred average costs per adjusted patient day of, respectively, $311.29, $289.79 and $262.27. NBHD Exhibit No. 56. NBHD's average cost per adjusted admission was higher than the others, on account of longer average stays. Because of the differing assumptions underlying the various pro forma financial statements, expenses stated there are not strictly comparable, although HCA produced a witness who made arithmetic adjustments purportedly simulating uniform inflation assumptions for comparative purposes, with reference to the proposed 250 bed NWBRMC. Hospitals have variable operating costs, fixed operating costs and fixed capital costs (which are related to construction costs and reflect financing costs). It is because fixed costs are so high (60 percent on average in the industry) that occupancy levels are crucial to a hospital's financial viability. In general, hospitals with 200 to 400 beds are more efficient than larger or smaller hospitals. Satellite hospitals like the proposed WBH enjoy certain economies by sharing administration, purchasing and the like with another established hospital. Both HCA and Humana buy hospital equipment and supplies at substantial discounts, comparable to those available through shared purchasing organizations to which NBHD (which has 1,304 approved beds itself as well as the possibility of discounts on account of governmental status) belongs. Private patients and insurers pay charges but hospitals are reimbursed through the medicare and medicaid programs in amounts fixed by a cost-based formula. (This amount comes to less than charges, and the difference is known as the medicaid or medicare "contractual.") Changes in the reimbursement formula have been dictated by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1981 (TEFRA), but not yet fully implemented. The consensus is that new TEFRA regulations will slow the rate of growth in reimbursement rates. These new regulations designate a base year for existing institutions by which to measure cost increases, but exempt new hospitals from certain reimbursement caps. HCA showed that it makes better economic sense to start over and build a new hospital than to renovate Margate, but did not show it was under legal compulsion to do either. Taking replacement of Margate as a given, HCA argues that the cost of adding 100 beds in northwest Broward County should be viewed as the difference between the cost of building NWBRMC at 250 beds and the cost of building it at 150 beds. In projecting both of these costs, HCA ignored the cost of closing Margate, 6/ but the cost of closing Margate would be the same whether it was replaced by a 150-bed or a 250-bed hospital, so the difference between the replacement costs would be unaffected. The incremental cost per bed is less meaningful than the relative per-bed costs for the whole institution at 150 as opposed to 250 beds. Any savings in construction costs inures first to the benefit of HCA. Such savings benefit the public directly only to the extent they may affect costs for medicaid or medicare reimbursement purposes. With respect to the proposed Margate replacement, the question of medicare and medicaid reimbursement is complicated by the change proposed in the ratio of debt to equity. Assuming optimal occupancies, however, operating a hospital with 200 to 400 beds would be less costly per bed than operating a 150-bed hospital, and these economies should be reflected in lower medicaid and medicare reimbursement. INDIGENT CARE Not all hospitals seek to serve the poor. Those that do receive medicaid reimbursement for services rendered to some, but not all, of their patients who are otherwise uninsured and unable to pay. Humana's Cypress did not have a medicaid provider number at the time of hearing. HCA's University had no medicaid contract until September of 1982 and has had less than one percent medicaid utilization since then. At its three hospitals, on average, NBHD has six to eight percent medicaid utilization. While NBHD hospitals are reimbursed for services to indigent persons ineligible for medicaid benefits at full charges, paid from NBHD's ad valorem tax revenues, HCA and Humana's hospitals in Broward County receive nothing for services rendered to medically indigent persons who are medicaid-ineligible. 7/ In addition, some patients with the ability to pay for hospital services fail to do so. Their charges are cumulated under the heading "bad debts." For want of complete information, some charges for indigent care may end up in this category. In the fiscal year ending August 31, 1982, Cypress' bad debts amounted to 3.3 percent of total revenues as compared to NBHD's 11 or 12 percent in recent years. NBHD has deposit requirements, but does not enforce them in every case at its hospitals. Some 27 to 30 percent of NBHD's hospitals' services are provided to persons unable to make full payment. Nobody is denied medical care for inability to pay at NBHD's existing hospitals. This policy would apply at the proposed 200 bed hospital in the northwest, as well. The sole exception to this policy has been NBHD's refusal to accept "economic transfers." Attempts by for-profit hospitals to transfer patients whose resources have been exhausted or whose inability to pay has become clear, in order to free beds for paying patients, have been resisted by NBHD, although medically indigent patients are accepted for transfer to NBHD hospitals whenever they need services that are unavailable at the transferring hospital. The HCA and Humana hospitals in Broward County do not turn emergencies away for inability of patients to pay, but do not, as a general rule, accept non-emergent cases when there is no assurance they will be paid. There are exceptions: On occasion medical staff admit non-emergent, indigent patients. Northwest Broward County is attractive to HCA, Humana and NBHD just because of the low numbers of indigent persons there, perhaps three or four percent of the population. In its second year of operation, a new hospital in northwest Broward County can expect less than one admission of an indigent patient per day. Medicare utilization should also be significantly lower than elsewhere in the county, where 56.4 percent of total patient days are attributable to medicare patients on average. TAXES AND SUBSIDIES Under current regulations, for-profit hospitals like HCA's and Humana's, but not nonprofit hospitals like NBHD's receive a return on equity component in medicare and medicaid reimbursement. (The rate is a healthy 150 percent of an average interest rate on certain government securities.) All other things being equal, an HCA or Humana hospital in northwest Broward would, if financed even in part by equity, receive more governmental reimbursement for rendering the same medicare or medicaid services than a hospital owned and run by NBHD, how much more depending on the debt-equity mix. HCA proposes to use 100 percent equity, in replacing Margate. On the other hand, HCA and Humana pay federal income and other taxes which NBHD does not pay. For comparative purposes, it is appropriate to assess the net fiscal impact of each proposal on government, but, with consolidated tax accounting and the number and diverse financial circumstances of HCA and Humana hospitals, setting medicare and medicaid payments off against federal income taxes can be viewed in more than one way. Federal tax liability that would otherwise arise from profits from operations at one HCA or Humana hospital can be offset by losses from operations at another hospital. NBHD not only pays no taxes, it also levies a tax, on real property within District boundaries. About four fifths of these revenues, on the order of $28,000,000 or $29,000,000 annually, are allocated to charges for "indigent care." There would be no NBHD for a tax increase to finance a new hospital, however. The "funded depreciation" account from which the equity contribution is to come does not, moreover, contain past tax receipts, except to the extent the fraction of NBHD's operating margin attributable to indigent care made its way into "funded depreciation." Similarly, tax revenues would not be used to operate the proposed hospital, except to the extent tax revenues were used to pay charges for the care of indigent patients. The terms "cost-shifting" or "charge shifting" describe the fact that some payers subsidize other payers. In the case of for-profit hospitals, private pay patients and third party payors other than the government pay rates that are set high enough to cover expenses incurred in treating patients whose bills go unpaid and to make up for the medicaid and medicare contractuals. With respect to NBHD hospitals, tax revenues are looked to to pay the full cost of the care of medically indigent persons, but bad debts are still reflected in the NBHD charge structures. To the extent for-profit hospitals provide services to medically indigent persons, the cost of those services is shifted to uninsured private pay patients, persons who pay premiums for hospital insurance, and the medicare and medicaid programs. On the other hand, all owners of taxable real property within the North Broward Hospital District bear the expense of the treatment of medically indigent persons at NBHD hospitals. Aside from expanding by building new hospitals, a course on which HCA, Humana, and NBHD alike seem to have embarked, these organizations have different uses for profits or any positive operating margin which a new hospital in the northwest might generate. Humana uses such money for corporate overhead, including shareholders' dividends, and to finance things like the work of Dr. Rollo who, in conjunction with researchers at Vanderbilt University and elsewhere, evaluates new medical technology as it becomes available. Humana also designates some of its hospitals "centers of excellence" in certain fields, encouraging research and specialized treatment of particular afflictions. HCA uses money from operations of its hospitals for overhead and other corporate purposes. Money from the NBHD hospitals' operations is used to finance specialized services in Broward County, principally at Broward General, which has, among other costly and unprofitable services, a substantial neonatology unit. LESS EXPENSIVE FOR WHOM For people who pay no taxes, have no hospitalization insurance, and are unable to pay hospital bills, the cost of each of the proposals for the northwest would be the same: nothing. (These people might not have access to services at a for-profit institution, however.) Private insurers, those that pay their premiums, federal taxpayers who finance the medicaid and medicare programs, taxpayers in the North Broward Hospital District and patients themselves all will bear part of the cost of any new hospital in northwest Broward. Private pay patients and their insurers will supply almost half of the total patient revenue. Historically, charges, which are the basis for these patients' payment, have been lower at NBHD hospitals than at HCA's or Humana's Broward County hospitals, on average, as reflected most clearly by the gross revenue per adjusted patient day comparisons. It is little consolation to private payers that Humana and HCA pay taxes while NBHD does not. But, in forecasting the relative costs to cost-based payors, projected federal income taxes should be subtracted from reimbursement for equity projected to be received by Humana and HCA through the medicare and medicaid programs. Even after income taxes are netted, HCA or Humana would receive compensation for equity that NBHD would not receive. Especially in light of evidence that shows that NBHD's expenses per patient day have been lower in the past than such expenses at the for-profit hospitals, the weight of the evidence established that cost-based reimbursement at a new northwest Broward hospital would, in all probability, be less if the hospital were operated by NBHD than if it were operated by HCA or Humana. Because of the medicare and medicaid rules allowing a return on equity component in reimbursement of providers, an NBHD hospital would receive less medicare and medicaid reimbursement even if the NBHD hospital had the same operating costs. The taxpayers of the District pay for the care of the medically indigent at NBHD hospitals, but not for the care of these persons at Broward County's Humana and HCA hospitals. There is no provision, presently, for using NBHD tax revenues to pay for the care at HCA or Humane hospitals in Broward County of medically indigent persons who are not eligible for medicare or medicaid. On the other hand, to the extent medically indigent persons are cared for by HCA and Humana, the costs of that care are "shifted" to, among others, private pay patients which, if persons paying for hospital insurance are included, constitute a group within the North Broward Hospital District that presumably overlaps substantially with taxpayers in the District. OBSTETRICS AND PEDIATRICS The parties stipulated that 20 to 24 obstetric beds were needed in northwest Broward County. Each proposal for a new hospital in northwest Broward County contemplates an obstetric service of this magnitude. Eighteen obstetric beds and 24 pediatric beds will be needed in 1987 to serve the population of NW- NBHD alone. There is presently a shortage of obstetric beds in Broward County as a whole. The site proposed for the new NBHD hospital in northwest Broward County is considerably further from other obstetric beds in the county than the site proposed for NWBRMC, although NWBRMC is mere central to the northern part of the county where there is a dearth of obstetric beds. In general, traffic in Broward County moves better north and south than east and west. Humana is not so committed to any particular site, that it could not build a hospital even further away. 8/ At NBHD's Broward General a training program for physicians wishing to specialize in obstetrics is already in place. Broward General has an intensity of pediatric and obstetric services that make it a desirable location for such a program for residents. A community hospital serving a population with a significant child bearing cohort, like that proposed for the northwest, would be an appropriate complement to the existing program.
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That HRS dismiss Lifemark as a party to these proceedings. That HRS grant NBHD's application for a CON to build a 200-bed hospital, in its entirety. That HRS grant HCA's application to build NWBRMC but only at 150 beds and without an obstetric service; and that HCA be authorized to expend to that end $25,969,403.00, less an appropriate adjustment for the lack of an obstetric service. That HRS deny the application for a CON to build a new hospital filed by South Broward Hospital District in its entirety. That HRS deny the application for a CON to build a new hospital filed by Humedicenter, Inc. d/b/a Coral Ridge General Hospital in its entirety. That HRS deny University Community Hospital's application for a CON to add beds there in its entirety. That HRS deny the application for a CON to add beds filed by Humana of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Bennett Community Hospital, in its entirety. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II 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 12th day of April, 1983.
The Issue Whether the certificate of need (CON) applications filed by New Port Richey Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Community Hospital of New Port Richey (Community Hospital) (CON No. 9539), and Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc., d/b/a North Bay Hospital (North Bay) (CON No. 9538), each seeking to replace and relocate their respective general acute care hospital, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule criteria.
