Recommendation Based on the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board take no action against the license of Marie Novak, L.P.N. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of December, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 218 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robert T. Westman, Esquire Post Office Box 1888 Cocoa, Florida 32922
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the allegations in the notice of intent to assign a conditional license and, if so, whether Petitioner should have changed the rating of Respondent's license from standard to conditional for the period June 14 through August 10, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the state. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 1120 West Donegan Avenue, Kissimmee, Florida (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted an annual survey of the facility from May 7, through May 10, 2001 (the "May survey"). Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey of the facility on June 14, 2001 (the "June survey"). The May survey cites one Class III violation. The June survey cites a repeat deficiency of a Class III violation. Subsection 400.23(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000), refers to deficiency classifications as Class I-III deficiencies. All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Section 400.23(8)(c) defines Class III deficiencies as those deficiencies . . . which the agency determines to have an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than class I or class II deficiencies. The statutory definitions of Class I and II deficiencies are not relevant to this case because this case involves only a Class III deficiency. Florida Administrative Code Rule Rule 59A-4.1288 requires nursing home facilities licensed by the State of Florida to adhere to federal regulations in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"). All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code on the date of this Recommended Order. In relevant part, Rule 59A- 4.1288 provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. Applicable federal regulations require Petitioner to assign a scope and severity rating to the deficiencies alleged by Petitioner. Petitioner assigned a "D" rating to the deficiencies alleged in the May and June surveys. A “D” rating means that there is no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not actual jeopardy. When Petitioner alleges that the Class III deficiency from the May survey was not corrected within the time established by the agency, the agency may change the rating of the facility license from standard to conditional. Petitioner determined in the June survey that the facility had not corrected the deficiency alleged in the May survey. Effective June 14, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Petitioner noted the results of the May and June surveys on a Health Care Federal Administration form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to the form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567". The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number (the "Tag"). Each tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Respondent and cites a provision of relevant state rules violated by the alleged deficiency. There is only one tag at issue in the May and June surveys. It is Tag F282. In order to protect the privacy of nursing home residents, Tag F282, the 2567, and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number rather than by the name of the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the May and June survey that the facility failed to satisfy the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.20(k)(ii). In relevant part, the federal regulation provides: Comprehensive Care Plans. (3). The services provided or arranged by the facility must— (ii) Be provided by qualified persons in accordance with each resident’s written "plan of care." This standard is made applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F282 does not allege that the facility provided care to residents by unqualified persons. Rather, Tag F282 alleges that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for two residents. Tag F282 alleges in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for Residents 3 and 1. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for Resident 1. The resident identified as Resident 1 is not the same resident in the May and June surveys. Before proceeding to the merits of the allegations in Tag F282, two policy issues must be resolved in order to make findings of fact in a manner that is consistent with Petitioner's officially stated agency policy. One issue is procedural and the other involves the definition of terms. Petitioner promulgates an officially stated policy in written guidelines entitled the State Operations Manual (the "Manual"). The Manual states agency policy regarding the interpretation and application of the regulatory standards surveyors must enforce. The Manual authorizes surveyors to determine whether a facility has complied with Tag F282 only after surveyors have identified violations of standards relating to: quality of care, defined in 42 CFR Section 483.25(a)–(m); quality of life, defined 42 CFR Section 483.15(a)–(h); or residents rights, defined 42 CFR Section 483.10(a)–(o). The state agency's written policy set forth in the Manual requires its surveyors to identify an issue of quality of care, quality of life, or residents’ rights before proceeding to a determination of whether the facility has violated Tag F282. The second issue involves the interpretation of the terms "inadequate", "incorrect", and "consistent." The Manual indicates that violations occur if surveyors can demonstrate inadequate or incorrect implementation of the care plan. The Manual does not define the term “inadequate.” The common meaning of the term suggests that something less than perfect implementation satisfies the requirements of the regulatory standard. That construction is consistent with other provisions in the Manual. The Manual further provides that violations of standards occur only if a facility fails to “consistently” implement the plan of care for a resident. Petitioner's surveyors acknowledged in their testimony that the goal for the quality of care regulations is to achieve positive resident outcomes and is identical to the goal of Tag F282. Petitioner offered no credible reason, within the meaning of Section 120.68(7)(e)3, why the standard for implementation of a resident’s care plan under Tag F282 should be stricter than that required by the quality of care regulations. Resident 3 had many compromising conditions and was near death at the time of the May survey. Resident 3 had 10 to 12 care plans to address his various medical problems and conditions. Each care plan contained an average of 15 separate interventions. One of the care plans for Resident 3 addressed the risk of developing pressure sores and contained 20 separate interventions for staff to implement. One intervention required staff to turn and reposition the resident every two hours. On May 7, 2001, a surveyor stationed herself outside of Resident 3’s room from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon to observe who entered the resident’s room and what care was given to the resident. During that time, the surveyor observed that no staff member entered the room to turn and reposition the resident. The care plan required staff to turn the resident once during the three-hour period. The allegations in Tag F282 pertaining to the failure to reposition Resident 3 during a three-hour period on May 7, 2001, deviate from Petitioner's written agency policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not cite the facility for any violation relating to quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Second, a single isolated failure to implement one intervention prescribed in one of 12 care plans for Resident 3, during a three-hour period, on one of four days of a survey, does not demonstrate inadequate care by failing to consistently implement a care plan. Petitioner failed to explain by a preponderance of the evidence why it deviated from its official written policy in its determination that Respondent violated the standard prescribed in Tag F282. The surveyor provided no credible explanation to justify a deviation from agency policy with respect to Resident 3. Nor did Petitioner present any evidence that Resident 3 developed any pressure sores or had any pressure sores worsen as a result of the failure to turn and reposition the resident on May 7, 2001. The evidence shows that the failure to turn and reposition Resident 3 presented nothing more than a minimal chance of negative impact. Tag F282 alleged in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care for Resident 1 in accordance with the care plan. Resident 1 suffered from a condition that caused his chin to droop toward his chest. The condition caused positioning problems for the resident while he was in his wheelchair. The physical therapist for the facility examined Resident 1 and recommended periodic placement of a Futuro cervical collar while the resident was in his wheelchair in order to elevate the resident's chin. The recommendation required staff to place the collar on the resident when he was in his wheelchair for two hours and then to remove it for two hours. Staff was not to place the collar on the resident during meals or while the resident was in bed. The resident would sometimes remove the collar after it was placed on him. On May 8, 2001, Petitioner’s surveyor made five observations of the resident between 10:45 a.m. and 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not see the resident wearing the collar during any of the observations. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:45 a.m. until 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during the observations on May 8, 2001. It is uncontroverted that the resident would have eaten lunch for one hour during the time that the surveyor observed the resident and that the care plan did not require staff to place the collar on the resident during meals. Petitioner offered no evidence that the failure to put the collar on the resident during the observed instances presented potential for any harm to the resident. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the facility failed to implement Resident 1’s care plan. Even if it were determined that the facility failed to consistently implement the care plan or inadequately implemented the care plan, Tag F282 deviates from Petitioner's officially stated agency policy because the tag does not charge the facility with any violation of quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Petitioner failed to explain why it deviated from its policy. Finally, the observed circumstances presented no more than a minimal chance of minor negative impact to Resident 1. On May 9, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 on three different occasions between 10:00 a.m. and 11:05 a.m. without the collar. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during that time-period. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:00 a.m. until 11:05 a.m. The preponderance of the evidence failed to sustain the charge that the facility did not implement Resident 1’s care plan on May 9, 2001. The observations are insufficient to demonstrate a consistent failure to implement the care plan. Petitioner provided no credible explanation for deviating from its officially stated agency policy. Finally, the circumstances presented no chance of any harm other than minimal negative impact to the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that the facility failed to follow doctor’s orders for Resident 1 that required multi-podus boots to be applied every shift. Resident 1 in the June survey is not the same resident identified as Resident 1 in the May survey. Resident 1 in the June survey had pressure sores on his feet, and one of the interventions prescribed in the care plan required Resident 1 to wear multi-podus boots. On June 13, 2001, at 2:45 p.m., Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 lying in bed without the required multi- podus boots. Resident 1 was lying on a pressure-relieving mattress so that his heels were receiving pressure relief without the need for multi-podus boots. On June 14, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 in his wheelchair in the activities room with black, hard-soled shoes on his feet instead of the multi-podus boots. The resident had dressings on his heels that protected them and was sitting so that his heels bore no weight. The facility maintained medical records that described the size and appearance of the pressure sores on Resident 1's heels. The records indicated that the pressure sores healed progressively after Respondent admitted Resident 1 to the facility. The area on the right heel was completely healed by June, 2001, and the area on the left heel was closed by July 2001. Petitioner deviated from its officially stated policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not charge the facility with any violation of a quality of care, quality of life, or residents rights. Second, the instances observed by the surveyor do not demonstrate a failure to consistently implement the plan of care or a failure to provide adequate care. Petitioner offered no credible explanation for deviating from its policy. The events observed by Petitioner's surveyor, at most, presented the potential for causing no more than a minor negative impact on the resident.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration should enter a final order revising the May 10 and June 13, 2001, survey reports to delete the deficiency described under Tag F282, and replace the previously issued Conditional rating with a Standard rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 5th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis L. Godfrey, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North, Room 310L St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration found deficiencies at Wellington Specialty Care and Rehab Center sufficient to support the change in its licensure status to a conditional rating.