Findings Of Fact The Parties AHCA AHCA is the single state agency responsible for the administration of the CON program in Florida pursuant to Chapter 408, Florida Statutes (2000). The agency separately reviewed and preliminarily approved both applications. Community Hospital Community Hospital is a 300,000 square feet, accredited hospital with 345 licensed acute care beds and 56 licensed adult psychiatric beds, located in southern New Port Richey, Florida, within Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital is seeking to construct a replacement facility approximately five miles to the southeast within a rapidly developing suburb known as "Trinity." Community Hospital currently provides a wide array of comprehensive inpatient and outpatient services and is the only provider of obstetrical and adult psychiatric services in Sub-District 5-1. It is the largest provider of emergency services in Pasco County with approximately 35,000 visits annually. It is also the largest provider of Medicaid and indigent patient days in Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital was originally built in 1969 and is an aging facility. Although it has been renovated over time, the hospital is in poor condition. Community Hospital's average daily census is below 50 percent. North Bay North Bay is a 122-bed facility containing 102 licensed acute care beds and 20 licensed comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds, located approximately one mile north of Community Hospital in Sub-District 5-1. It serves a large elderly population and does not provide pediatric or obstetrical care. North Bay is also an aging facility and proposes to construct a replacement facility in the Trinity area. Notably, however, North Bay has spent approximately 12 million dollars over the past three years for physical improvements and is in reasonable physical condition. Helen Ellis Helen Ellis is an accredited hospital with 150 licensed acute care beds and 18 licensed skilled nursing unit beds. It is located in northern Pinellas County, approximately eight miles south of Community Hospital and nine miles south of North Bay. Helen Ellis provides a full array of acute care services including obstetrics and cardiac catheterization. Its daily census average has fluctuated over the years but is approximately 45 percent. Mease Mease operates two acute care hospitals in Pinellas County including Mease Dunedin Hospital, located approximately 18 to 20 miles south of the applicants and Mease Countryside Hospital, located approximately 16 to 18 miles south of Community and North Bay. Each hospital operates 189 licensed beds. The Mease hospitals are located in the adjacent acute care sub-district but compete with the applicants. The Health Planning District AHCA's Health Planning District 5 consists of Pinellas and Pasco Counties. U.S. Highway 41 runs north and south through the District and splits Pasco County into Sub- District 5-1 and Sub-District 5-2. Sub-District 5-1, where Community Hospital and North Bay are located, extends from U.S. 41 west to the Gulf Coast. Sub-District 5-2 extends from U.S. 41 to the eastern edge of Pasco County. Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in Florida and steadily grows at 5.52 percent per year. On the other hand, its neighbor to the north, Pasco County, has been experiencing over 15 percent annual growth in population. The evidence demonstrates that the area known as Trinity, located four to five miles southeast of New Port Richey, is largely responsible for the growth. With its large, single- owner land tracts, Trinity has become the area's fuel for growth, while New Port Richey, the older coastal anchor which houses the applicants' facilities, remains static. In addition to the available land in Trinity, roadway development in the southwest section of Pasco County is further fueling growth. For example, the Suncoast Highway, a major highway, was recently extended north from Hillsborough County through Sub-District 5-1, west of U.S. 41. It intersects with several large east-west thoroughfares including State Road 54, providing easy highway access to the Tampa area. The General Proposals Community Hospital's Proposal Community Hospital's CON application proposes to replace its existing, 401-bed hospital with a 376-bed state- of-the-art facility and relocate it approximately five miles to the southeast in the Trinity area. Community Hospital intends to construct a large medical office adjacent to its new facility and provide all of its current services including obstetrical care. It does not intend to change its primary service area. North Bay's Proposal North Bay's CON application proposes to replace its existing hospital with a 122-bed state-of-the-art facility and also plans to relocate it approximately eight miles to the southeast in the Trinity area of southwestern Pasco County. North Bay intends to provide the same array of services it currently offers its patients and will not provide pediatric and obstetrical care in the proposed facility. The proposed relocation site is adjacent to the Trinity Outpatient Center which is owned by North Bay's parent company, Morton Plant. The Outpatient Center offers a full range of diagnostic imaging services including nuclear medicine, cardiac nuclear stress testing, bone density scanning, CAT scanning, mammography, ultrasound, as well as many others. It also offers general and specialty ambulatory surgical services including urology; ear, nose and throat; ophthalmology; gastroenterology; endoscopy; and pain management. Approximately 14 physician offices are currently located at the Trinity Outpatient Center. The Condition of Community Hospital Facility Community Hospital's core facilities were constructed between 1969 and 1971. Additions to the hospital were made in 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1992, and 1999. With an area of approximately 294,000 square feet and 401 licensed beds, or 733 square feet per bed, Community Hospital's gross area-to-bed ratio is approximately half of current hospital planning standards of 1,600 square feet per bed. With the exception of the "E" wing which was completed in 1999, all of the clinical and support departments are undersized. Medical-Surgical Beds And Intensive Care Units Community Hospital's "D" wing, constructed in 1975, is made up of two general medical-surgical unit floors which are grossly undersized. Each floor operates 47 general medical-surgical beds, 24 of which are in three-bed wards and 23 in semi-private rooms. None of the patient rooms in the "D" wing have showers or tubs so the patients bathe in a single facility located at the center of the wing on each floor. Community Hospital's "A" wing, added in 1973, is situated at the west end of the second floor and is also undersized. It too has a combination of semi-private rooms and three-bed wards without showers or tubs. Community Hospital's "F" wing, added in 1979, includes a medical-surgical unit on the second and third floor, each with semi-private and private rooms. The second floor unit is centrally located between a 56-bed adult psychiatric unit and the Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU) which creates security and privacy issues. The third floor unit is adjacent to the Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU) which must be accessed through the medical-surgical unit. Neither intensive care unit (ICU) possesses an isolation area. Although the three-bed wards are generally restricted to in-season use, and not always full, they pose significant privacy, security, safety, and health concerns. They fail to meet minimum space requirements and are a serious health risk. The evidence demonstrates that reconfiguring the wards would be extremely costly and impractical due to code compliance issues. The wards hinder the hospital's acute care utilization, and impair its ability to effectively compete with other hospitals. Surgical Department and Recovery Community Hospital's surgical department is separated into two locations including the main surgical suite on the second floor and the Endoscopy/Pain Management unit located on the first floor of "C" wing. Consequently, the department cannot share support staff and space such as preparation and recovery. The main surgical suite, adjacent recovery room, and central sterile processing are 25 years old. This unit's operating rooms, cystoscopy rooms, storage areas, work- stations, central sterile, and recovery rooms are undersized and antiquated. The 12-bay Recovery Room has no patient toilet and is lacking storage. The soiled utility room is deficient. In addition, the patient bays are extremely narrow and separated by curtains. There is no direct connection to the sterile corridor, and staff must break the sterile field to transport patients from surgery to recovery. Moreover, surgery outpatients must pass through a major public lobby going to and returning from surgery. The Emergency Department Community Hospital's existing emergency department was constructed in 1992 and is the largest provider of hospital emergency services in Pasco County, handling approximately 35,000 visits per year. The hospital is also designated a "Baker Act" receiving facility under Chapter 394, Florida Statutes, and utilizes two secure examination rooms for emergent psychiatric patients. At less than 8,000 total square feet, the emergency department is severely undersized to meet the needs of its patients. The emergency department is currently undergoing renovation which will connect the triage area to the main emergency department. The renovation will not enlarge the entrance, waiting area, storage, nursing station, nor add privacy to the patient care areas in the emergency department. The renovation will not increase the total size of the emergency department, but in fact, the department's total bed availability will decrease by five beds. Similar to other departments, a more meaningful renovation cannot occur within the emergency department without triggering costly building code compliance measures. In addition to its space limitations, the emergency department is awkwardly located. In 1992, the emergency department was relocated to the front of the hospital and is completely separated from the diagnostic imaging department which remained in the original 1971 building. Consequently, emergency patients are routinely transported across the hospital for imaging and CT scans. Issues Relating to Replacement of Community Hospital Although physically possible, renovating and expanding Community Hospital's existing facility is unreasonable. First, it is cost prohibitive. Any significant renovation to the 1971, 1975, 1977, and 1979 structures would require asbestos abatement prior to construction, at an estimated cost of $1,000,000. In addition, as previously noted, the hospital will be saddled with the major expense of complying with all current building code requirements in the 40-year-old facility. Merely installing showers in patient rooms would immediately trigger a host of expensive, albeit necessary, code requirements involving access, wiring, square footage, fireproofing columns and beams, as well as floor/ceiling and roof/ceiling assemblies. Concurrent with the significant demolition and construction costs, the hospital will experience the incalculable expense and loss of revenue related to closing major portions, if not all, of the hospital. Second, renovation and expansion to the existing facility is an unreasonable option due to its physical restrictions. The 12'4" height of the hospital's first floor limits its ability to accommodate HVAC ductwork large enough to meet current ventilation requirements. In addition, there is inadequate space to expand any department within the confines of the existing hospital without cannibalizing adjacent areas, and vertical expansion is not an option. Community Hospital's application includes a lengthy Facility Condition Assessment which factually details the architectural, mechanical, and electrical deficiencies of the hospital's existing physical plant. The assessment is accurate and reasonable. Community Hospital's Proposed Replacement Community Hospital proposes to construct a six- story, 320 licensed beds, acute care replacement facility. The hospital will consist of 548,995 gross square feet and include a 56-bed adult psychiatric unit connected by a hallway to the first floor of the main hospital building. The proposal also includes the construction of an adjacent medical office building to centralize the outpatient offices and staff physicians. The evidence establishes that the deficiencies inherent in Community Hospital's existing hospital will be cured by its replacement hospital. All patients will be provided large private rooms. The emergency department will double in size, and contain private examination rooms. All building code requirements will be met or exceeded. Patients and staff will have separate elevators from the public. In addition, the surgical department will have large operating rooms, and adequate storage. The MICU and SICU will be adjacent to each other on the second floor to avoid unnecessary traffic within the hospital. Surgical patients will be transported to the ICU via a private elevator dedicated to that purpose. Medical-surgical patient rooms will be efficiently located on the third through sixth floors, in "double-T" configuration. Community Hospital's Existing and Proposed Sites Community Hospital is currently located on a 23-acre site inside the southern boundary of New Port Richey. Single- family homes and offices occupy the two-lane residential streets that surround the site on all sides. The hospital buildings are situated on the northern half of the site, with the main parking lot located to the south, in front of the main entrance to the hospital. Marine Parkway cuts through the southern half of the site from the west, and enters the main parking lot. A private medical mall sits immediately to the west of the main parking lot and a one-acre storm-water retention pond sits to the west of the mall. A private medical office building occupies the south end of the main parking lot and a four-acre drainage easement is located in the southwest corner of the site. Community Hospital's administration has actively analyzed its existing site, aging facility, and adjacent areas. It has commissioned studies by civil engineers, health care consultants, and architects. The collective evidence demonstrates that, although on-site relocation is potentially an option, on balance, it is not a reasonable option. Replacing Community Hospital on its existing site is not practical for several reasons. First, the hospital will experience significant disruption and may be required to completely close down for a period of time. Second, the site's southwestern large four-acre parcel is necessary for storm-water retention and is unavailable for expansion. Third, a reliable cost differential is unknown given Community Hospital's inability to successfully negotiate with the city and owners of the adjacent medical office complexes to acquire additional parcels. Fourth, acquiring other adjacent properties is not a viable option since they consist of individually owned residential lots. In addition to the site's physical restrictions, the site is hindered by its location. The hospital is situated in a neighborhood between small streets and a local school. From the north and south, motorists utilize either U.S. 19, a congested corridor that accommodates approximately 50,000 vehicles per day, or Grand and Madison Streets, two-lane streets within a school zone. From the east and west, motorists utilize similar two-lane neighborhood streets including Marine Parkway, which often floods in heavy rains. Community Hospital's proposed site, on the other hand, is a 53-acre tract positioned five miles from its current facility, at the intersection of two major thoroughfares in southwestern Pasco County. The proposed site offers ample space for all facilities, parking, outpatient care, and future expansion. In addition, Community Hospital's proposed site provides reasonable access to all patients within its existing primary service area made up of zip codes 34652, 34653, 34668, 34655, 34690, and 34691. For example, the average drive times from the population centers of each zip code to the existing site of the hospital and the proposed site are as follows: Zip code Difference Existing site Proposed site 34652 3 minutes 14 minutes 11 minutes 34653 8 minutes 11 minutes 3 minutes 34668 15 minutes 21 minutes 6 minutes 34655 11 minutes 4 minutes -7 minutes 34690 11 minutes 13 minutes 2 minutes 34691 11 minutes 17 minutes 6 minutes While the average drive time from the population centroids of zip codes 34653, 34668, 34690, and 34691 to the proposed site slightly increases, it decreases from the Trinity area, where population growth has been most significant in southwestern Pasco County. In addition, a motorist's average drive time from Community Hospital's existing location to its proposed site is only 10 to 11 minutes, and patients utilizing public transportation will be able to access the new hospital via a bus stop located adjacent to the proposed site. The Condition of North Bay Facility North Bay Hospital is also an aging facility. Its original structure and portions of its physical plant are approximately 30 years old. Portions of its major mechanical systems will soon require replacement including its boilers, air handlers, and chillers. In addition, the hospital is undersized and awkwardly configured. Despite its shortcomings, however, North Bay is generally in good condition. The hospital has been consistently renovated and updated over time and is aesthetically pleasing. Moreover, its second and third floors were added in 1986, are in good shape, and structurally capable of vertical expansion. Medical Surgical Beds and ICU Units By-in-large, North Bay is comprised of undersized, semi-private rooms containing toilet and shower facilities. The hospital does not have any three-bed wards. North Bay's first floor houses all ancillary and support services including lab, radiology, pharmacy, surgery, pre-op, post-anesthesia recovery, central sterile processing and supply, kitchen and cafeteria, housekeeping and administration, as well as the mechanical, electrical, and facilities maintenance and engineering. The first floor also contains a 20-bed CMR unit and a 15-bed acute care unit. North Bay's second and third floors are mostly comprised of semi-private rooms and supporting nursing stations. Although the rooms and stations are not ideally sized, they are in relatively good shape. North Bay utilizes a single ICU with ten critical care beds. The ICU rooms and nursing stations are also undersized. A four-bed ICU ward and former nursery are routinely used to serve overflow patients. Surgery Department and Recovery North Bay utilizes a single pre-operative surgical room for all of its surgery patients. The room accommodates up to five patient beds, but has limited space for storage and pre-operative procedures. Its operating rooms are sufficiently sized. While carts and large equipment are routinely stored in hallways throughout the surgical suite, North Bay has converted the former obstetrics recovery room to surgical storage and has made efficient use of other available space. North Bay operates a small six-bed Post Anesthesia Care Unit. Nurses routinely prepare patient medications in the unit which is often crowded with staff and patients. The Emergency Department North Bay has recently expanded its emergency department. The evidence demonstrates that this department is sufficient and meets current and future expected patient volumes. Replacement Issues Relating to North Bay While it is clear that areas of North Bay's physical plant are aging, the facility is in relatively good condition. It is apparent that North Bay must soon replace significant equipment, including cast-iron sewer pipes, plumbing, boilers, and chillers which will cause some interruption to hospital operations. However, North Bay's four-page written assessment of the facility and its argument citing the need for total replacement is, on balance, not persuasive. North Bay's Proposed Replacement North Bay proposes to construct a new, state-of-the- art, hospital approximately eight miles southeast of its existing facility and intends to offer the identical array of services the hospital currently provides. North Bay's Existing and Proposed Sites North Bay's existing hospital is located on an eight-acre site with limited storm-water drainage capacity. Consequently, much of its parking area is covered by deep, porous, gravel instead of asphalt. North Bay's existing site is generally surrounded by residential properties. While the city has committed, in writing, it willingness to assist both applicants with on-site expansion, it is unknown whether North Bay can acquire additional adjacent property. North Bay's proposed site is located at the intersection of Trinity Oaks Boulevard and Mitchell Boulevard, south of Community Hospital's proposed site, and is quite spacious. It contains sufficient land for the facilities, parking, and future growth, and has all necessary infrastructure in place, including utility systems, storm- water structures, and roadways. Currently however, there is no public transportation service available to North Bay's proposed site. Projected Utilization by Applicants The evidence presented at hearing indicates that, statewide, replacement hospitals often increase a provider's acute care bed utilization. For example, Bartow Memorial Hospital, Heart of Florida Regional Medical Center, Lake City Medical Center, Florida Hospital Heartland Medical Center, South Lake Hospital, and Florida Hospital-Fish Memorial each experienced significant increases in utilization following the opening of their new hospital. The applicants in this case each project an increase in utilization following the construction of their new facility. Specifically, Community Hospital's application projects 82,685 total hospital patient days (64,427 acute care patient days) in year one (2006) of the operation of its proposed replacement facility, and 86,201 total hospital patient days (67,648 acute care patient days) in year two (2007). Using projected 2006 and 2007 population estimates, applying 2002 acute care hospital use rates which are below 50 percent, and keeping Community Hospital's acute care market share constant at its 2002 level, it is reasonably estimated that Community Hospital's existing hospital will experience 52,623 acute care patient days in 2006, and 53,451 acute care patient days in 2007. Consequently, Community Hospital's proposed facility must attain 11,804 additional acute care patient days in 2006, and 14,197 more acute care patient days in 2007, in order to achieve its projected acute care utilization. Although Community Hospital lost eight percent of the acute care market in its service area between 1995 and 2002, two-thirds of that loss was due to residents of Sub- District 5-1 acquiring services in another area. While Community Hospital experienced 78,444 acute care patient days in 1995, it projects only 64,427 acute care patient days in year one. Given the new facility and population factors, it is reasonable that the hospital will recapture half of its lost acute care market share and achieve its projections. With respect to its psychiatric unit, Community Hospital projects 16,615 adult psychiatric inpatient days in year one (2006) and 17,069 adult inpatient days in year two (2007) of the proposed replacement hospital. The evidence indicates that these projections are reasonable. Similarly, North Bay's acute care utilization rate has been consistently below 50 percent. Since 1999, the hospital has experienced declining utilization. In its application, North Bay states that it achieved total actual acute care patient days of 21,925 in 2000 and 19,824 in 2001 and the evidence at hearing indicates that North Bay experienced 17,693 total acute care patient days in 2002. North Bay projects 25,909 acute care patient days in the first year of operation of its proposed replacement hospital, and 27,334 acute care patient days in the second year of operation. Despite each applicant's current facility utilization rate, Community Hospital must increase its current acute care patient days by 20 percent to reach its projected utilization, and North Bay must increase its patient days by at least 50 percent. Given the population trends, service mix and existing competition, the evidence demonstrates that it is not possible for both applicants to simultaneously achieve their projections. In fact, it is strongly noted that the applicants' own projections are predicated upon only one applicant being approved and cannot be supported with the approval of two facilities. Local Health Plan Preferences In its local health plan for District 5, the Suncoast Health Council, Inc., adopted acute care preferences in October, 2000. The replacement of an existing hospital is not specifically addressed by any of the preferences. However, certain acute care preferences and specialty care preferences are applicable. The first applicable preference provides that preference "shall be given to an applicant who proposes to locate a new facility in an area that will improve access for Medicaid and indigent patients." It is clear that the majority of Medicaid and indigent patients live closer to the existing hospitals. However, Community Hospital proposes to move 5.5 miles from its current location, whereas North Bay proposes to move eight miles from its current location. While the short distances alone are less than significant, North Bay's proposed location is further removed from New Port Richey, is not located on a major highway or bus-route, and would therefore be less accessible to the medically indigent residents. Community Hospital's proposed site will be accessible using public transportation. Furthermore, Community Hospital has consistently provided excellent service to the medically indigent and its proposal would better serve that population. In 2000, Community Hospital provided 7.4 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients and 0.8 percent of its total patient days to charity patients. Community Hospital provided the highest percentage and greatest number of Medicaid patient days in Sub-District 5-1. By comparison, North Bay provided 5.8 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients and 0.9 percent of its total patient days to charity patients. In 2002, North Bay's Medicaid patients days declined to 3.56 percent. Finally, given the closeness and available bed space of the existing providers and the increasing population in the Trinity area, access will be improved by Community Hospital's relocation. The second local health plan preference provides that "[i]n cases where an applicant is a corporation with previously awarded certificates of need, preference shall be given to those which follow through in a timely manner to construct and operate the additional facilities or beds and do not use them for later negotiations with other organizations seeking to enter or expand the number of beds they own or control." Both applicants meet this preference. The third local health plan preference recognizes "Certificate of Need applications that provide AHCA with documentation that they provide, or propose to provide, the largest percentage of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals in the sub-district." Community Hospital provides the largest percentage of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals in Sub-District 5-1, and therefore meets this preference. The fourth local health plan preference applies to "Certificate of Need applications that demonstrate intent to serve HIV/AIDS infected persons." Both applicants accept and treat HIV/AIDS infected persons, and would continue to do so in their proposed replacement hospitals. The fifth local health plan preference recognizes "Certificate of Need applications that commit to provide a full array of acute care services including medical-surgical, intensive care, pediatric, and obstetrical services within the sub-district for which they are applying." Community Hospital qualifies since it will continue to provide its current services, including obstetrical care and psychiatric care, in its proposed replacement hospital. North Bay discontinued its pediatric and obstetrical programs in 2001, does not intend to provide them in its proposed replacement hospital, and will not provide psychiatric care. Agency Rule Preferences Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.038(6) provides an applicable preference to a facility proposing "new acute care services and capital expenditures" that has "a documented history of providing services to medically indigent patients or a commitment to do so." As the largest Medicaid provider in Sub-District 5-1, Community Hospital meets this preference better than does North Bay. North Bay's history demonstrates a declining rate of service to the medically indigent. Statutory Review Criteria Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes: The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed in relation to the applicable district health plan District 5 includes Pasco and Pinellas County. Pasco County is rapidly developing, whereas Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in Florida. Given the population trends, service mix, and utilization rates of the existing providers, on balance, there is a need for a replacement hospital in the Trinity area. Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes: The availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant Community Hospital and North Bay are both located in Sub-District 5-1. Each proposes to relocate to an area of southwestern Pasco County which is experiencing explosive population growth. The other general acute care hospital located in Sub-District 5-1 is Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point, which is located further north, in the Hudson area of western Pasco County. The only other acute care hospitals in Pasco County are East Pasco Medical Center, in Zephyrhills, and Pasco Community Hospital, in Dade City. Those hospitals are located in Sub-District 5-2, east Pasco County, far from the area proposed to be served by either Community Hospital or North Bay. District 5 includes Pinellas County as well as Pasco County. Helen Ellis and Mease are existing hospital providers located in Pinellas County. Helen Ellis has 168 licensed beds, consisting of 150 acute care beds and an 18-bed skilled nursing unit, and is located 7.9 miles from Community Hospital's existing location and 10.8 miles from Community Hospital's proposed location. Access to Helen Ellis for patients originating from southwestern Pasco County requires those patients to travel congested U.S. 19 south to Tarpon Springs. As a result, the average drive time from Community Hospital's existing and proposed site to Helen Ellis is approximately 22 minutes. Helen Ellis is not a reasonable alternative to Community Hospital's proposal. The applicants' proposals are specifically designed for the current and future health care needs of southwestern Pasco County. Given its financial history, it is unknown whether Helen Ellis will be financially capable of providing the necessary care to the residents of southwestern Pasco. Mease Countryside Hospital has 189 licensed acute care beds. It is located 16.0 miles from Community Hospital's existing location and 13.8 miles from Community Hospital's proposed location. The average drive time to Mease Countryside is 32 minutes from Community Hospital's existing site and 24 minutes from its proposed site. In addition, Mease Countryside Hospital has experienced extremely high utilization over the past several years, in excess of 90 percent for calendar years 2000 and 2001. Utilization at Mease Countryside Hospital has remained over 80 percent despite the addition of 45 acute care beds in April 2002. Given the growth and demand, it is unknown whether Mease can accommodate the residents in southwest Pasco County. Mease Dunedin Hospital has 189 licensed beds, consisting of 149 acute care beds, a 30-bed skilled nursing unit, five Level 2 neonatal intensive care beds, and five Level 3 neonatal intensive care beds. Its former 15-bed adult psychiatric unit has been converted into acute care beds. It is transferring its entire obstetrics program at Mease Dunedin Hospital to Mease Countryside Hospital. Mease Dunedin Hospital is located approximately 18 to 20 miles from the applicants' existing and proposed locations with an average drive time of 35-38 minutes. With their remote location, and the exceedingly high utilization at Mease Countryside Hospital, neither of the two Mease hospitals is a viable alternative to the applicants' proposals. In addition, the construction of a replacement hospital would positively impact economic development and further attract medical professionals to Sub-District 5-1. On balance, given the proximity, utilization, service array, and accessibility of the existing providers, including the applicants, the relocation of Community Hospital will enhance access to health care to the residents. Section 408.035(3), Florida Statutes: The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care As stipulated, both applicants provide excellent quality of care. However, Community Hospital's proposal will better enhance its ability to provide quality care. Community is currently undersized, non-compliant with today's standards, and located on a site that does not allow for reasonable expansion. Its emergency department is inadequate for patient volume, and the configuration of the first floor leads to inefficiencies in the diagnosis and treatment of emergency patients. Again, most inpatients are placed in semi-private rooms and three-bed wards, with no showers or tubs, little privacy, and an increased risk of infection. The hospital's waiting areas for families of patients are antiquated and undersized, its nursing stations are small and cramped and the operating rooms and storage facilities are undersized. Community Hospital's deficiencies will be effectively eliminated by its proposed replacement hospital. As a result, patients will experience qualitatively better care by the staff who serve them. Conversely, North Bay is in better physical condition and not in need of replacement. It has more reasonable options to expand or relocate its facility on site. Quality of care at North Bay will not be markedly enhanced by the construction of a new hospital. Sections 408.035(4)and(5), Florida Statutes, have been stipulated as not applicable in this case. Section 408.035(6), Florida Statutes: The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds available for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation The parties stipulated that both Community Hospital and North Bay have available health personnel and management personnel for project accomplishment and operation. In addition, the evidence proves that both applicants have sufficient funds for capital and operating expenditures. Community Hospital proposes to rely on its parent company to finance the project. Keith Giger, Vice-President of Finance for HCA, Inc., Community Hospital's parent organization, provided credible deposition testimony that HCA, Inc., will finance 100 percent of the total project cost by an inter-company loan at eight percent interest. Moreover, it is noted that the amount to be financed is actually $20 million less than the $196,849,328 stated in the CON Application, since Community Hospital previously purchased the proposed site in June 2003 with existing funds and does not need to finance the land acquisition. Community Hospital has sufficient working capital for operating expenditures of the proposed replacement hospital. North Bay, on the other hand, proposes to acquire financing from BayCare Obligated Group which includes Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc.; Mease; and several other hospital entities. Its proposal, while feasible, is less certain since member hospitals must approve the indebtedness, thereby providing Mease with the ability to derail North Bay's proposed bond financing. Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes: The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district The evidence proves that either proposal will enhance geographical access to the growing population in the service district. However, with its provision of obstetrical services, Community Hospital is better suited to address the needs of the younger community. With respect to financial access, both proposed relocation sites are slightly farther away from the higher elderly and indigent population centers. Since the evidence demonstrates that it is unreasonable to relocate both facilities away from the down-town area, Community Hospital's proposal, on balance, provides better access to poor patients. First, public transportation will be available to Community Hospital's site. Second, Community Hospital has an excellent record of providing care to the poor and indigent and has accepted the agency's condition to provide ten percent of its total annual patient days to Medicaid recipients To the contrary, North Bay's site will not be accessible by public transportation. In addition, North Bay has a less impressive record of providing care to the poor and indigent. Although AHCA conditioned North Bay's approval upon it providing 9.7 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid and charity patients, instead of the 9.7 percent of gross annual revenue proposed in its application, North Bay has consistently provided Medicaid and charity patients less than seven percent of its total annual patient days. Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes: The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal Immediate financial feasibility refers to the availability of funds to capitalize and operate the proposal. See Memorial Healthcare Group, Ltd. d/b/a Memorial Hospital Jacksonville vs. AHCA et al., Case No. 02-0447 et seq. Community Hospital has acquired reliable financing for the project and has sufficiently demonstrated that its project is immediately financially feasible. North Bay's short-term financial proposal is less secure. As noted, North Bay intends to acquire financing from BayCare Obligated Group. As a member of the group, Mease, the parent company of two hospitals that oppose North Bay's application, must approve the plan. Long-term financial feasibility is the ability of the project to reach a break-even point within a reasonable period of time and at a reasonable achievable point in the future. Big Bend Hospice, Inc. vs. AHCA and Covenant Hospice, Inc., Case No. 02-0455. Although CON pro forma financial schedules typically show profitability within two to three years of operation, it is not a requirement. In fact, in some circumstances, such as the case of a replacement hospital, it may be unrealistic for the proposal to project profitability before the third or fourth year of operation. In this case, Community Hospital's utilization projections, gross and net revenues, and expense figures are reasonable. The evidence reliably demonstrates that its replacement hospital will be profitable by the fourth year of operation. The hospital's financial projections are further supported by credible evidence, including the fact that the hospital experienced financial improvement in 2002 despite its poor physical condition, declining utilization, and lost market share to providers outside of its district. In addition, the development and population trends in the Trinity area support the need for a replacement hospital in the area. Also, Community Hospital has benefited from increases in its Medicaid per diem and renegotiated managed care contracts. North Bay's long-term financial feasibility of its proposal is less certain. In calendar year 2001, North Bay incurred an operating loss of $306,000. In calendar year 2002, it incurred a loss of $1,160,000. In its CON application, however, North Bay projects operating income of $1,538,827 in 2007, yet omitted the ongoing expenses of interest ($1,600,000) and depreciation ($3,000,000) from its existing facility that North Bay intends to continue operating. Since North Bay's proposal does not project beyond year two, it is less certain whether it is financially feasible in the third or fourth year. In addition to the interest and depreciation issues, North Bay's utilization projections are less reasonable than Community Hospital's proposal. While possible, North Bay will have a difficult task achieving its projected 55 percent increase in acute care patient days in its second year of operation given its declining utilization, loss of obstetric/pediatric services and termination of two exclusive managed care contracts. Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes: The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness Both applicants have substantial unused capacity. However, Community Hospital's existing facility is at a distinct competitive disadvantage in the market place. In fact, from 1994 to 1998, Community Hospital's overall market share in its service area declined from 40.3 percent to 35.3 percent. During that same period, Helen Ellis' overall market share in Community Hospital's service area increased from 7.2 percent to 9.2 percent. From 1995 to the 12-month period ending June 30, 2002, Community Hospital's acute care market share in its service area declined from 34.0 percent to 25.9 percent. During that same period, Helen Ellis' acute care market share in Community Hospital's service area increased from 11.7 percent to 12.0 percent. In addition, acute care average occupancy rates at Mease Dunedin Hospital increased each year from 1999 through 2002. Acute care average occupancy at Mease Countryside Hospital exceeded 90 percent in 2000 and 2001, and was approximately 85 percent for the period ending June 30, 2002. Some of the loss in Community Hospital's market share is due to an out-migration of patients from its service area to hospitals in northern Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. Market share in Community's service area by out-of- market providers increased from 33 percent in 1995 to 40 percent in 2002. Community Hospital's outdated hospital has hampered its ability to compete for patients in its service area. Mease is increasing its efforts to attract patients and currently completing a $92 million expansion of Mease Countryside Hospital. The project includes the development of 1,134 parking spaces on 30 acres of raw land north of the Mease Countryside Hospital campus and the addition of two floors to the hospital. It also involves the relocation of 51 acute care beds, the obstetrics program and the Neonatal Intensive Care Units from Mease Dunedin Hosptial to Mease Countryside Hospital. Mease is also seeking to more than double the size of the Countryside emergency department to handle its 62,000 emergency visits. With the transfer of licensed beds from Mease Dunedin Hospital to Mease Countryside Hospital, Mease will also convert formerly semi-private patient rooms to private rooms at Mease Dunedin Hospital. The approval of Community Hospital's relocated facility will enable it to better compete with the hospitals in the area and promote quality and cost- effectiveness. North Bay, on the other hand, is not operating at a distinct disadvantage, yet is still experiencing declining utilization. North Bay is the only community-owned, not-for- profit provider in western Pasco County and is a valuable asset to the city. Section 408.035(10), Florida Statutes: The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods or energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction The parties stipulated that the project costs in both applications are reasonable to construct the replacement hospitals. Community Hospital's proposed construction cost per square foot is $175, and slightly less than North Bay's $178 proposal. The costs and methods of proposed construction for each proposal is reasonable. Given Community Hospital's severe site and facility problems, the evidence demonstrates that there is no reasonable, less costly, or more effective methods of construction available for its proposed replacement hospital. Additional "band-aide" approaches are not financially reasonable and will not enable Community Hospital to effectively compete. The facility is currently licensed for 401 beds, operates approximately 311 beds and is still undersized. The proposed replacement hospital will meet the standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-3.081, and will meet current building codes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Guidelines for Design and Construction of Hospitals and Health Care Facilities, developed by the American Institute of Architects. The opponents' argue that Community Hospital will not utilize the 320 acute care beds proposed in its CON application, and therefore, a smaller facility is a less- costly alternative. In addition, Helen Ellis' architectural expert witness provided schematic design alternatives for Community Hospital to be expanded and replaced on-site, without providing a detailed and credible cost accounting of the alternatives. Given the evidence and the law, their arguments are not persuasive. While North Bay's replacement cost figures are reasonable, given the aforementioned reasons, including the fact that the facility is in reasonably good condition and can expand vertically, on balance, it is unreasonable for North Bay to construct a replacement facility in the Trinity area. Section 408.035(11), Florida Statutes: The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent Community Hospital has consistently provided the most health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent in Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital agreed to provide at least ten percent of its patient days to Medicaid recipients. Similarly, North Bay agreed to provide 9.7 percent of its total annual patient days to Medicaid and charity patients combined. North Bay, by contrast, provided only 3.56 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients in 2002, and would have to significantly reverse a declining trend in its Medicaid provision to comply with the imposed condition. Community Hospital better satisfies the criterion. Section 408.035(12) has been stipulated as not applicable in this case. Adverse Impact on Existing Providers Historical figures demonstrate that hospital market shares are not static, but fluctuate with competition. No hospital is entitled to a specific or historic market share free from competition. While the applicants are located in health planning Sub-District 5-1 and Helen Ellis and the two Mease hospitals are located in health planning Sub-District 5- 2, they compete for business. None of the opponents is a disproportionate share, safety net, Medicaid provider. As a result, AHCA gives less consideration to any potential adverse financial impact upon them resulting from the approval of either application as a low priority. The opponents, however, argue that the approval of either replacement hospital would severely affect each of them. While the precise distance from the existing facilities to the relocation sites is relevant, it is clear that neither applicants' proposed site is unreasonably close to any of the existing providers. In fact, Community Hospital intends to locate its replacement facility three miles farther away from Helen Ellis and 1.5 miles farther away from Mease Dunedin Hospital. While Helen Ellis' primary service area is seemingly fluid, as noted by its chief operating officer's hearing and deposition testimony, and the Mease hospitals are located 15 to 20 miles south, they overlap parts of the applicants' primary service areas. Accordingly, each applicant concedes that the proposed increase in their patient volume would be derived from the growing population as well as existing providers. Although it is clear that the existing providers may be more affected by the approval of Community Hosptial's proposal, the exact degree to which they will be adversely impacted by either applicant is unknown. All parties agree, however, that the existing providers will experience less adverse affects by the approval of only one applicant, as opposed to two. Furthermore, Mease concedes that its hospitals will continue to aggressively compete and will remain profitable. In fact, Mease's adverse impact analysis does not show any credible reduction in loss of acute care admissions at Mease Countryside Hospital or Mease Dunedin Hospital until 2010. Even then, the reliable evidence demonstrates that the impact is negligible. Helen Ellis, on the other hand, will likely experience a greater loss of patient volume. To achieve its utilization projections, Community Hospital will aggressively compete for and increase market share in Pinellas County zip code 34689, which borders Pasco County. While that increase does not facially prove that Helen Ellis will be materially affected by Community Hospital's replacement hospital, Helen Ellis will confront targeted competition. To minimize the potential adverse affect, Helen Ellis will aggressively compete to expand its market share in the Pinellas County zip codes south of 34689, which is experiencing population growth. In addition, Helen Ellis is targeting broader service markets, and has filed an application to establish an open- heart surgery program. While Helen Ellis will experience greater competition and financial loss, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it will experience material financial adverse impact as a result of Community Hospital's proposed relocation. In fact, Helen Ellis' impact analysis is less than reliable. In its contribution-margin analysis, Helen Ellis utilized its actual hospital financial data as filed with AHCA for the fiscal year October 1, 2001, to September 30, 2002. The analysis included total inpatient and total outpatient service revenues found in the filed financial data, including ambulatory services and ancillary services, yet it did not include the expenses incurred in generating ambulatory or ancillary services revenue. As a result, the overstated net revenue per patient day was applied to its speculative lost number of patient days which resulted in an inflated loss of net patient service revenue. Moreover, the evidence indicates that Helen Ellis' analysis incorrectly included operational revenue and excluded expenses related to its 18-bed skilled nursing unit since neither applicant intends to operate a skilled nursing unit. While including the skilled nursing unit revenues, the analysis failed to include the sub-acute inpatient days that produced those revenues, and thereby over inflated the projected total lost net patient service revenue by over one million dollars.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Community Hospital's CON Application No. 9539, to establish a 376-bed replacement hospital in Pasco County, Sub- District 5-1, be granted; and North Bay's CON Application No. 9538, to establish a 122-bed replacement hospital in Pasco County, Sub-District 5- 1, be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Hauser, Esquire R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Metz, Hauser & Husband, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505 Post Office Box 10909 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Richard M. Ellis, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Richard J. Saliba, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Station 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Karen A. Putnal, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Darrell White, Esquire William B. Wiley, Esquire McFarlain & Cassedy, P.A. 305 South Gadsden Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) should approve the application for certificate of need (CON) 7700 filed by Miami Beach Healthcare Group, LTD. d/b/a Miami Heart Institute (Miami Heart or MH).