Findings Of Fact Wellington is a nursing home located in Tampa, Florida, licensed by and subject to regulation by the Agency pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. The Agency is the licensing agency in the State of Florida responsible for regulating nursing facilities under Part II of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. On September 10, 1998, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation at Wellington in a matter unrelated to the issues that are the subject of this proceeding. On that same date, the Agency also conducted an appraisal survey that focused on six areas of care for which Wellington had been cited as deficient in past surveys. After the investigation and survey were completed, the Agency determined that there was no basis for the complaint, and further determined that Wellington was not deficient in any of the six areas of care which were the subject of the appraisal survey. Notwithstanding its findings that the complaint against Wellington was unfounded and that there were no deficiencies in the targeted areas of care being reviewed, the Agency determined that Wellington was deficient in an area not initially the subject of the September 1998 survey. Specifically, the Agency found that Wellington had failed to provide adequate supervision and assistance devices to two residents at the facility in violation of the regulatory standard contained in 42 C.F.R. s. 483.25(h)(2). Based on its findings and conclusions, the Agency issued a survey report in which this deficiency was identified and described under a "Tag F324." The basis for the Agency’s findings were related to observations and investigations of two residents at the facility, Resident 6 and Resident 8. During the September 1998 survey and complaint investigation, the surveyors observed that Resident 6 had a bruise on her forehead and that Resident 8 had bruises on the backs of both of her hands. Resident 6 suffered a stroke in May 1998 and had left-side neglect, a condition that caused her to be unaware of her left side and placed her at risk for falls. Moreover, Resident 6's ability to recall events was impaired. The Agency's investigation revealed that Resident 6 sustained the bruise on her forehead when she fell from the toilet on August 31, 1998. The Agency determined that Resident 6 fell because she was left alone by the staff of the facility and further concluded that Wellington was responsible for causing this fall. The Agency believed that given Resident 6's left-side neglect, the facility staff should have known not to leave the resident unattended during her trips to the toilet. The Agency suggested that Wellington should have provided constant supervision to Resident 6, although it acknowledged that such supervision may have created privacy violations. In making its determination and reaching its conclusions, the Agency relied exclusively on an interview with Resident 6, notwithstanding the fact that her ability to recall events was impaired. Since Resident 6 was admitted to the facility in May 1998, Wellington appropriately and adequately addressed her susceptibility to falls, including falls from her toilet. After Resident 6 was initially admitted to the facility in May 1998, she received occupational therapy to improve her balance. In late June 1998, following several weeks of occupational therapy, Wellington’s occupational therapist evaluated Resident 6’s ability to sit and to control the balance in the trunk of her body and determined that the resident was capable of sitting upright without support for up to 40 minutes. Based upon that assessment, Resident 6 was discharged from occupational therapy on June 25, 1998, and her caregivers were provided with instructions on how to maintain her balance. At the time Resident 6 was discharged from occupational therapy, a care plan was devised for her which provided that the facility staff would give her assistance in all of her activities of daily living, but would only provide stand-by assistance to Resident 6 while she was on the toilet, if such assistance was requested. In light of the occupational therapist's June 1998 assessment of Resident 6, this care plan was adequate to address her risk for falls, including her risk for falls while on the toilet. Wellington also provided Resident 6 with appropriate assistance devices. In Resident 6's bathroom, Wellington provided her with a right-side handrail and an armrest by her toilet to use for support and balance, and also gave her a call light to alert staff if she felt unsteady. These measures were effective as demonstrated by the absence of any falls from the toilet by Resident 6 over the course of June, July, and August 1998. The Agency's surveyor who reviewed Resident 6’s medical records was not aware of and did not consider the June 1998 Occupational Therapy Assessment of Resident 6 before citing the facility for the deficiency. Resident 8 was admitted to Wellington in February 1998 with a history of bruising and existing bruises on her body. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Resident 8 was taking Ticlid, a medication which could cause bruising and also had osteopenia, a degenerative bone condition that could increase Resident 8's risk for bruising, making it possible for her to bruise herself with only a slight bump. After observing the bruising on the backs of both of Resident 8's hands during the September 1998 survey, the Agency asked facility staff about the bruising and also reviewed the resident’s medical records. Based on her interviews and record review, the Agency surveyor found that these bruises had not been ignored by Wellington. Rather, the Agency found that when facility staff initially observed these bruises on Resident 8's hands, (1) staff had immediately notified Resident 8's physician of the bruises; and (2) the physician then ordered an X-ray of Resident 8 to determine whether there was a fracture. The X-ray determined that there was not a fracture but that there was evidence of a bone loss or osteopenia, which indicated that Resident 8 had an underlying structural problem which could increase the resident's risk for bruising. The Agency surveyor found nothing in Resident 8's medical record to indicate that the facility had investigated the bruising on the resident’s hands, identified the cause of the bruising, or identified any means to prevent the bruising from reoccurring. Based on the absence of this information in Resident 8's records, the Agency cited the facility for a deficiency under "Tag F324." The Agency's surveyor made no determination and reached no conclusion as to the cause of the bruising. However, she considered that the bruising on Resident 8 may have been caused by the underlying structural damage, medication, or external forces. With regard to external forces, the surveyor speculated that the bruising may have occurred when Resident 8 bumped her hands against objects such as her chair or bed siderails. During the September 1998 survey, when the Agency surveyor expressed her concerns about the cause of the bruising on Resident 8's hands, Wellington’s Director of Nursing suggested to the surveyor that the bruising could have been the result of the use of improper transfer techniques by either Resident 8’s family or the facility staff, or Resident 8’s medications. Despite the surveyor's speculation and suggestions by the facility's Director of Nursing, the Agency surveyor saw nothing that would indicate how the bruising occurred. In fact, the Agency surveyor's observation of a staff member transferring Resident 8 indicated that the staff member was using a proper transfer technique that would not cause bruising to the resident’s hands. The Agency surveyor made no other observations and conducted no investigation of the potential causes of the bruising on Resident 8's hands. During the September 1998 survey, after the Agency surveyor inquired as to the cause of the bruises on Resident 8's hands, the facility conducted an investigation to try to identify the potential causes for the bruising. The investigation was conducted by the facility’s Care Plan Coordinator, a licensed practical nurse who was also the Unit Manager for the unit on which Resident 8 was located. Included in the Care Plan Coordinator's investigation was a thorough examination of the potential causes suggested by the Agency's surveyor. The Agency surveyor’s speculation that the bruising was caused when Resident 8 hit her hands against her chair or bed siderails was ruled out as a cause for the bruises because Resident 8 was unable to move around in her bed or chair. More importantly, there were no bedrails on Resident 8's bed and her chair was a heavily padded recliner. Also, as a part of her investigation, the Care Plan Coordinator observed the transfer techniques employed by both Resident 8's family members and facility staff. During these observations, she did not see any indication that the techniques used were improper or would otherwise cause Resident 8 to bruise her hands. Based upon her thorough investigation, the Case Plan Coordinator determined that there were no identifiable causes of the bruising and, thus, there were no care plan interventions that the facility could have implemented then or in September 1998 to prevent the bruising suffered by Resident 8. Instead, the Care Plan Coordinator reasonably concluded that the bruising was most likely an unavoidable result of Resident 8's medications and her osteopenia. The Agency is required to rate the severity of any deficiency identified during a survey with two types of ratings. One of these is "scope and severity" rating which is defined by federal law, and the other rating is a state classification rating which is defined by state law and rules promulgated thereunder. As a result of the September 1998 survey, the Agency assigned the Tag F324 deficiency a scope and severity rating of "G" which, under federal regulations, is a determination that the deficient practice was isolated. The Tag F324 deficiency was also given a state classification rating of "II" which, under the Agency’s rule, is a determination that the deficiency presented "an immediate threat to the health, safety or security of the residents." Because the Agency determined that there was a Class II deficiency at Wellington after the September 1998 survey, it changed Wellington’s Standard licensure rating to Conditional, effective September 10, 1998. At the completion of the September 1998 survey, the Agency assigned the Class II rating to the deficiency although the surveyors failed to determine and did not believe that there was an immediate threat of accidents to other residents at Wellington. In fact, at the time of the September 1998 survey, the number of falls at Wellington had declined since the last survey. The Agency returned to Wellington on November 6, 1998, to determine if the facility had corrected the Tag F324 deficiency cited in the September 1998 survey report. After completing that survey, the Agency determined that the deficiency had been corrected and issued Wellington a Standard License effective November 6, 1998.