Findings Of Fact The Agency is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and taking action on CON applications pursuant to Chapter 408, Florida Statutes. The applicant, Miami Heart, operates a hospital facility known as Miami Heart Institute which, at the time of hearing, was comprised of a north campus (consisting of 273 licensed beds) and a south campus (consisting of 258 beds) in Miami, Florida. The two campuses operate under a single license which consolidated the operation of the two facilities. The consolidation of the license was approved by CON 7399 which was issued by the Agency prior to the hearing of this case. The Petitioner, Mount Sinai, is an existing health care facility doing business in the same service district. On February 4, 1994, AHCA published a fixed need pool of zero adult inpatient psychiatric beds for the planning horizon applicable to this batching cycle. The fixed need pool was not challenged. On February 18, 1994, Miami Heart submitted its letter of intent for the first hospital batching cycle of 1994, and sought to add twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at the Miami Heart Institute south campus. Such facility is located in the Agency's district 11 and is approximately two (2) miles from the north campus. Notice of that letter was published in the March 11, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly. Miami Heart's letter of intent provided, in pertinent part: By this letter, Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., d/b/a Miami Heart Institute announces its intent to file a Certificate of Need Application on or before March 23, 1994 for approval to establish 20 hospital inpatient general psychiatric beds for adults at Miami Heart Institute. Thus, the applicant seeks approval for this project pursuant to Sections 408.036(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The proposed capital expenditure for this project shall not exceed $1,000,000 and will include new construction and the renovation of existing space. Miami Heart Institute is located in Local Health Council District 11. There are no subsdistricts for Hospital Inpatient General Psychiatric Beds for Adults in District 11. The applicable need formula for Hospital General Psychiatric Beds for Adults is contained within Rule 59C-1.040(4)(c), F.A.C. The Agency published a fixed need of "0" for Hospital General Psychiatric Beds for Adults in District 11 for this batching cycle. However, "not normal" circumstances exist within District which justify approval of this project. These circumstances are that Miami Beach Community Hospital, which is also owned by Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., and which has an approved Certificate of Need Application to consol- idate its license with that of the Miami Heart Institute, has pending a Certificate of Need Application to delicense up to 20 hospital inpatient general psychiatric beds for adults. The effect of the application, which is the subject of this Letter of Intent, will be to relocate 20 of the delicensed adult psychiatric beds to the Miami Heart Institute. Because of the "not normal" circumstances alleged in the Miami Heart letter of intent, the Agency extended a grace period to allow competing letters of intent to be filed. No additional letters of intent were submitted during the grace period. On March 23, 1994, Miami Heart timely submitted its CON application for the project at issue, CON no. 7700. Notice of the application was published in the April 8, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly. Such application was deemed complete by the Agency and was considered to be a companion to the delicensure of the north campus beds. On July 22, 1994, the Agency published in the Florida Administrative Weekly its preliminary decision to approve CON no. 7700. In the same batch as the instant case, Cedars Healthcare Group (Cedars), also in district 11, applied to add adult psychiatric beds to Cedars Medical Center through the delicensure of an equal number of adult psychiatric beds at Victoria Pavilion. Cedars holds a single license for the operation of both Cedars Medical Center and Victoria Pavilion. As in this case, the Agency gave notice of its intent to grant the CON application. Although this "transfer" was initially challenged, it was subsequently dismissed. Although filed at the same time (and, therefore, theoretically within the same batch), the Cedars CON application and the Miami Heart CON application were not comparatively reviewed by the Agency. The Agency determined the applicants were merely seeking to relocate their own licensed beds. Based upon that determination, MH's application was evaluated in the context of the statutory criteria, the adult psychiatric beds and services rule (Rule 59C-1.040, Florida Administrative Code), the district 11 local health plan, and the 1993 state health plan. Ms. Dudek also considered the utilization data for district 11 facilities. Mount Sinai timely filed a petition challenging the proposed approval of CON 7700 and, for purposes of this proceeding only, the parties stipulated that MS has standing to raise the issues remaining in this cause. Mount Sinai's existing psychiatric unit utilization is presently at or near full capacity, and MS' existing unit would not provide an adequate, available, or accessible alternative to Miami Heart's proposal, unless additional bed capacity were available to MS in the future through approval of additional beds or changes in existing utilization. Miami Heart's proposal to establish twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at its Miami Heart Institute south campus was made in connection with its application to delicense twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at its north campus. The Agency advised MH to submit two CON applications: one for the delicensure (CON no. 7474) and one for the establishment of the twenty beds at the south campus (CON no. 7700). The application to delicense the north campus beds was expeditiously approved and has not been challenged. As to the application to establish the twenty beds at the south campus, the following statutory criteria are not at issue: Section 408.035(1)(c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (m), (n), (o) and (2)(b) and (e), Florida Statutes. The parties have stipulated that Miami Heart meets, at least minimally, those criteria. During 1993, Miami Heart made the business decision to cease operations at its north campus and to seek the Agency's approval to relocate beds and services from that facility to other facilities owned by MH, including the south campus. Miami Heart does not intend to delicense the twenty beds at the north campus until the twenty beds are licensed at the south campus. The goal is merely to transfer the existing program with its services to the south campus. Miami Heart did not seek beds from a fixed need pool. Since approximately April, 1993, the Miami Heart north campus has operated with the twenty bed adult psychiatric unit and with a limited number of obstetrical beds. The approval of CON no. 7700 will not change the overall total number of adult general inpatient psychiatric beds within the district. The adult psychiatric program at MH experiences the highest utilization of any program in district 11, with an average length of stay that is consistent with other adult programs around the state. Miami Heart's existing psychiatric program was instituted in 1978. Since 1984, there has been little change in nursing and other staff. The program provides a full continuum of care, with outpatient programs, aftercare, and support programs. Nearly ninety-nine percent of the program's inpatient patient days are attributable to patients diagnosed with serious mental disorders. The Miami Heart program specializes in a biological approach to psychiatric cases in the diagnosis and treatment of affective disorders, including a variety of mood disorders and related conditions. The Miami Heart program is distinctive from other psychiatric programs in the district. If the MH program were discontinued, the patients would have limited alternatives for access to the same diagnostic and treatment services in the district. There are no statutes or rules promulgated which specifically address the transfer of psychiatric beds or services from one facility owned by a health care entity to another facility also owned by the same entity. In reviewing the instant CON application, the Agency determined it has the discretion to evaluate each transfer case based upon the review criteria and to consider the appropriate weight factors should be given. Factors which may affect the review include the change of location, the utilization of the existing services, the quality of the existing programs and services, the financial feasibility, architectural issues, and any other factor critical to the review process. In this case, the weight given to the numeric need criteria was not significant. The Agency determined that because the transfer would not result in a change to the overall bed inventory, the calculated fixed need pool did not apply to the instant application. In effect, because the calculation of numeric need was inapplicable, this case must be considered "not normal" pursuant to Rule 59C-1.040(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Agency determined that other criteria were to be given greater consideration. Such factors were the reasonableness of the proposal, the ability to afford access, the applicant's ability to provide a quality program, and the project's financial feasibility. The Agency determined that, on balance, this application should be approved as the statutory and other review criteria were met. Although put on notice of the other CON applications, Mount Sinai did not file an application for psychiatric beds at the same time as Miami Heart or Cedars. Mount Sinai did not claim that the proposed delicensures and transfers made beds available for competitive review. The Agency has interpreted Rule 59C-1.040, Florida Administrative Code, to mean that it will not normally approve an application for beds or services unless the statutory and rule criteria are met, including the need determination criteria. There is no list of circumstances which are routinely considered "not normal" by the Agency. In this case, the proposed transfer of beds was, in itself, considered "not normal." The approval of Miami Heart's application would allow an existing program to continue. As a result, the overhead to maintain two campuses would be reduced. Further, the relocation would allow the program to continue to provide access, both geographically and financially, to the same patient service area. And, since the program has the highest utilization rate of any adult program in the district, its continuation would be beneficial to the area. The program has an established referral base for admissions to the facility. The transfer is reasonable for providing access to the medically under-served. The quality of care, while not in issue, would be expected to continue at its existing level or improve. The transfer would allow better access to ancillary hospital departments and consulting specialists who may be needed even though the primary diagnosis is psychiatric. The cost of the transfer when compared to the costs to be incurred if the transfer is not approved make the approval a benefit to the service area. If the program is not relocated, Medicaid access could change if the hospital is reclassified from a general facility to a specialty facility. The proposed cost for the project does not exceed one million dollars. If the north campus must be renovated, a greater capital expenditure would be expected. The expected impact on competition for other providers is limited due to the high utilization for all programs in the vicinity. The subject proposal is consistent with the district and state health care plans and the need for health care facilities and services. The services being transferred is an existing program which is highly utilized and which is not creating "new beds." As such, the proposal complies with Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing services in the district will not be adversely affected by the approval of the subject application. The proposed transfer is consistent with, and appropriate, in light of these criteria. Therefore, the proposal complies with Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The subject application demonstrates a full continuum of care with safeguards to assure that alternatives to inpatient care are fully utilized when appropriate. Therefore, the availability and adequacy of other services, such as outpatient care, has been demonstrated and would deter unnecessary utilization. Thus, Miami Heart has shown its application complies with Section 408.035(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Miami Heart has also demonstrated that the probable impact of its proposal is in compliance with Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes. The proposed transfer will not adversely impact the costs of providing services, the competition on the supply of services, or the improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of services which foster competition, promote quality assurance, and cost-effectiveness. Miami Heart has taken an innovative approach to promote quality assurance and cost effectiveness. Its purpose, to close a facility and relocate beds (removing unnecessary acute care beds in the process), represents a departure from the traditional approach to providing health care services. By approving Miami Heart's application, overhead costs associated with the unnecessary facility will be eliminated. There is no less costly, more efficient alternative which would allow the continuation of the services and program Miami Heart has established at the north campus than the approval of transfer to the south campus. The MH proposal is most practical and readily available solution which will allow the north campus to close and the beds and services to remain available and accessible. The renovation of the medical surgical space at the south campus to afford a location for the psychiatric unit is the most practical and readily available solution which will allow the north campus to close and the beds and services to remain available and accessible. In totality, the circumstances of this case make the approval of Miami Heart's application for CON no. 7700 the most reasonable and practical solution given the "not normal" conditions of this application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order approving CON 7700 as recommended in the SAAR. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 5th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 5th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4755 Note: Proposed findings of fact are to contain one essential fact per numbered paragraph. Proposed findings of fact paragraphs containing multiple sentences with more than one statement of fact are difficult to review. In reviewing for this case, where all sentences were accurate and supported by the recorded cited, the paragraph has been accepted. If the paragraph contained mixed statements where one sentence was an accurate statement of fact but the others were not, the paragraph has been rejected. Similarly, if one sentence was editorial comment, argument, or an unsupported statement to a statement of fact, the paragraph has been rejected. Proposed findings of fact should not include argument, editorial comments, or statements of fact mixed with such comments. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner, Mount Sinai: Paragraphs 1 through 13 were cited as stipulated facts. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 15 it is accepted that Miami Heart made the business decision to move the psychiatric beds beds from the north campus to the south campus. Any inference created by the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 21 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraph 25 is rejected as repetitive, or immaterial, unnecessary to the resolution of the issues. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 27 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 28 is accepted but not relevant. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. Paragraphs 31 through 33 are rejected as argument, comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 35 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact, or irrelevant as the FNP was not in dispute. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 37 is rejected as repetitive, or comment. Paragraph 38 is rejected as repetitive, comment or conclusion of law, not fact, or irrelevant. Paragraph 39 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41, 42, and 43 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence and/or argument. Paragraph 44 is rejected as argument and comment on the testimony. Paragraph 45 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, and/or not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 47 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 48 is rejected as comment, argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 49 is rejected as comment on testimony. It is accepted that the proposed relocation or transfer of beds is a "not normal" circumstance. Paragraph 50 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 51 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 52 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 53 is rejected as argument, comment or recitation of testimony, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 54 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant, comment, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 56 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 57 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 58 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 59 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 60 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 61 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 62 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 63 is accepted. Paragraph 64 is rejected as irrelevant. Mount Sinai could have filed in this batch given the not normal circumstances disclosed in the Miami Heart notice. Paragraph 65 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 66 is rejected as comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 67 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 68 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 69 is rejected as argument, comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 70 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, Agency: Paragraphs 1 through 6 are accepted. With the deletion of the words "cardiac catheterization" and the inclusion of the word "psychiatric beds" in place, paragraph 7 is accepted. Cardiac catheterization is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 8 is accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or an error of law, otherwise, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraphs 11 through 17 are accepted. Paragraph 18 is rejected as conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraphs 19 and 20 are accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 21 are accepted; the remainder rejected as conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 22 is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 23 is accepted. Paragraph 24 is rejected as argument, speculation, or irrelevant. Paragraph 25 is accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, Miami Heart: Paragraphs 1 through 13 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 14 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to law or irrelevant since MS did not file in the batch when it could have. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted as the Agency's statement of its authority or policy in this case, not fact. Paragraphs 17 through 20 are accepted. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 23 through 35 are accepted. Paragraph 36 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 37 through 40 are accepted. Paragraph 41 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence to the extent that it concludes the distance to be one mile; evidence deemed credible placed the distance at two miles. Paragraphs 42 through 47 are accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as comment. Paragraphs 49 through 57 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Wallace, Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 R. Terry Rigsby Geoffrey D. Smith Wendy Delvecchio Blank, Rigsby & Meenan, P.A. 204 S. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lesley Mendelson Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Stephen Ecenia Rutledge, Ecenia, Underwood, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street Suite 420 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551
The Issue Whether the application of Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc., to establish a 15-bed hospital-based skilled nursing unit meets the criteria for the issuance of a certificate of need.
Findings Of Fact The Agency for Healthcare Administration (AHCA) is the state agency which administers the certificate of need (CON) program for health care services and facilities in Florida. On April 18, 1997, AHCA published a need for a 15-bed hospital-based skilled nursing unit (SNU) in District 9, Subdistrict 2, for Martin County. Because the beds will be in a hospital, they will be licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. By contrast, freestanding, nursing facilities are licensed, pursuant to the provisions in Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Since it is the only acute care hospital in the County, Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Martin Memorial Medical Center (Martin Memorial) applied for the CON to establish the 15-bed hospital-based SNU. Martin Memorial has 336 beds located on two separate campuses in Martin County. A satellite facility which has 100 beds, Martin Memorial South, is located in Port Salerno. Port Salerno is approximately 10 to 12 miles south of the City of Stuart. Martin Memorial also owns a 120-bed nursing home on the Port Salerno campus, Martin Nursing and Restorative Care Center (Martin Nursing Center). The facility includes a 40-bed subacute unit. Martin Nursing Center is operated by a long-term care company, Eden Park Management, Inc. Martin Memorial North, the larger, 236-bed hospital in Stuart, is the proposed location of the SNU. The SNU renovation project will cost approximately $242,000, and will occupy space which is currently used for outpatient services. AHCA preliminarily denied the CON application due to Martin Memorial's failure to propose to delicense and convert acute care beds to establish the SNU. AHCA withdrew its objection to the issuance of CON 8847 after reviewing occupancy levels by department at Martin Memorial. AHCA published the applicable fixed need pool in April 19971, which was calculated using proposed Rule 59C-1.036, published on February 7, 1997.2 Notice was given of the only challenge to the proposed rule which was filed by National Healthcare, L.P.3 and subsequently dismissed. No motion to consolidate that case with this one was ever filed. Healthsouth of Treasure Coast, Inc., d/b/a Healthsouth Treasure Coast Rehabilitation Hospital (Healthsouth) is a 90-bed rehabilitation hospital in Vero Beach, Indian River County, approximately 60 miles north of Martin Memorial North. Healthsouth is also in AHCA, District 9, but not in Subdistrict 2. In District 9, St. Lucie County is on the east coast, adjacent to Indian River County to the north, Martin County to the south, and Okeechobee County to the west. The four counties in District 9 are north of Palm Beach County, the only other county in the District. The hospital-based SNUs in the four northern counties in District 9 are: Port St. Lucie Hospital, in St. Lucie County, which has 150 beds and a 15-bed SNU, with CON approval for 9 more SNU beds; Lawnwood Regional Medical Center, also in St. Lucie County, which has 260 beds and a 33-bed SNU; Indian River Memorial Hospital, located within a mile of Healthsouth in Indian River County which has approximately 320 beds and a 20-bed SNU and approval for 8 more SNU beds; Sebastian Hospital, in Indian River County, which has between 100 and 150 beds and has recently been approved for 9 SNU beds; and Raulerson Hospital, in Okeechobee County, which has 101 beds including SNU. Healthsouth identifies its primary service areas as Indian River, St. Lucie, and Martin Counties. Healthsouth generally attracts 60 percent of its patients from Indian River County, 20 percent from St. Lucie, and 15 percent from Martin County. Patients are referred from both Martin Memorial North and South. Healthsouth asserted that a 15-bed SNU at Martin Memorial will compete with Healthsouth, resulting in a loss of patients in sufficient numbers to cause a substantial adverse impact on Healthsouth. Healthsouth's expert in health care planning and finance examined national acute care discharges as compared to the percentage of those cases which typically have follow-up subacute care. Using discharge data by Diagnostic Related Group (DRG), the expert quantified the percentages of subacute cases which can receive services in either a CMR hospital or a skilled nursing facility. Based on an estimate that 75 to 90 percent of the overlapping DRGs would be redirected to Martin Memorial, Healthsouth projected a loss ranging from 55 to 66 cases when applied to 1997 annualized data. The three largest categories of referrals from Martin Memorial are stroke, orthopedics, and rehabilitation, which account for 85 percent of total admissions to Healthsouth. The payer group from the three categories was used to determine the financial impact, using the midpoint of the projected loss of 60 cases or 900 patient days. The financial loss per case is the difference between net revenue per patient day of $458 and the variable expenses per patient day of $295, or $163. Given an incremental net income per adjusted patient day of approximately $163, the projected loss of 900 patient days a year, and an assumed 15-day average length of stay, Healthsouth projects a loss of approximately $150,000 a year in revenues if a 15-bed SNU is established at Martin Memorial. In 1995, the only hospital-based SNU in Healthsouth's service area was at Lawnwood. The SNU at Raulerson opened in April 1996, followed by Port St. Lucie in November 1996, and Indian River Memorial in May 1997. In addition, the new CMR program was developed at Lawnwood, while the unit at St. Mary's Hospital in West Palm Beach was expanded during 1997. By January 1998, Healthsouth reached full capacity, or an average daily census in the range of 84 to 89 patients in 90 beds. Healthsouth's medical director believes that it would have reached full capacity much sooner after its 20-bed expansion in mid-August 1997, but for the competition from the hospital-based SNUs. The expansion of Healthsouth has accomplished the objective of eliminating a 15-to-20 person waiting list which existed when it was a 70-bed facility. The average daily census (ADC) at Lawnwood, in 1995, was 31.1 patients in 33 beds. By the end of 1995, the average daily census at Healthsouth was 69.9 patients in 70 beds. From January 1996 to July 1997, the ADC in Raulerson's 12-bed SNU increased from 5.6 patients to 8.1. After Raulerson's SNU beds became available, the ADC of Healthsouth continued in the 68 to 69 range in 70 beds, indicating that Healthsouth was full. When Port St. Lucie's 15 SNU beds opened during the last two months of 1996, its ADC of 3.9 patients in 1996 increased to 13.5 for the first seven months of 1997. From the time Port St. Lucie's SNU became operational through the end of 1997, the ADC at Healthsouth ranged from a low of 67.2 in 70 beds in June 1997, to a high of 81.9 in 90 beds in November 1997, approximately three months after its expansion. Indian River Memorial, the largest referral source and the closest SNU to Healthsouth, opened a 20-bed SNU, in May 1997. Healthsouth failed to show any adverse impact as a result of the opening of any of existing SNUs in the District. All of the SNUs in the four-county area have filled relatively quickly when opened. At the same time, utilization of CMR services has also steadily increased. In 1996, Martin Memorial North referred 181 patients to Healthsouth; 134 were actually admitted. For the first eleven months of 1997, Martin Memorial North referred 147 patients (160 annualized) resulting in 109 admissions (119 annualized). The percentage of referrals which became admissions was the same, 74 percent, for both years. Martin Memorial South referred 27 patients with 22 of those admitted in 1996, and referred 33 of which 25 were admitted, based on actual data for the first eleven months of 1997 annualized for the entire year. Healthsouth notes that Martin Memorial North's referrals declined 12 percent, and the admissions declined by 11 percent comparing 1996 to 1997. Martin Memorial reported total discharges to Healthsouth of 155 patients in 1995, 155 in 1996 and 149 in 1997. Healthsouth's total admissions for 1996 and 1997, respectively, were 1463 and 1455. Assuming, that Healthsouth reasonably expects to lose $150,000 a year in pre-tax revenues as a result of the establishment of Martin Memorial's 15-bed SNU, that level of impact is not substantial, as compared to Healthsouth's revenues in excess of expenses, or profits of approximately $3.8 million in 1996. Considering the distance between Healthsouth and Martin Memorial, the differences in the intensity of the services they offer, and the historical absence of any substantial adverse impact on Healthsouth when closer referral hospitals established SNUs, Healthsouth has failed to establish that it will suffer an injury-in-fact if Martin Memorial initiates skilled nursing services in a 15-bed unit. Healthsouth failed to establish the reasonableness of the loss it projects, given the evidence that the average length of stay and number of cases likely to be redirected are overestimated. Assuming, nevertheless, the accuracy of Healthsouth's projections, the projected loss does not constitute a substantial adverse impact. Therefore, Healthsouth has failed to establish the facts necessary to support its claim of standing in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order granting Martin Memorial's Motion to Dismiss the Petition to Intervene, filed by Healthsouth of Treasure Coast, Inc., d/b/a Healthsouth Treasure Coast Rehabilitation, and granting Certificate of Need No. 8847 to establish a 15-bed skilled nursing unit at Martin Memorial Medical Center, Stuart, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Background On July 31, 1987, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) published in the Florida Administrative Weekly an announcement of the fixed need pools for the subject batching cycle, which pertained to the planning horizon of July, 1992. According to the notice, the fixed need pool, which was calculated pursuant to Rules 10-5.008(6) and 10-5.011(m), (n), (o), and (q), Florida Administrative Code, was adjusted according to the occupancy rate thresholds as prescribed by said rules. The net adjusted need for short-term psychiatric beds in District 7 was zero. By letter to HRS dated August 12, 1987, the North Brevard County Hospital District, doing business as Jess Parrish Memorial Hospital (Jess Parrish), provided notice of its intent to apply for a certificate of need to convert 16 beds from medical/surgical to psychiatric. By Application for Certificate of Need dated September 14, 1987, Jess Parrish requested that HRS grant a certificate of need for the conversion of 16 medical/surgical beds to 16 adult short-term psychiatric beds at a cost of $46,100. Jess Parrish is a tax-exempt organization whose board of directors have been authorized by law to levy ad valorem taxes in a special tax district in north Brevard County for the support of the hospital. The main hospital is located at 951 North Washington Avenue in Titusville, which is in north Brevard County. Brevard County is located in HRS District 7. By letter to Jess Parrish dated October 5, 1987, HRS requested additional information. By response dated November 9, 1987, Jess Parrish supplied the requested responses to omissions. By letter dated November 18, 1987, Jess Parrish provided additional information desired by HRS. By letter dated December 22, 1987, Wuesthoff Hospital (Wuesthoff) informed HRS that it objected to the above-described application because of absence of need. The letter states that Wuesthoff maintained an occupancy rate of 74% during the past year in its 25 short-term psychiatric beds. Wuesthoff is located in Rockledge, which is in central Brevard County. By letter and State Agency Action Report dated January 25, 1988, HRS informed Jess Parrish of its intent to issue the requested certificate of need for the conversion of the 16 beds. By Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed February 23, 1988, Wuesthoff challenged the intent to award the certificate of need to Jess Parrish and requested a formal hearing. The Application and Approval Process The application for the certificate of need states that Jess Parrish has a total of 210 beds, consisting of 172 medical/surgical beds, 10 obstetric beds, 20 pediatric beds, and 8 intensive care unit beds. The application contains all elements required by law, including a resolution authorizing the application and financial statements. The application and omissions response state that Jess Parrish admitted about 100 psychiatric patients in fiscal year ending 1987. The omissions response adds that Jess Parrish would offer the following programs for its short-term psychiatric patients: continual evaluation, screening, and admissions; individual, family, and group therapy; occupational, recreational, and vocational therapy; psychological and psychiatric testing and evaluation; day hospital and day clinic; family and friends education and support groups; and specialized treatment programs for geriatric psychiatric patients. The omissions response reports that the only facility with adult short-term psychiatric beds within 45 minutes of Jess Parrish is Wuesthoff. The omissions response states that Wuesthoff had experienced the following occupancy rates in its adult short-term psychiatric program: 1984--59%; 1985--66%; 1986-- 7l%; and first three quarters of 1987--71%. The omissions response acknowledges that Jess Parrish and Circles of Care, Inc. (Circles of Care) had jointly prepared the application and that Jess Parrish "plans to employ by contract, Circles of Care, Inc. to operate and manage our unit" if the application is approved. The omissions response includes a letter to HRS dated November 10, 1987, from James B. Whitaker, as president of Circles of Care. The letter describes the 12-year relationship between the two parties, which began when Circles of Care leased its first 12 beds from Jess Parrish between 1974 and 1980. Mr. Whitaker states that the two parties thus "work[ed] out a management agreement; for the new sixteen bed unit that Jess Parrish has requested." In the State Agency Action Report, HRS notes that the project does not conform with Policy 4 of the applicable District 7 Local Health Plan. This policy provides that additional short-term inpatient psychiatric beds may be approved when the average annual occupancy rate for all existing facilities in the planning area equals or exceeds the following rates: adult--75% and adolescents/children--70%. HRS reports a similar discrepancy as to the occupancy standard in the State Health Plan, which incorporates at Objective 1.2 the same 70%/75% standards. HRS states in the State Agency Action Report that the 1986 occupancy rates for short-term psychiatric beds, which averaged 69.98% in Brevard County, were 87% at Circles of Care, 70.6% at Wuesthoff, and 14% at a new facility, C. P. C.--Palm Bay. In addition, for the first six months of 1987, the report states that the occupancy rates, which averaged 63.5% in Brevard County, were 76% at Circles of Care, 71.5% at Wuesthoff, and 43% at C. P. C.--Palm Bay. In calculating numeric need under the rule, HRS concludes that there was a net need for a total of 547 beds in the district, consisting of 312 in specialty hospitals and 235 in general hospitals. Addressing the provision of the District 7 Local Health Plan focusing upon need at the county level, HRS finds that there was a net need for a total of 38 beds. Recognizing the "sub- standard utilization" of existing short-term psychiatric beds, HRS states that the application was justified "mainly because of the enhanced access to services that the project would provide." All of the other criteria were fully satisfied with one irrelevant exception, and the State Agency Action Report concludes: Although the district and county utilization of short-term psychiatric beds falls below the 70% [sic) adult standard, this project merits a Certificate of Need because there exists numeric need in the service area and because the project affords greater access and availability to psychiatric services for underserved groups. Need District and State Health Plans Part 3 of the 1985 District 7 Local Health Plan, published by The Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Inc., sets forth policies and priorities for inpatient psychiatric services. Policy 1 establishes each of the four counties of District 7 as a subdistrict for purposes of planning inpatient psychiatric services. Policy 3 of the 1985 District 7 Local Health Plan provides a specific methodology to allocate beds when the numeric need rule methodology indicates a need for inpatient psychiatric beds. A minimum of .15 beds per 1000 projected population should be allocated to hospitals holding a general license. A total of .20 beds per 1000 projected population may be located in specialty hospitals or hospitals holding a general license. The population projections are for five years into the future. Policy 4 of the 1985 District 7 Local Health Plan provides that additional short-term inpatient psychiatric beds may be approved when the average annual occupancy rates for all existing facilities in the planning area equal or exceed 75% for adult facilities and 70% for adolescents/children facilities. The policy concludes: Additional beds should not be added to the health system' until the existing facilities are operating at acceptable levels of occupancy. Good utilization of existing facilities prior to adding beds aids in cost containment by preventing unnecessary duplication. The 1988 District 7 Local Health Plan, although inapplicable to the subject proceeding, refers to the pending application of Jess Parrish. The plan states: [T]he residents of District 7 appear to be well-served by the existing providers with only a few exceptions. First, residents of north Brevard County (Titusville area) currently have no access to any certified, short-term, inpatient psych services in less than 22 miles. In many driving situations this distance takes longer than 30-45 minutes to traverse. . . . If [the CON that has been tentatively approved] is sustained through litigation and the unit is finally opened availability of these 16 beds should ameliorate, to a large degree, the potential geographic access problems for north Brevard adult/geriatric patients at least. Objective 1.1 of the 1985-1987 State Health Plan states that the ratio of short-term inpatient hospital psychiatric beds to population should not exceed .35 beds to 1000 population. Objective 1.2 states that, through 1987, additional short-term psychiatric beds should not normally be approved unless the service districts has an average annual occupancy of 75% for existing and approved adult beds and 70% for existing and approved adolescents/children beds. Numeric Need Pursuant to HRS Rules Net Need Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4., Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the HRS numeric need methodology. The rule provides that the projected number of beds shall be determined by applying the ratio of .35 beds to 1000 population to the projected population in five years, as estimated by the Executive Office of the Governor. The relevant projected population for District 7 is 1,564,098 persons. Applying the ratio, the gross number of beds needed in District 7 is 547. The total number of existing and approved short-term psychiatric beds in District 7 in 1987 was 410. There is therefore a net need for 137 short-term psychiatric beds in District 7. The relevant projected population for Brevard County is 441,593 persons. Applying the ratio, the gross number of beds needed in Brevard County is 155. The total number of existing and approved short-term psychiatric beds in Brevard County in 1987 was 117. There is therefore a net need for 38 short- term psychiatric beds in Brevard County. A minimum of .15 beds per 1000 population should be located in hospitals holding a general license, and .20 beds per 1000 population may be located in specialty hospitals or hospitals holding a general license. The calculations disclose that, for District 7, there is a net need of 73 beds in the former category and 65 beds in the latter category. As to Brevard County, the respective numbers are 41 and 4. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.d., Florida Administrative Code, provides that new facilities for adults must be able to project a 70% occupancy rate for the first year and 80% occupancy rate for the third year. Jess Parrish projects that its short-term psychiatric program will experience a utilization rate of 66% at the end of the first complete year of operation and 82% at the end of the third complete year of operation. These projections are reasonable and substantially conform with the requirements of the rule. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.e., Florida Administrative Code, provides that no additional short-term inpatient beds shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for the preceding 12 months in a "service district" is at least 75% for all existing adult short-term inpatient psychiatric beds and at least 70% for all adolescents/children short-term inpatient psychiatric beds. HRS considered the 70%/75% occupancy standards in making the July, 1987, announcement of a zero fixed need pool for short-term psychiatric beds in Brevard County. The determination of zero fixed need was a reflection that, although numeric need existed, the occupancy standards had not been satisfied. The incorporation of the occupancy standard into the July, 1987, fixed need calculation represented a deviation from nonrule policy deferring computation of the occupancy levels until the application-review process. The prior announcement of a fixed need pool on February 27, 1987, stated that a number of beds were needed even though the occupancy situation in District 7 was about the same. Subsequent announcements likewise deferred consideration of the occupancy standard. HRS has explicated its nonrule policy of excluding occupancy standards from the calculation of numeric need when publishing fixed need pools. Unlike the relatively simple task of determining the relevant population projection and multiplying it by the proper ratio, application of the occupancy standards, especially at the time in question, required numerous determinations and calculations. By attempting to incorporate the occupancy standards into the calculations upon which the fixed need pool were based, HRS increased the potential for error, which occurred in this case, rather than increased the reliability of the information. Although adequate reason exists for revising the July, 1987, published fixed need pool, Rule 10-5.008(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, prohibits revisions to a fixed need pool based upon a change in need methodologies, population estimates, bed inventories, or other factors leading to a different projection of need, if retroactively applied. However, the revision of the July, 1987, fixed need pool does not represent a change in need methodologies, population estimates, bed inventories, or other factors leading to a different projection of need, if retroactively applied. The revision to the fixed need pool, which did not represent a change in need methodology or underlying facts, was a result of three legitimate considerations. First, HRS revised the fixed need pool to implement its policy decision to limit the fixed need pool to the numeric need calculation and reserve the calculations of occupancy standards to the application-review process. This consideration does not involve a change in the methodology of determining numeric need or applying occupancy standards. Second, HRS revised the fixed need pool to correct earlier, erroneous calculations. This consideration does not involve a change in the underlying facts, but merely in the computations based upon the same facts. Third, HRS revised the fixed need pool to reflect developing policy in the application of the occupancy standards. HRS decided to apply the more liberal 70% occupancy standard to facilities serving both adults and adolescents/children, exclude from the determination of occupancy levels any facilities serving only age cohorts not served by the applicant, and restrict the 75% occupancy standard to facilities serving adults only. HRS made these changes, which it felt would not harm existing providers, in recognition of the failure of data provided by health-care suppliers to distinguish between adult and adolescents/children admissions and patient days. These considerations approximate a change in methodology, but the revision resulting from such considerations does not violate the rule because HRS already has shown that consideration of the occupancy standards should not take place until after publication of the fixed need pool. In the present case, two facilities in District 7 serve only adolescents/children. These facilities are C. P. C.-- Palm Bay and Laurel Oaks, which is in Orange County. Eliminating their occupancy rates, the district occupancy rate in the year ending June 30, 1987, was 71.9%. Removing the occupancy rate of C. P. C.