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 issuing a Standard rating to Wellington and rescinding the Conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 17th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Esquire Qualified Representative Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas Caufman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 6800 North Dale Mabry Highway Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33614 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the duly promulgated rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services by designating and continuing to designate the same person as the Assistant Administrator and the Director of Nursing of the Bonifay Nursing Home, Inc., after having been cited for such deficiency and allowed sufficient time to correct the deficiency.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed by Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on October 27, 1980 notifying Respondent Bonifay Nursing Home, Inc., a skilled nursing care home, that Petitioner intended to impose a civil penalty of $100 for violating duly promulgated rules by designating the same person to act as Assistant Administrator and Director of Nursing of the nursing home. At the formal administrative hearing the Administrator admitted that he served more than one health facility, that at all times pertinent to the hearing the acting Assistant Nursing Home Administrator was also designated as the Director of Nursing, and that she was the only registered nurse on duty. It was admitted that no change had been made after the inspector for the Petitioner Department had called attention to this alleged violation until after the time period allowed for correcting this situation had expired and after the Petitioner had informed Respondent it intended to impose a $100 civil penalty. In mitigation Respondent presented testimony and adduced evidence showing that as the owner and operator of the nursing home he had made an effort to employ registered nurses at the home and that on the date of hearing the nursing home was in compliance with the statutes, rules and regulations. It was evident to the Hearing Officer that the nursing home serves a need in the community and that the residents appreciate the service. Petitioner Department submitted proposed findings of fact, memorandum of law and a proposed recommended order, which were considered in the writing of this order. Respondent submitted a memorandum. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that a final order be entered by the Petitioner assessing an administrative fine not to exceed $50. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Pearce, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. J. E. Speed, Administrator Bonifay Nursing Home 108 Wagner Road Bonifay, Florida 32425 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Plantation was a licensed nursing home facility and participated in the Medicaid program. A nursing home that receives a superior rating is entitled to incentives based on the Florida Medicaid Reimbursement Plan. Plantation has met all the requirements for a superior rating that are enumerated in Rule lOD-29.128, Florida _Administrative Code. The only reason Plantation was not granted a superior rating was based on the Medicaid Inspection of Care, Team report. (stipulated facts) From August 21 through August 31, 1984, Plantation underwent a routine inspection by the HRS Medicaid Inspection of Care (IOC) Team. The purpose of the inspection was to review the care and treatment of Medicaid recipient patients in accordance with state and federal standards in order for the facility to receive Medicaid payment for those individuals. During the course of the inspection, several deficiencies were found by IOC Team. The deficiencies were summarized in the Medicaid Inspection of Care Team report, entitled Facility Evaluation Summary, prepared by Ms. Tranger. The report listed the deficiencies as follows: Fifteen skilled and two intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have medication revalidated by the attending physician within the proper time frame Four of forty-six records reviewed failed to have available documentation that laboratory tests were completed in accordance with doctors' orders and medication regimen, Fourteen skilled and thirteen intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have the Plan of Care reviewed within the proper time frame: Ten medical records were not certified within the proper time frames and fifteen medical records were not current for recertification. As to the first deficiency noted, the problem was not that the physician failed to revalidate medication, but that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician appropriately dated the revalidation. In almost all of the cases, the problem was that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician had personally entered the date because the date was written with a different color of ink than the doctor's signature or the handwriting appeared to be different. Ms. Tranger did not know whether the dates were written by someone in the physician's office or someone at the nursing home. It is very difficult for a nursing home to get a physician to sign and date orders properly. Plantation had a procedure for securing the doctor's signature and having records dated. When a record was received that was not properly signed and dated, Plantation returned the record to the doctor with a letter or note telling the doctor what needed to be done. When returned by the doctor to Plantation, the record would bear the later date, which caused some records to be out of' compliance with the required time frames. The return to the doctor of records that were not properly dated may also explain why some of he dates were written in a different color ink than the doctor's signature. In those few cases where the dates on the report were not within the proper time frame, the dates were only a few days off. In one case a 34 day period, from July 7, 1984 to August 10, 1984, elapsed before the medication was revalidated. In another case, there were 33 days between the dates. In both cases the medication should have been revalidated every 30 days. The problem with the revalidation dates was strictly a paperwork problem and not one that affected the care of the patients. As stated before, in the majority of the cases the medication was revalidated within the proper time frame. The problem was simply that it appeared that someone other than the doctor had written down the date. The second deficiency was a finding by the surveyors that 4 of the 46 medical records reviewed failed to have available documentation regarding laboratory tests being completed in accordance with doctors' orders. However, Jean Bosang, Administrator of Plantation, reviewed all of the records cited by the IOC Team as the basis for these deficiencies and could only find two instances in which laboratory tests were not performed. HRS did not present any evidence to establish the two other alleged instances. Dr. Lopez reviewed the medical records of the two residents in question and determined that there was no possibility of harm to the patient as a result of failure to perform these tests. One of the two residents is Dr. Lopez' patient, and he normally sees her every day. He stated that the test, an electrolyte examination, was a routine test, that the patient had had no previous problems, and if any problem had developed, she would have had symptoms which would have been observable to the nurses. The tests performed before and after the test that was missed were normal, and the failure to perform the one test had absolutely no effect on the patient. Dr. Lopez was familiar with the other resident upon whom a test was not performed and had reviewed her records. This resident was to have a fasting blood sugar test performed every third month. Although this test was not performed in April of 1984, it was performed timely in every other instance. All tests were normal, and the failure to perform this test did not have any effect on the resident. Had she been suffering from blood sugar problems, there would have been physical signs observable to the nurses. The fourth deficiency listed in the report was a paperwork problem similar to the first deficiency. Patients in a nursing home are classified by level of care and must be recertified from time to time. Certification does not affect the care of the resident. The recertification must be signed and dated by the physician. Again, there was a problem on the recertification because some of the dates were in a different color ink than the physician's signature. Again, the problem was primarily caused by difficulty in getting proper physician documentation. The deficiency did not affect the care of the residents. Mr. Maryanski, who made the decision not to give Plantation a superior rating, testified that of the four deficiencies cited in the IOC report, he believed that only the third deficiency listed, in and of itself, would have precluded a superior rating. An analysis of that deficiency, however, shows that it also was mainly a paperwork deficiency and had no impact on patient care. The third deficiency listed involved a purported failure to have the plans of care reviewed within the proper time frames. Patient care plans are to be reviewed every 60 days for "skilled" patients, those that need the most supervision, and every 90 days for "intermediate" patients, those that need less supervision. A patient's plan of care is a written plan establishing the manner in which each patient will be treated and setting forth certain goals to be reached. A discharge plan is also established, which is basically what the nursing home personnel believe will be the best outcome for the patient if and when he or she leaves the hospital. The patient plan of care is established at a patient care plan meeting. Patient care plan meetings are held by the various disciplines in the nursing home, such as nursing, dietary, social work and activities, to review resident records and discuss any problems with specific residents. The manner in which the problem is to be corrected is determined and then written down on the patient's plan of care record. The evidence revealed that the basis of the deficiency was not a failure to timely establish or review a plan of care, but a failure to timely write down and properly date the plan of care. During the time in question, care plan meetings were held every Wednesday, and all of the disciplines attended the meetings. However, all disciplines did not write their comments on the patients' records at the meeting; some wrote them later. Usually, when they were added later, the comments were dated on the day they were written, rather than on the day the meetings were held. The evidence presented did not show any case in which all disciplines were late in making notes, but revealed only that specific disciplines were tardy. Since all the disciplines attended one meeting, it is apparent that when the date for any discipline was timely, the later dates of other disciplines merely reflected a documentation or paperwork problem. In late 1984 or early 1985, Plantation changed its system to avoid the problem in the future. There appeared to be problems with some of the discharge plans being untimely. The discharge plan is not utilized in the day-to-day care of the resident. Discharge plans at Plantation were kept in two places, and Ms. Tranger recognized that she may have overlooked some plans if they had been written only on the separate discharge sheet. The four deficiencies cited all involved time frames. There are innumerable time frames that must be met by a nursing home. The great majority of the deficiencies involved a failure to properly document. None of the deficiencies affected the care of the patients. Indeed, Ms. Tranger indicated that the patients were all receiving proper nursing care. The decision to give Plantation a standard rating was made by Mr. Maryanski based solely on the IOC report. He relied upon section 400.23,(3) Florida Statutes, which states: "The department shall base its evaluation on the most recent annual inspection report, taking into consideration findings from other official reports, surveys, interviews, investigations and inspections." There are no regulations or written or oral policies implementing this provision. Mr. Maryanski looked solely at the face of the IOC report and did not do any independent investigation. He never visited the nursing home, and he never talked to the on-site surveyors to determine whether the deficiencies cited by the IOC Team were significant. He never saw the underlying documentation which formed the basis of the report. Mr. Maryanski has no background either in nursing or medicine and had no knowledge of purpose the tests that were allegedly not performed. On October 4, 1984, the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification (OLC) conducted the annual survey of the facility. Mr. Maryanski did not determine whether the deficiencies found by the IOC Team had been corrected at the time of the annual survey. An IOC Team surveyor returned on November 21, 1984, and found that all of the deficiencies cited during the IOC inspection had been corrected. A resurvey of the facility was conducted on December 27, 1984, by OLC. All deficiencies noted in OLC's original inspection had been corrected. All nursing home facilities in Florida are rated by HRS as conditional, standard, or superior. In addition to its financial significance, the rating of a facility is important because it affects the facility's reputation in the community and in the industry. The rating for a facility goes into effect on· the day of the follow-up visit of OLC if all deficiencies have been corrected. Therefore, Plantation would have received a superior rating, effective December 27, 1984, had it not been for the IOC report Mr. Maryanski never tried to determine whether the deficiencies in the IOC report had been corrected subsequent to the report being issued. Under rule lOD-29.128, Florida Administrative Code, there are extensive regulatory and statutory requirements which must be met for a facility to be granted a superior rating. Plantation met all of the enumerated requirements, yet it received only a standard rating. Mr. Maryanski based his determination on the IOC report despite the fact that it was outdated and the deficiencies in that report were corrected by November, 1984, prior to the December, 1984, resurvey by the OLC. There was nothing in the annual survey report of the OLC to preclude a superior rating. This is the first time a facility has been denied a superior rating based upon a report other than the annual report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Plantation Nursing Home be given a superior rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, 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 3rd day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Post Office Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Braynon; Esquire District X Legal Counsel, 201 West Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Accepted as set forth in Finding of Fact 21. 5-6. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22-23. 7-9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. 10. Rejected as immaterial. 11-12. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24-25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 26. 15-16. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 20 and 24. 17-19. Accepted generally as set forth in Finding of Fact 26. In Background section. Cumulative. Accepted in Finding of Fact 18. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. 25-31. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 4-7. 32-43. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 8-10. 44. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 45-46. Accepted in Finding of Fact 11. 47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 48-49. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 50-57. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 13-16. 58. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 1, 20, 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Finding of Fact 19 and Background. 5-8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 13 except as to time frame for intermediate patients which should be 90 days. Accepted that the documentation showed a gap, but proposed finding rejected in that the evidence did not show that, in fact, the patient was not reviewed with the proper time frame. Accepted, without naming the patients, and explained in Finding of Fact 6.
The Issue Whether Respondent nursing home violated Florida statutes and Department rules (and should be subject to a civil penalty) as alleged by the Department for (1) failing to provide adequate health care to an injured patient, and (2) failing to meet nursing staffing requirements.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, including the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and posthearing filings by counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent Nursing Home, the Apalachicola Valley Nursing Center, is a nursing care facility located immediately west of Blountstown, Florida. It is licensed by the Department, and has been in operation since June, 1975. (Testimony of Margaret Brock) Injury to and Standard of Care Provided Myrtle White On July 4, 1979, Dora M. Keifer was the licensed practical nurse on duty during the Nursing Home's night shift. At approximately 1:30 a.m., nurse Keifer heard a noise coming from the nearby room of an elderly patient, Myrtle White. The nurse immediately investigated, and found Myrtle White lying on the floor, and against the wall. Nurse Keifer then visually examined Mrs. White's head and extremities for bruises, discolorations, swelling, lacerations, and other signs of possible fractures. Finding only a slight abrasion on her elbow, nurse Keifer then manually examined the patient's leg and hip for signs of a bone fracture or associated pain. The patient responded by complaining of pain on her right side from her knee to her hip. However, no swelling of that area could be detected; nor were there any other physical symptoms of a bone fracture which were detectable by visual or manual examination. (Testimony of Dora Keifer) After completing the examination, nurse Keifer, with the assistance of four aides, placed Mrs. White on a blanket and carefully lifted her directly onto her bed, placing her on her back. This is a lifting procedure which minimizes sudden movement and is recommended for use with patients who are suspected of suffering from bone fractures. Nurse Keifer then raised the bed side rails to prevent the patient from falling off the bed, and checked the patient's vital signs. Except for slightly elevated blood pressure, the patient's vital signs were within normal limits. Nurse Keifer, then pushed the bed to within 10 feet of her nursing station to ensure that the patient would-be constantly observed during the remainder of her shift. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. E. B. White) Except on the two occasions when she made her routine rounds, nurse Keifer kept Mrs. White under constant personal observation until her shift ended at 7:00 a.m. on July 4, 1979. When she made her rounds, nurse Keifer advised her aides to keep Mrs. White under constant observation. During the remainder of her shift, nurse Keifer periodically reexamined Mrs. White. Physical symptoms of a fracture, or other injury resulting from the patient's fall, continued to be absent. At 4:30 a.m., nurse Keifer checked the patient's urine sample and detected no blood or other unusual signs. (Testimony of Dora Keifer) At the time of her accident on July 4, 1979, Mrs. White, an 88-year-old woman, was suffering from deafness, senility, disorientation, poor eyesight and arthritis. She had previously fractured her right hip, and a prosthetic device had been inserted. Her ailments caused her to frequently suffer, and complain of pain in the area of her right hip, for which her doctor (Dr. Manuel E. Lopez) had prescribed, by standing (continuing) order, a pain medication known as Phenophen No. 4. The standing order authorized the nursing staff to administer this pain medication to the patient, without further authorization from a physician, four times daily, and on an "as needed" basis to relieve Mrs. White's pain. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Mr. Manuel Lopez, Margaret Brock) Previous to and at the time of Mrs. White's accident, nurse Keifer was aware of Mrs. White's ailments, and frequent complaints of discomfort, as well as the standing order of Dr. Lopez which authorized the administering of Phenophen No. 4 to Mrs. White on an "as needed" basis to relieve pain. In addition, nurse Keifer, by background and training was qualified to examine, make judgments concerning, and render care to patients requiring emergency medical treatment. For several years, she had served as a part-time nurse on the night shift at the Nursing Home, and had served for 6 years in the emergency room and obstetric ward at Calhoun County Hospital. At the hospital, she had engaged in the detection and treatment of traumatic injuries and broken bones on a daily basis, and was familiar with the proper nursing and medical techniques used in caring for such injuries. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. E. B. White) Nurse Keifer had been instructed by local physicians (including Dr. Lopez) practicing at the Nursing Home that they should not be telephoned during the late evening and early morning hours unless, in the nurse's judgment, the patient required emergency care. Because Blountstown suffers a severe shortage of physicians, the judgment of licensed nurses necessarily assumes on increasingly important role in providing adequate medical care. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. E. B. White, Margaret Brook, Dr. Manuel Lopez) Between 1:30 a.m. (the time of Mrs. Trite's accident) and 7:00 a.m., on July 4, 1979, nurse Keifer administered Phenophen No. 4 two times to Mrs. White for the purpose of relieving pain. The initial dose was given Mrs. White shortly after she had complained of pain and been moved near nurse Keifer's duty station for observation. The drug appeared to alleviate Mrs. White's discomfort. Three or four hours later, after Mrs. White again complained of pain, a second dose was administered. (Testimony of Dora Keifer) Nurse Keifer administered the two doses of Phenophen No. 4 to Mrs. White during the early morning hours of July 4, 1979, without contacting, or seeking the further authorization of a physician. Having detected no symptoms of a bone fracture, or other injury to Mrs. White resulting from her fall, nurse Keifer concluded that administration of the medication to relieve pain was authorized by Dr. Lopez's standing order, and justified under the circumstances. She further made a judgment that Mrs. White was not suffering from an injury which justified emergency treatment, and the immediate contacting of a physician. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. Manuel Lopez, Dr. E. B. White) At 5:30 a.m. on July 4, 1979, nurse Keifer telephoned Calhoun County Hospital and left a message requesting Dr. Lopez to come to the Nursing Home and examine Mrs. White as soon as he completed his rounds at the hospital. Nurse Keifer was aware, at the time, that Dr. Lopez began his daily hospital rounds at 6:00 a.m. Later that morning, at the direction of Dr. Lopez, Mrs. White was taken to the hospital for x-rays which revealed that Mrs. White had fractured her right hip. She was returned to the Nursing Home that day, and transferred to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital for several days. No surgical repairs were ever made to the hip fracture, however, and Mrs. White was subsequently returned to the Nursing Home, for bed-side care. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. Lopez, Dr. E. B. White) It was nurse Keifer's professional judgment, based upon the facts known to her at that time, that Mrs. White's fall, and physical condition neither required emergency medical treatment nor justified the immediate contacting of a physician. Nurse Keifer further concluded that the administration of Phenophen No. 4 to relieve Mrs. White's pain, without further authorization of a physician, was necessary and authorized by the standing order of Dr. Lopez. These professional nursing judgments and actions were reasonable, justified by the facts, consistent with established health care standards applied in the Blountstown area, and did not endanger the life, or create a substantial probability of harm to Mrs. White. Although the Department's Medical Facilities Program Supervisor, Howard Chastain, testified that nurse Keifer's failure to immediately notify a physician concerning Mrs. White's fall presented an imminent danger to the patient, it is concluded that the contrary testimony of two experienced medical doctors constitutes the weight of the evidence on this issue. As to the meaning of Dr. Lopez's standing order con cerning administration of Phenophen No. 4 to Mrs. White, the Department's witnesses on this matter, James L. Myrah and Christine Denson, conceded that they would net disagree with Dr. Lopez if the doctor testified that nurse Keifer's action was consistent with the standing order. Dr. Lopez, subsequently, so testified. (Testimony of Dr. M. Lopez, Dr. E. B. White, James L. Myrah) Shortage of One Nurse on Night Shift During the period of June 1 through June 30, 1979, and July 1, through July 21, 1979, for a total of fifty-one (51) nights, the Nursing Home employed only one licensed nurse on the 11:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. night shift. (Testimony of Margaret Brook, J. L. Myrah) During this same 51-day time period, the number of patients at the Nursing Home fluctuated between 70 and 80 patients. (Testimony of Margaret Brook, J. L. Myrah, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2) The Nursing Home is managed by a licensed nursing home administrator, and provides a full range of health and related services to patients requiring skilled or extensive nursing home care. Most of the patients require nursing services on a 24-hour basis and are seriously incapacitated, mentally or physically. (Testimony of Margaret Brook) The Administrator of the Nursing Home was aware that Department rules required the employment of two licensed nurses on the night shift during June and July, 1979. She made numerous unsuccessful efforts to recruit, locate, and employ an additional nurse for the night shift. Her failure to hire the additional nurse required by Department rules was not a willful act of misfeasance or nonfeasance on her part--but was due to a statewide nursing shortage which is particularly severe in rural northwest Florida. Other nursing homes have experienced similar difficulty in recruiting and hiring the requisite number of licensed nurses. The Nursing Home received no economic benefit from its failure to employ the additional night nurse during the time in question because the cost of such an employee is fully reimbursed by the State. On approximately March 1, 1980, the Nursing Home located, and has since employed, the additional licensed nurse required by Department rules for the night shift. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Margaret Brook) Due to the widespread shortage of qualified nursing personnel, the Department ordinarily brings enforcement actions against nursing homes for noncompliance with the minimum nursing staff requirements only if the noncompliance is adversely affecting patient care. (Testimony of James L. Myrah, Margaret Brock) The shortage of one licensed nurse on the night shift during the time in question did not adversely affect the level of patient care provided by the Nursing Home. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Margaret Brock) The parties have submitted proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. To the extent that those findings and conclusions are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant to the issues in this cause, unsupported by the evidence, or law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department's Administrative Complaint, and the charges against Respondent contained therein, be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Pearce, Esquire District II Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Stephen D. Milbrath, Esquire Dempsey & Slaughter, P.A. Suite 610 - Eola Office Center 605 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services should approve the application for certificate of need (CON) of any one or more of five applicants for community nursing home beds in Lee County for the July 1989 planning horizon.
Findings Of Fact The Applicants Applications for certificates of need (CON) for nursing homes are accepted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) in batching cycles and are subject to competitive review. The Department comparatively reviewed and analyzed 13 individual applications for proposed nursing services for District VIII, Lee County, in the July, 1986 nursing home batching cycle. Five of those applications are at issue for purposes of this proceeding. Pertinent to this proceeding, petitioner, Maple Leaf of Lee County Health Care, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America (HCR filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4746), petitioner Forum Group, Inc. (Forum), filed an application for a 60-bed nursing home (CON 4755), petitioner, Health Quest Corporation (Health Quest), filed an application for a 60-bed nursing home (CON 4747), petitioner, Hillhaven, Inc., d/b/a Hillhaven Health Care Center Lee County (Hillhaven) filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4756), and respondent, Gene Lynn d/b/a Careage Southwest Healthcare Center (Careage) filed an application for a 120-bed nursing home (CON 4748). Each of these applications was timely filed. The Department's "preliminary" action The Department is the state agency charged with implementing and regulating the CON program for medical facilities and services in Florida. Within the Department, the Office of Community Medical Facilities is responsible for the review of CON applications and provides a recommendation for approval or disapproval after its analysis is concluded. The Department assigned the subject District VIII applications for the July, 1986 hatching cycle to Medical Facilities Consultant Robert May for review. Mr. May was supervised in his work by Elizabeth Dudek, an experienced Medical Facilities Consultant Supervisor, who has reviewed or supervised the review of approximately 1200 CON applications. Robert Nay and Elizabeth Dudek concurred in their evaluations of the applications and recommended that Hillhaven's application be approved for 60 beds in Lee County. This recommendation was forwarded to the Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities, Robert E. Naryanski, who also occurred with the recommendation on or about December 20, 1986, and forwarded the recommendation to Marta Hardy, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Planning and Development, for final approval. An unusual set of circumstances evolved from that approximate point in time with respect to the applications at issue. Sometime in late November 1986 Marta Hardy talked to Robert Sharpe, Administrator of the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, concerning the applications in this batching cycle and stated that she intended to involve him in the review procedure. In late December, she asked Mr. Sharpe to review the applications for four of the counties in the cycle, including Lee County. Mr. Sharpe is in a separate and distinct part of the Department, which reports to the Deputy Assistant Secretary but does not, in the ordinary course of operations, review certificate of need applications. Mr. Sharpe's involvement with reviewing nursing home applications had never occurred before and has not occurred since. However, Mr. Sharpe has been involved on limited occasions with reviewing hospital CON applications in preparation for administrative hearings. Careage had a CON application in each of the four districts that Mr. Sharpe was asked to review. Mr. Sharpe was not asked to review any other districts other than the four districts in which Careage had applications pending. In Mr. Sharpe's conversation with Ms. Hardy, Ms. Hardy specifically mentioned Careage while expressing her concern about the Department's ability to discriminate the best applicants on the basis of quality of care. Ms. Hardy mentioned no other applicant by name. Mr. Sharpe, in all circumstances, recommended Careage for approval. Mr. Sharpe did not attempt to do a complete re-review the applications, and did not redo any part of the review that had been performed by the Office of Community Medical Facilities specifically the need calculations and comparing the applications to the statutory review criteria. Mr. Sharpe did not apply statutory review criteria in his review of the applications because it had been determined that all the applicants were minimally qualified and met the statutory review criteria. Mr. Sharpe felt that the responsibility of his office was simply to do a comparative review to determine the best applicant. Mr. Sharpe placed information in the applications into what has been termed a "matrix." The purpose of the matrix was to present the information in the applications in a format which would facilitate a comparative analysis based on a greater number of factors than had previously been considered. Traditionally, the predominant factors utilized by the Department in reviewing applications were construction costs, Medicaid participation percentages, proposed sites, and charges. The matrix developed by Mr. Sharpe included additional factors which he felt would better address the quality of care to be provided, such as the size of facility, the size of the patient rooms, the amenities available to the patients and their families, the type and level of staffing, availability of special programs, and operating costs. By including a greater number of factors in the matrix, more information was considered in selecting the best applicant. As a result, the factors that traditionally had been considered by the Department were given relatively less weight. There was no notice to the applicants of this change in practice. Further, although all the information considered by Mr. Sharpe was taken from the applications and generally required to be in the application, the applicants reported the information differently, making a direct "apples-to-apples" comparison difficult. Mr. Sharpe's review of the applications spanned approximately five to eight days. Mr. Sharpe's staff in the information on the matrix from the applications, and, although Mr. Sharpe had personally reviewed all the applications, Mr. Sharpe did not personally check the information placed on matrix for accuracy. The Office of Community Medical Facilities' initial review covered a period of approximately six months. There was no evidence that the duties and responsibilities of the Office of Community Medical Facilities were not carried out in a thorough and appropriate manner. Ms. Dudek has more experience in reviewing CON applications than Mr. Sharpe, and she took into account, among other review criteria requirements, the type programs offered by the applicant and the quality of care the applicant had demonstrated and was capable of providing. Mr. Sharpe never talked to Ms. Dudek to find out the basis for her recommendation because he felt his responsibility was to do an independent review. Robert Sharpe reported his findings with regard to Lee County to Marta Hardy who apparently accepted Mr. Sharpe's recommendation on or about January 7, 1987, approving Careage's application for 60 beds and denying all others. On or about January 23, 1987, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, it was published that Careage was approved fob a 120-bed facility in Lee County. Actually HRS approved Careage for a 60-bed facility; the 120-bed figure in the Florida Administrative Weekly was erroneous. As a result of a new administration and Bob Griffin succeeding Ms. Hardy as Deputy Secretary in the Office of Health Planning, and due to his concerns about the unique manner in which these applications were reviewed and a decision made, another review of the applications for Lee County was conducted. The Office of Community Medical Facilities, the office originally responsible for reviewing the applications, was asked to do this review. This third review was conducted during the summer of 1987 by Bob May while this case was pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. In this third review, a matrix was also used, but not the identical matrix previously used by Mr. Sharpe. Indeed, the Office of Community Medical Facilities was instructed not to look at what Mr. Sharpe's office had done. The review resulted in a decision that HRS would maintain its position of supporting partial approval of the Careage application for 60 beds. By letter dated September 4, 1987, the parties were formally notified of the HRS decision and a Correction Notice was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly indicating that the notice published in January, 1987, stating that Careage had received a CON for 120 beds, should have shown a partial approval of 60 beds, and a denial of 60 beds. HCR, Forum, Health Quest and Hillhaven timely contested initial approval of the Careage application and their own respective denials. Careage and HRS are the respondents. Hillhaven, prior to final hearing, dismissed its case contesting the Careage approval for 60 beds, and in this proceeding contends that Hillhaven should be awarded a certificate of need because there is a bed need in excess of 60 beds in Lee County. Careage did not timely contest the denial of the 120 beds requested in its original application. Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America HCR, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Maple Leaf of Lee County Health Care, Inc., proposes to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in Lee County, Florida. At the time its application was submitted, HCR had not selected a site on the proposed facility, but at hearing proposed to locate it in the Ft. Myers area. Currently, HCR owns and operates 92 nursing homes in 19 different states, including seven within the State of Florida. Its existing Florida facilities are Pasadena Manor Nursing Home (South Pasadena, Florida), Community Convalescent Center (Plant City Florida), Kensington Manor (Sarasota, Florida), Jacaranda Manor (St. Petersburg, Florida) Wakulla Manor (Crawfordville, Florida, Heartland of St. Petersburg (St. Petersburg, Florida, and Rosedale Manor (St. Petersburg, Florida). Each of these facilities received superior ratings on their latest licensure and certification survey with the exception of Heartland and Rosedale, which received a standard and conditional rating respectively. Significantly, the conditional rating assigned to the Rosedale facility occurred less than six months after that facility was acquired by HCR, and all deficiencies were corrected within 19 days of the survey. HCR's current proposal for a 120-bed facility will be a one-story structure containing 40,000 gross square feet, including 2,000 square feet for an ancillary adult day care center. It will have 58 semi-private rooms with half-bath (toilet and sink) and four private rooms with full bath (toilet, sink and shower) located within four patient wings, two nursing stations, two dining rooms, central bathing facilities, beauty- barber shop, quite lounge, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, multi-purpose rooms, outdoor patio areas and the other standard functional elements required to meet licensure standards. In all, the proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. HCR proposes to dedicate one wing (14 semi-private and 1 private room) of its facility to the care of patients suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and related disorders. Alzheimer's Disease is a brain disorder that results in gradual memory loss and, as such loss progresses, a need for increased personal care. Historically, Alzheimer's patients have been mixed with other patients in nursing homes, often disrupting other patients and presenting problems of control for staff separate Alzheimer's care unit enables the nursing home to utilize special techniques to manage the patient without restraint or sedation, and provides the patient with a smaller, safer and specially designed area with specially trained staff to address the needs of such patients. However, absent fill-up, HCR does not propose to limit admission to its Alzheimer's unit solely to patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. HCR's Alzheimer's unit is reasonably designed, equipped and minimally staffed for its intended purpose. HCR also proposes to provide, as needed, subacute care at its facility. Due to the impacts of the federal DRG (diagnostically related group) system which encourages hospitals to discharge patients earlier, there has been an increased demand for subacute services in nursing homes. Included within the subacute services HCR proposes to offer are ventilator care, IV therapy, pulmonary aids, tube feeding, hyperalimentation, and percentage and long term rehabilitation. HCR currently provides a wide variety of such subacute services at its existing facilities, and it may reasonably be expected to continue such practice at the proposed facility. As an adjunct to the proposed nursing home, HCR proposes to operate an adult day care unit for 12 Alzheimer's Disease patients. Additionally, HCR will offer respite care within the nursing home when beds available. Adult care and respite care provide alternatives to institutional long-term care in nursing homes, aid in preventing premature rising home admissions, and promote cost containment. As initially reviewed by the Department, HCR's activity would be a single story building containing 40,000 gross square feet, including the day care area, with an estimated total project cost of $3,894,000. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $32,450 per bed, and as designed provides 127 net square feet of living space for private rooms and 166 square feet for semi- private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $2,200,000; costs per square foot $55.00; construct cost per bed 17,417; equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. HCR's estimate of project costs is reasonable. At hearing HCR updated its project costs to account for changes that arose during the delay between initial review and de novo hearing. As updated, the total project cost was $4,375,500, or $36,462 per bed. Construction equipment costs, as updated were as follows: construction costs $2,400,000; cost per square foot $60.00; construction cost per bed $19,000, equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. HCR's updated estimate of cost is reasonable. Staffing at the proposed 120-bed facility is designed to accommodate the needs of the skilled and intermediate care patients, as well as the special needs of the Alzheimer's and subacute patients. HCR will provide 24-hour registered nurse coverage for subacute patients and a higher staffing level in the Alzheimer's unit. The nursing home will provide 3.59 hours per patient in the Alzheimer's unit and 2.73 nursing hours overall, based on the assumption that 50 percent of the Alzheimer's patients will wanderers and that 50 percent of all patients will require skilled care. Precise staffing for subacute patients will be determined by the nature of the subacute services needed. HCR's staffing levels, as originally proposed and as updated, meet or exceed state standards. The salary and benefit estimates provided by HCR in its original application reflect salary and benefit levels current at the time of application, and the salary and benefit projections provided by HCR at bearing reflect current (1987) salaries and benefits inflated to the date of opening. Both estimates are reasonable. HCR's projection of utilization by class of pay as initially proposed was as follows: Private pay 51 percent, Medicaid 46 percent, and Medicare 3 percent. Due to its experience over the intervening 17 months since submittal of its application, HCR updated its assessment of utilization as follows: Private pay 50 percent, Medicaid 46 percent, and Medicare 4 percent. The current Lee County Medicaid experience level is 46 percent, and HCR provides an average 71 percent Medicaid occupancy in its Florida facilities. HCR's projections for payor mix are reasonable. HCR's initial application contained estimates of expenses and revenues current as of the date of application (July 1986) but failed to include an inflation factor to accommodate anticipated increases in expenses and revenues. Initially, T. projected its per diem room charges to be $60 to $85. At hearing, HCR projected its per diem room charges in the year opening (1990) to be $90 for a private room, $75 for a semiprivate room, $76.00 for Medicare patients, and $72 for Medicaid patients. The private, semi-private and Medicare charges were determined by inflating current (1987) Lee County charges forward to the year of opening. The Medicaid charges were based on a calculation of the Medicaid reimbursement formula. These charges, when multiplied by patient days, are a reasonable estimate of the projected revenues of the facility. HCR's estimate of expenses in its initial application was based on its current experience. Intervening events have lent new insight to its evaluation of expenses, as have intervening inflationary factors. While HCR's estimate of expenses and revenues was reasonable in its initial application, its current estimates comport with the reality of a 1990 opening and are reasonable. HCR has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other personnel necessary to staff its facility. Since HCR does not propose to initially limit admission to its Alzheimer's unit solely to patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders, its pro formas are premised on reasonable assumptions, and it has demonstrated the financial feasibility project in both the short term and long term. The proof demonstrates that HCR provides and Bill continue to provide quality care. HCR's corporate standards and guidelines regulate such areas as patient rights, staff development and orientation, physician and nurse services, pharmacy services and medication administration, social services, and infection control. HCR's manager of quality assurance, house professional services consultants, and quality assurance consultants regularly visit each HCR nursing home to implement the quality assurance standards and guidelines. Each HRC nursing home provides a staff development director who is responsible for the orientation of new employees, training new employees, and continuing training for all employees. Forum Group Inc. Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Currently Forum operates 22 Lang facilities and an additional 11 retirement living centers with attached nursing facilities, including one nursing facility in Florida. Its Florida facility holds a standard rating. Other facilities owned by Forum in Texas, Kentucky and Illinois do, however, hold superior ratings. Pertinent to this case, Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Lee County that would consist of its proposed 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home, an adult congregate living facility, and apartments or Independent living. Each of the three components which comprise Forum's retirement living center are physically connected and share some operational functions, such as a central kitchen, laundry, administrative area and heating plant. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution costs facility wide. The nursing facility proposed by Forum will be a single story building of wood frame and brick veneer construction containing 27,000 gross square feet. It will include 20 semi- private rooms with half bath, 16 private rooms with half bath, 3 private rooms with full bath, and one isolation room with full bath. Also included are a beauty-barber shop, quite lounge, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, and exam-treatment room. But for the length of the corridors in the patient wings, discussed infra, the proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. Forum's proposal, as initially reviewed by the Department, would have a total project cost of $2,314,800. This equates to $38,580 per bed, and as designed provides 150 net square feet of living space for private rooms and 228 net square feet for semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,377,000; cost per square foot $51.00; construction cost per bed $22,950; equipment costs $200,000; and equipment costs per bed $3,333. Forum's estimate of project cost is reasonable. Forum provided a single-line drawing indicating the general arrangement of spaces for its proposed facility. As proposed, the facility would consist of two patient wings, and a central nurse's station. The corridor lengths in the patient wings exceed state standards by 40 feet. They could, however, be modified to conform to State standards without significantly affecting the cost of construction. The project would have energy conservation features such as heavy duty roof and side insulation, double-glazed windows, and high efficiency heating and air conditioning equipment. The forum facility will offer skilled and intermediate care, and subacute care, including IV therapy, ventilator care, hyperalimentation, pulmonary aids, and short and long term rehabilitation. Forum would contract out for physical therapy, speech therapy, pharmacy consultation and a registered dietician. If needed, Forum would offer respite care when beds are available. The proposed staffing levels and salaries proposed by Forum in its application are reasonable and meet or exceed state standards. Forum has a staff training program, with pre-service and in-service training, and utilizes a prescreening procedure to assure it hires competent staff. Twenty-four hour coverage by registered nurses will be provided, and a staffing ratio of 2.9 will be maintained. The staffing level at the proposed facility is consistent with that experienced at Forum's existing Florida Facility. Forum provides, and will continue to provide, quality care. Forum's application projected its utilization by class of pay as follows: private pay 58.47 percent, Medicaid 37.16 percent, and Medicare 4.37 percent. Currently, Forum experiences a 48 percent Medicaid occupancy rate system-wide, although it only has 2 of 35 beds dedicated to Medicaid care in its present Florida facility. Forum estimated its revenues based on patient charges ranging from $50.64 per day for Medicaid/semi-private room to $75.00 per day for SNF/private pay/private room. Based on such revenues, its pro forma, utilizing a conservative 86.25 percent occupancy rate at the end of the second year of operation, demonstrated the short term and long term financial feasibility of the project