--Palm Bay from Brevard County, the county occupancy rate during the same period was over 75%. Under the revised policies, Brevard County had a net need of 38 short- term psychiatric beds, applicable occupancy standards in the county and district were satisfied, and the July, 1987, publication of a fixed need pool of zero did not preclude the finding of need under other than "not normal" circumstances. Accessibility Financial Accessibility The primary service area of Jess Parrish is north Brevard County. A higher percentage of the population of this area lives below the poverty level than does the population of any other sub-region of Brevard County. According to the 1980 Census data, the applicable percentages of area residents living below the poverty level were 12.7% in north Brevard County, 10% in central Brevard County, 8.4% in south Brevard County, and 9.6% in Brevard County overall. Partly as a reflection of the different sub-regions and partly as a reflection of the commitment of Jess Parrish to provide access to underserved populations, Jess Parrish provides considerably more services to Medicaid patients than does either of the other major general hospitals in central and south Brevard County. In 1987, 11.5% of the admissions and 8.9% of the patient days at Jess Parrish were Medicaid. The respective numbers are 7% and 6% for Wuesthoff and 5.8% and 3.9% for Holmes Regional Medical Center, which is in Melbourne. A key component of financial accessibility is the effect of the proposed program on Circles of Care. About 55% of the patients of Circles of Care are indigent. Another 17% of its patients earn between the minimum wage and $15,000 annually. Circles of Care has participated in all phases of the application process on behalf of Jess Parrish. The approval of the new program would not have an adverse effect on Circles of Care. To the contrary, the new program at Jess Parrish would provide Circles of Care with more treatment options, especially with respect to indigent patients, whose need for short-term psychiatric services has proven at times difficult to meet. These options are especially valuable at a time when there is no net need in Brevard County for any more short-term psychiatric beds in specialty hospitals, such as Circles of Care. The 52 psychiatric beds licensed to Circles of Care are in two different units contained within a single hospital facility located in Melbourne, which is in south Brevard County. Sheridan Oaks is a 24-bed, private unit, which cannot accept many Baker Act patients without adversely affecting the other patients and the psychiatrists who refer private-pay patients to this unit. The other unit is a public Baker Act receiving facility with 28 beds, for which Circles of Care receives state funds. Unlike Sheridan Oaks, the public receiving facility employs the psychiatrists who work there. About 85-90% of all Baker Act patients in Brevard County come through this public receiving facility, whose occupancy rate was 98% in the year ending June 30, 1987. In addition to these units, Circles of Care operates a mental health outpatient clinic in Titusville, an outpatient/inpatient treatment center in the Rockledge/Cocoa area, numerous social clubs throughout Brevard County for the chronic mentally ill, and numerous public education and awareness programs concerning the treatability of mental illness. Another limitation of being a specialty hospital is that Circles of Care does not qualify for Medicaid reimbursement. Jess Parrish, as a general hospital, qualifies for such reimbursement and projects in its application that 39% of its patient days will be Medicaid and 9% of its patient days will be indigent. Geographic Access Jess Parrish is located at the north end of Brevard County, which runs about 80 miles north-south. Wuesthoff is about 25 miles south of Jess Parrish, and Titusville is about 40 miles north of Melbourne. Intercity north-south traffic uses Interstate 95, which is west of the above-described cities, and U.S. Route 1, which runs through the center of each of these cities. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)5.g., Florida Administrative Code, provides that short-term inpatient psychiatric services should be located within a maximum travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions for at least 90% of the population of the service area. This criterion is presently met without the addition of short-term psychiatric beds at Jess Parrish. This factor is outweighed, however, by another factor in this case. Jess Parrish projects about half of its patients will be indigent or Medicaid, and north Brevard County has a disproportionate share of the county's impoverished residents. Average travel conditions for these persons require public transportation, which, in north Brevard County, is limited to Greyhound/Trailways and local taxi companies. Exclusive of time waiting for the bus and traveling to and from the bus stations, the time for the 25-mile trip between Titusville and Rockledge, of which there are three or four trips daily (excluding off-hour trips), ranges from 25-35 minutes. There is evidence in the record that mentally ill bus passengers do not always make it to their intended destinations by way of intercity buses. The use of available public transportation is therefore problematic, but in any event adds considerable time to the travel time to Wuesthoff for those individuals who do not own a motor vehicle. Effect on Wuesthoff The effect of the conversion of medical/surgical beds to short-term psychiatric beds will have no material effect on Wuesthoff, even though it did reduce the number of short-term psychiatric beds from 30 to 25 in 1986. The occupancy rate for Wuesthoff's short-term psychiatric unit in 1987 was 70.6%. The prime service areas of Wuesthoff and Jess Parrish as to psychiatric admissions do not substantially overlap. Although Jess Parrish may be expected to draw more patients from Wuesthoff's prime service area following commencement of the new operation, many of Jess Parrish's patients will be from the indigent and Medicaid payor classes for which the competition is not intense. The addition of a 16-bed short-term psychiatric unit at Jess Parrish will not materially influence the availability of qualified personnel for Wuesthoff. It appears that Jess Parrish will be able to staff the relatively small 16-bed unit without employing significant numbers of professional employees of Wuesthoff. Some of the relatively few patients whom Wuesthoff can be expected to lose to Jess Parrish involve referrals from Titusville-area physicians, psychiatrists, and psychologists, who will place their patients in the closer facility once it is opened. The negative impact upon Wuesthoff is outweighed in these cases by gains for the patients in continuity of care and community support. Financial Feasibility The short-term financial feasibility is good. Jess Parrish has available to it sufficient funds to undertake the relatively modest capital outlay in constructing the facility, which will consist of about 8000 square feet on an existing floor of the hospital. The long-term financial feasibility is generally good. The financial projections are based on reasonable assumptions, which are largely derived from the actual experience of Circles of Care. The projections accurately estimate revenue sources and expenses. Jess Parrish reasonably projects an adequate supply of patients from a combination of sources, including Circles of Care, existing patients whose diagnoses include psychiatric components, and numerous health-care professionals in north Brevard County. The financial projections contemplate a material contribution by Circles of Care, but project no compensating expenditures. However, this deficiency is largely offset by the likelihood that the financial participation of Circles of Care will be restricted to a share of any excess of revenues over expenses of the new project, possibly excluding reimbursement of fairly minor expenses. If that is the case, the effect of any management agreement would be only to reduce the excess of revenues over expenses enjoyed by Jess Parrish from the operation of the short-term psychiatric unit. The management agreement would not expose Jess Parrish to losses that would not have otherwise existed but for the agreement to make payments to Circles of Care. Under these circumstances, the omission of the information, although material, does not seriously cast into doubt the long-term financial feasibility of the project. Quality of Care The quality of hospital care offered by Jess Parrish is excellent. The quality of the various psychiatric services offered by Circles of Care is also excellent. Both facilities are accredited by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals. The issue in this case involves the quality of care to be expected in the 16-bed short-term psychiatric unit for which Jess Parrish seeks a certificate of need. Circles of Care and Jess Parrish have agreed that Circles of Care will be responsible for recruiting most of the personnel for the new program and will employ the program's medical director, who will be responsible for treatment decisions. In addition, Circles of Care will advise Jess Parrish as to the adoption of policy, which will remain ultimately the responsibility of Jess Parrish. Jess Parrish will employ the head nurse and all other full-time professional staff working in the unit. The tentativeness of the arrangement between Circles of Care and Jess Parrish is partly explained by the desire of both parties to avoid the time and expense of negotiating an agreement in every detail prior to obtaining final approval of the certificate of need. In addition, both organizations were devoting substantial time to the subject litigation, for which Circles of Care was paying a portion of the expenses. In the final analysis, the failure to work out the agreement, although not a positive feature of the application, is not a serious problem for two reasons. First, Circles of Care and Jess Parrish have a long history of mutual cooperation. The relationship began when Jess Parrish leased Circles of Care 16 hospital beds for psychiatric use. Although the arrangement ended several years ago when Circles of Care constructed its Melbourne facility, the two organizations have since cooperated in several less intensive ways. Second, although Circles of Care has superior expertise in the area of mental health, Jess Parrish qualifies by itself to operate the proposed facility. Circles of Care has already provided much of the necessary technical information required for the preparation of budgets and pro formas. Recruiting would probably take somewhat longer without Circles of Care, but the modest construction budget obviously does not involve significant debt service, so that the delay would not be costly. Perhaps the most significant loss from a quality-of-care perspective would be the medical director, whose expertise will be critical. Again, this would be largely a problem of delay only, as Jess Parrish would have to find a replacement, although it appears likely that the director may be Dr. David Greenblum, who is already a member of the active medical staff at Jess Parrish. Given the quality of care provided by Jess Parrish in the past, there is no basis for any concern that, in the unlikely event that the parties fail to negotiate an agreement, Jess Parrish would jeopardize its reputation as a quality 200-bed general hospital in order to commence prematurely a 16-bed short- term psychiatric unit. Other Factors The record does not demonstrate that there are less costly, more efficient, or more appropriate alternatives to the inpatient services proposed in the subject application. There are no crisis stabilization units or short-term residential treatment programs available in Brevard County. The proposed project will have a measurable impact only upon Circles of Care, whose existing inpatient facilities will be enhanced, and Wuesthoff, whose existing inpatient facilities will not be materially affected. In general, these existing services are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. On the other hand, the beds that Jess Parrish seeks to convert are underutilized in their present designation. The medical/surgical beds at Jess Parrish have been utilized at a rate of less than 60% over the past three years. There are no feasible alternatives to renovation of the existing facilities. The costs and methods of proposed construction are reasonable and appropriate. The approval of the application will foster healthy competition in the area of short-term psychiatric services and promote quality assurance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order granting the application of Jess Parrish for a certificate of need to convert 16 medical/surgical beds to 16 short-term adult psychiatric beds. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1220 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Jess Parrish 1-6 Adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8 Rejected as irrelevant. 9-10 Adopted or adopted in substance. 11 Rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. 12-13 Adopted or adopted in substance. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted to the extent of the finding in the Recommended Order that there likely will be an agreement between Circles of Care and Jess Parrish. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence that such an agreement exists already. Also rejected as unnecessary insofar as the application can stand on its own without the participation of Circles of Care. 15a Adopted or adopted in substance. 15b-15c Rejected as irrelevant. 15d-15g Adopted in substance, although certain proposed facts rejected as subordinate. However, the first sentence of Paragraph 15f is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 15h Rejected as recitation of testimony. 16-18 Adopted or adopted in substance except that all but the last sentence of Paragraph 18g. is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and legal argument. 19 First sentence adopted. 19 (remainder) -22. Rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence. Generally adopted, although most of the facts are rejected as subordinate in the overall finding and cumulative. Adopted except that sixth sentence is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and the seventh sentence is rejected as subordinate. Adopted in substance. First sentence adopted. Remainder rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. 28a Rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 28b-28d Adopted or adopted in substance. and 31 Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary. 32-50 Adopted or adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of HRS 1-11 Adopted or adopted in substance. & 14 Rejected as irrelevant. & 15-16 Adopted. 17 Rejected as unnecessary. 18-74 See rulings on Paragraphs 16-50 in preceding section. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Wuesthoff 1-3 Adopted or adopted in substance. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and legal argument. 6-10 & 12 Adopted or adopted in substance. 11 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as recitation of testimony and cumulative. Rejected as cumulative except that second sentence is adopted. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Rejected as cumulative, subordinate, and legal argument. Rejected as cumulative except that second sentence is adopted. First clause rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Remainder rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as cumulative and subordinate. 20-23 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative. 27-28 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 29 Rejected as legal argument. 30-32 Rejected as irrelevant. 33-41 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and subordinate. 42 and 51 Rejected as recitation of evidence. 43-45 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 46 Rejected as legal argument. 47-50 and 52-54 Rejected as subordinate. 55 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 56-59 Rejected as irrelevant. 60-66 Rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. 67-69 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 70-73 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and subordinate. 74-78 Adopted. 79 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 80-82 Adopted. 83-85 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 86 Rejected as subordinate and against the greater weight of the evidence. 87-91 Adopted or adopted in substance. 92 Rejected as against the greater weight of he evidence. 93-94 Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. 97-98 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as subordinate. 101-102 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as partly cumulative and partly legal argument. Rejected as against the greater weight of the 105 evidence Rejected and irrelevant. as against the greater weight of the 106-108 evidence. Rejected as subordinate. 109 110-113 Rejected evidence. Rejected as against the greater weight of as subordinate. the 114-117 118-120 Rejected evidence. Rejected as against the greater weight of as irrelevant and subordinate. the 121-122 Rejected as subordinate. 123 124-125 First sentence adopted in substance. Remainder rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. 126-129 Rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of evidence. the COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Cleveland W. David Watkins Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 John Rodriguez 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William B. Wiley Darrell White McFarlain, Sternstein, Wiley & Cassedy, P.A. Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Stephen M. Presnell MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 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 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