as initially reviewed by the Department notwithstanding the fact that it had underestimated its Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates. At hearing, Forum sought to demonstrate that its project was currently feasible by offering proof that intervening events had not significantly impacted the financial feasibility of its project. To this end, Forum offered proof that the contingencies and inflation factors it had built into the construction of its initial proposal would substantially offset any increased costs or expenses of construction. Additionally, Forum sought to update its proposal at hearing by offering testimony that included an increase in the administrator's salary from $27,000 to $39,000, a decrease in interest in year one to $187,803, an increase in interest in year two to $250,790, and an increase in revenues based on patient charges ranging from $69.19 per day for Medicaid/semi private room to $90.00 per day for SNF/private pay/private room. Some of the applicants objected to Forum's proof directed at the current financial feasibility of its project because it had not previously provided them with a written update of its application as ordered by the Hearing Officer. The applicants' objection was well founded. Further, the proof was not persuasive that any contingencies and inflation factors it had built into its initial proposal would substantially offset any increased costs or expenses of construction, nor that salaries, benefits and other expenses that would be currently experienced were appropriately considered in addressing the present financial feasibility of Forum's project. While Forum has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for initial capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishments and operation, and will be able to recruit any other personnel necessary to staff its facility, it has failed to demonstrate that its proposal, as updated, is financially feasible in the long term. Health Quest Corporation Health Quest is a privately held corporation which owns, develops and operates health care facilities and retirement centers on a national basis. Health Quest has been in business for approximately 20 years, and currently operates 11 long-term care facilities and three retirement centers in Indiana, Illinois, and Florida. Its existing Florida facilities are located in Jacksonville, Boca Raton, and Sarasota. It also has facilities under construction in Winter Park and Sunrise, Florida. Health Quest also held a number of other certificates of need to construct nursing facilities in Florida. Recently, however, it decided to transfer or sell 3-4 of those certificates because its initial decision to develop nine new projects simultaneously would have, in its opinion, strained its management staff and commitment to high quality standards. HCR is, however, currently proceeding with several projects in Florida, and anticipates that the proposed Lee County facility will be brought on line thereafter. Pertinent to this case, Health Quest proposes to develop a retirement center in Lee County that would consist of a 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home, and 124 assisted living studio apartments (an ACLF). 4/ The two components which comprise Health Quest's retirement center are physically connected and share some operational functions such as a common kitchen, laundry, therapy areas, maintenance areas, and administrative areas. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution of costs facility wide. In addition to providing an economical distribution of costs, the two components of the retirement center are mutually supportive. The nursing care unit supports the ACLF by making sure that health care services are available to the assisted living people. The ACLF supports the nursing unit as a source of referral and as an alternative to nursing home placement. The nursing facility proposed by Health Quest will be a single story building of masonry and concrete construction. It will include 6 private rooms and 27 semi-private rooms with half-bath attached, central nurse's station, central bathing facilities, beauty-barber shop, quite lounge, central dining area, physical and occupational therapy room and outdoor patio The center, itself, will provide patios, walkways and other outdoor features to render the facility pleasant and attractive, and will provide multi-purpose areas to be used for religious services and other activities, an ice cream parlor and gift shop. As proposed, the nursing home meets or exceeds state standards. As initially reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's proposed facility contained 25,269 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $2,244,505. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $37,408 per bed, and as designed provides 240 net square feet of living space for both private and semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,470,333; cost per square foot $58.19; construction cost per bed $24,506; equipment costs $298,200; and equipment cost per bed $4,970. While the majority of Health Quest's costs are reasonable, its equipment costs are not. These costs are substantially the same as those projected in its original application for a 120-bed facility, which at an equipment cost of $300,000 derived an equipment cost per bed of $2,500. Why the same cost should prevail at this 60-bed facility was not explained by Health Quest, and its equipment cost per bed of $4,970 was not shown to be reasonable. As with most applicants, Health Quest updated its project costs at hearing to account for the changes which were occasioned by the delay between initial review and de novo hearing. As updated, the estimated project cost is $2,290.331, $38,172 per bed. Construction equipment costs were as follows: Construction costs $1,507,043; cost per square foot $59.64; construction cost per bed $25,117; equipment costs $302,700; and equipment costs per bed $5,045. Again, while the majority of Health Quest's costs are reasonable its equipment costs are, for the reasons heretofore expressed, not shown to be reasonable. The Health Quest facility will offer skilled and intermediate nursing care, and subacute care, including IV therapy, chemotherapy, TPN therapy and tracheostomy care. Also to be offered are respite care as beds are available and, within the complex, adult day care. Health Quest will maintain a nursing staffing ratio of approximately 3.25 hours per patient day for skilled care and 2.5 for intermediate care. As originally reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's staffing levels and expenses were reasonable. At hearing, Health Quest increased its staffing levels to account for an increased demand in labor intensive care, and increased its staffing expenses to account for the intervening changes in the market place. As updated, Health Quest's staffing levels and expenses are reasonable. Health Quest's projection of utilization by class of pay in the application reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 51.6 percent, Medicaid 45 percent, and Medicare 3.4 percent. Health Quest's utilization projection, as updated at hearing, was as follows: private pay 50.9 percent, Medicaid 45 percent, and Medicare 4.1 percent. TAB Health Quest currently serves 30 percent Medicaid patients at its Jacksonville facility, 10 percent Medicaid patients at its Boca Raton facility, and no Medicaid patients at its Sarasota facility. It has, however, committed to serve 40 percent and 48 percent Medicaid patients at its Sunrise and Winter Park facilities, respectively. Health Quest's projections of payor are reasonable. Initially, Health Quest projected its per diem room charges to range from $52 for skilled and intermediate care Medicare patients to $57.25 for skilled care-private and Medicare patients. It did not, however, draw any distinction between private and semi-private rooms. At hearing, Health Quest projected its per diem room charges as follows: $90 for SNF/single/private pay; $73 for SNF/double/private pay; $73 for SNF/double/Medicare; $68 for SF/double Medicaid; $68 for ICF/single/private pay; $70.75 for ICF/double/private pay; and $68 for ICF/double/Medicaid. Health Quest's fill-up and occupancy projections, as well as its projections of revenue and expenses, are reasonable. They were reasonable when initially reviewed by the Department, and as updated. During the course of these proceedings, a serious question was raised as to whether Health Quest had demonstrated that it had the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, or that it was committed to the subject project. Within the past three years, Health Quest has sold three of its approved CONS and is considering the sale a fourth due to its inability to handle that number of projects, and the adverse impact it would have on its ability to deliver quality care. Notwithstanding its inability to proceed with approved projects, Health Quest proceeded to hearing in October 1987 and December 1987 for nursing home CONs in Hillsborough County and Lee County (the subject application), and also had nine such applications pending in the January 1987 batching cycle and eight such applications in the October 1987 batching cycle. Health Quest's actions are not logical, nor supportive of the conclusion that it is committed to this project or that it possesses available resources for project accomplishment. Under the circumstances, Health Quest has failed to demonstrate that it has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. Health Quest's facilities in Jacksonville and Boca Raton currently hold superior ratings from the Department. A superior rating includes consideration of staffing ratios, staff training, the physical environment, physical and restorative therapies, social services, and other professional services. Those facilities are monitored, as would the subject facility, by Health Quest for quality care through a system of quarterly peer review, and provide extensive staff education programs that include orientation training for new staff and on-going education for regular staff. Health Quest has demonstrated that it has provided quality care. However, in light of the strain its current activities have placed on its resources, it is found that Health Quest has failed to demonstrate that it could provide quality care at the proposed facility were its application approved. Hillhaven, Inc. Hillhaven is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Hillhaven Corporation, which is a subsidiary of National Medical Enterprises. The Hillhaven Corporation has been business for almost 30 years, and is currently responsible for the operation of approximately 437 nursing homes and retirement centers nationally, including 15 nursing homes which it owns or operates in the State of Florida. Hillhaven proposes to develop a new 120-bed skilled and intermediate care community nursing home in Fort Myers, Lee County, consisting of 38,323 square feet. It will include 14 private rooms and 53 semi-private rooms, a full bath attached to each room (shower, toilet and sink), central tub rooms, beauty- barber shop, quite lounge, chapel, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, and outdoor patio areas. In all, Hillhaven's proposed facility meets or exceeds state requirements for the construction of nursing homes. As initially reviewed by the Department, Health Quest's proposed facility would be a single-story building containing 38,323 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $3,544,444. As proposed, the total project cost equates to $29,537 per bed, and as designed provides 217 net square feet of living space for both private and semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows; construction costs $2,146,000; cost per square foot $56.00; construction cost per bed $17,884; equipment costs $442,005; and equipment cost per bed $3,683.38. Hillhaven's project costs are reasonable. As with the other applicants, Hillhaven update its project costs at hearing to account for the changes which were occasioned by the delay between initial review and de novo hearing, certain oversights in its initial submission, and its decision to proceed with type 4 construction as opposed to type 5 construction as originally proposed. As updated, the estimated project cost is $4,089,639, or $34,155.33 per bed. Construction equipment costs, as updated, were as follows: construction costs $2,446,088; cost per square foot $63.82; construction cost per bed $20,384; equipment costs $521,200; and equipment costs per bed $4,343.33. By far, the biggest factor in the increased construction costs was Hillhaven's decision to proceed with type 4 construction as opposed to type 5 construction. Either type of construction would, however, meet or exceed state standards, and Hillhaven's estimates of construction and equipment costs are reasonable. The Hillhaven facility will offer skilled and intermediate care, occupational therapy, speech therapy, physical therapy, recreational services, restorative nursing services, and social services. Hillhaven does not discriminate on admission, and would admit Alzheimer's and subacute patients as presented. Were sufficient demand experienced, Hillhaven has the ability to provide and would develop a full Alzheimer's unit, and provide day care and respite care. Currently, Hillhaven operates 36 Alzheimer's units at its facilities nation wide, but has experienced no demand for such a special unit or other special care at its existent Lee County facility. As originally reviewed by the Department, Hillhaven's staffing levels an expenses were reasonable. At hearing, Hillhaven increased its staffing levels to account for staff inadvertently omitted from its initial application, and increased its staffing expenses to account or intervening changes in the market place. As updated, Hillhaven's staffing level is 2.5, and its staffing levels and expenses are reasonable. Hillhaven's projected utilization by class of pay as originally reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 30 percent, Medicaid 60 percent, and Medicare 10 percent. As updated at hearing, Hillhaven's utilization projection was as follows: private pay 44 percent, Medicaid 53 percent, and Medicare 3 percent. Currently, Hillhaven provides, on average, 53 percent Medicaid care at its facilities in Florida. Hillhaven's estimate of payor mix was reasonable and, in light of intervening changes in circumstance, was reasonable as updated. Hillhaven's patient charges for its second year of operation as originally reviewed by the Department ranged from $58.60 to $62.00 per day. As updated, Hillhaven's patient charges ranged from $52.13 to $73.50 per day. Hillhaven's estimated charges were achievable when initially proposed and as updated, and are reasonable. Hillhaven's fill-up and occupancy projections, as well as its projections of revenues and expenses, are reasonable. They were reasonable when initially reviewed by the Department, and comport, as updated, with the current experience in Lee County. Hillhaven has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other necessary personnel to staff its facility. Its pro forma estimates are premised on reasonable assumptions, and Hillhaven has demonstrated the short term and long term financial feasibility of its project. Currently, Hillhaven owns or operates 15 facilities in the State of Florida. Of these 15 facilities, two have opened within the past year and are not eligible for ratings. Nine of the 13 eligible facilities are operating with superior licenses. Of the remaining four facilities, two have a standard license and two have a conditional license. The two facilities with conditional ratings have both resolved their deficiencies. Hillhaven has provided and will continue to provide quality care. It ensures that quality care will be maintained within its facilities by drawing upon the professional resources four regional offices comprised of registered nurses, quality assurance monitors, regional dietitians, maintenance supervisors, employee relations specialists, and other administrative support personnel. Regional consultants visit company facilities monthly to plan, organize and monitor operations, and to conduct in-service training workshops. Overall, Hillhaven provides each facility with an in-depth quality assurance program. Gene Lynn d/b/a Careage Southwest Healthcare Center Gene Lynn (Careage) is the president and 100 percent owner of Careage Corporation. Since 1962, Careage has developed approximately 150 nursing homes and retirement centers, as well as 100 medically related facilities, in 22 states and the Virgin Islands. Until December 1986 it did not, however, own or operate any facilities. Currently, Careage operates four nursing homes in the United States (one in the State of Washington, two in the State of California, and one in the State of Arizona) , but none in Florida. The home office of Careage is located in Bellevue, Washington. Careage proposed to develop a new 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Lee County with specialty units for subacute and Alzheimer's care, consisting of 45,500 square feet. It would include a patient care unit consisting of 2 isolation rooms and 7 private rooms with full bath and 45 semiprivate rooms with half-bath, an Alzheimer's unit consisting of 1 private room with full bath and 10 semiprivate rooms with half bath, central dining area, beauty-barber shop, quiet lounge, chapel, physical therapy room, occupational therapy room, outdoor patio areas, and exam-treatment room. As proposed, the nursing home meets or exceeds state standards. As initially reviewed by the Department, Careage's proposed facility was a single-story building containing 45,500 gross square feet, with an estimated total project cost of $4,150,000. As proposed, the total project cost equates to 34,583 per bed, and as designed provides 184-227 net square feet of living space for isolation/private rooms, and 227-273 net square feet of living space or semi-private rooms. Construction equipment costs were as follows: construction costs $2,583,125; cost per square foot $56.77; construction cost per bed $21,526; equipment costs $420,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. Careage's methods of construction, as well as its construction and equipment costs, are reasonable. The Careage facility would offer skilled and intermediate care, occupational therapy, physical therapy, recreational services and social services. Additionally, the proposal includes a special 21-bed unit dedicated solely to the treatment of Alzheimer's disease patients, and a dedicated 10-bed unit for subacute care which will accommodate technology dependent children care. Among the subacute services to be offered are hyperalimentation, IV therapy, ventilators, heparin flush, and infusion pumps for administration of fluids. Careage will offer respite care as beds are available, and will offer day care in a separate facility. Careage's projected utilization by class of pay as originally reviewed by the Department was as follows: private pay 49 percent, Medicaid 40 percent, Medicare 3 percent, subacute (private) 6 percent, and VA 2 percent. Careage's patients charges for its facility were projected as follows: private and VA (room rate only) $63.86, Medicaid (all inclusive rate) $59.23, Medicaid (all inclusive rate) $108.15, and private (other) /subacute (room rate only) $128.75. Careage's fill-up and occupancy projections as well as its projections of revenues and expenses, for its 120-bed facility were not shown to be reasonable. First, in light of the fact that there was no quantifiable demand for a dedicated Alzheimer's unit and subacute care unit, as discussed infra at paragraphs 126-129, no reliable calculation of fill-up and occupancy rates or revenues and expenses could be derived that was, as the Careage application is, dependent on such revenue stream. Second, the Careage pro forma was predicated on average rates experienced in Lee County. Since Careage proposes heavier nursing care than that currently experienced in Lee County, its estimates of patient charges are not credible. At hearing, Careage updated its 120-bed application to account for inflationary factors that had affected the project since it was first reviewed, and to correct two staffing errors. These updates did not substantially change the project. Careage has the available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and will be able to recruit any other necessary personnel to staff its facility. Its pro forma estimates were not, however, premised on reasonable assumptions, and Careage has failed to demonstrate the short term and long term financial feasibility of its 120-bed project. Following the Department's initial review of the applications in this batching cycle, it proposed to award a certificate of need to Careage for a 60- bed facility, premised on its conclusion that there was insufficient numeric need to justify an award of beds exceeding that number, notwithstanding the fact that the application of Careage was for 120 beds and did not request or propose a 60-bed facility. Notably, all financial, staffing, construction, equipment and other projections described in the Careage application were based on a 120- bed facility, and no information was provided regarding a 60- bed facility. Also notable is the fact that the other applicants were not accorded equal consideration. Not surprisingly, the proposed award of a CON for 60-beds to Careage was timely challenged, but Careage did not protest the Department's denial of its application for 120 beds but appeared as a respondent to defend the Department's decision to award it 60 beds. At hearing, Careage offered proof of the reasonableness of its 120- bed proposal over the objection of the other applicants. /5 Careage contends that its proposed 60-bed facility is a scaled down version of its 120-bed proposal Careage proposes to offer the same services in its 60-bed facility as it proposed in its 120-bed facility, including the 21-bed Alzheimer's unit and 10-bed subacute care unit. Its proposed 60- bed facility is not, however, an identifiable portion of its initial project. As proposed, the 60-bed facility would contain 26,900 gross square feet, and meet or exceed state standards. It would include a patient care unit consisting of 1 isolation room and 4 private rooms with full bath, 17 semi- private rooms with half-bath, an Alzheimer's unit consisting of 1 private room with full bath and 10 semi-private rooms with half-bath, together with the same amenities offered by the 120-bed facility, but on a reduced scale. As proposed, the total project cost for the 60-bed facility is $2,475,000, which equates to $41,250 per bed. As designed, the facility would provide the same net square footage of living space for private and semi-private rooms as the 120-bed facility. Construction equipment costs would be as follows: construction costs $1,431,750; cost per square foot $53.22; construction cost per bed $23,863; equipment costs $210,000; and equipment cost per bed $3,500. Careage's methods of construction, as well as its construction and equipments costs, are reasonable. Careage's projected utilization by class of pay in its 60-bed facility was as follows: private pay 47 percent, Medicaid 40 percent, Medicare 5 percent, subacute (private) 6 percent, and VA 2 percent. Careage's patient charges for its 60-bed facility were projected as follows: private and VA (room rate only) $66.00, Medicaid (all Inclusive rate) $63.50, Medicare (all inclusive rate) $120.00, private (other)/subacute (room rate only) $130.00. Careage's fill-up and occupancy projections, its projections of revenue and expenses, and its pro forma estimates for its 60-bed facility suffer the same deficiencies as those for its proposed 120-bed facility. Under the circumstances, Careage has failed to demonstrate the short term and long term financial feasibility of its 60-bed facility. While Careage has only owned and operated nursing homes for a short time, the proof demonstrates that it has and will continue to provide quality care for its residents. The Alzheimer's unit and subacute care units are reasonably designed, equipped and staffed for their intended functions. Staffing ratios in the subacute unit will be 6.0, and in the other areas of the facility 3.0. Careage currently utilizes a quality assurance program at each facility which includes a utilization review committee, safety committee, infection control committee, and pharmaceutical committee. Each facility also has a resident advisory council, community advisory council, and employee advisory council. Presently, Careage is developing a company level quality assurance program, and has initiated announced and unannounced site visits by a quality assurance expert to evaluate resident care, operations, maintenance and physical environment. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services The opinions expressed by the witnesses offered by the Department were premised on information available to them while these applications underwent "preliminary" review. The information available to them at that time, and represented by the State Agency Action Report (SAAR), was incomplete and inaccurate in many respects, including the services to be provided by some of the applicants and the approved bed inventory and occupancy rates utilized in the need methodology. These witnesses were not made privy to, and expressed no opinions, regarding the relative merits of the applications in light of the facts developed at hearing. Throughout the hearing, counsel for the Department objected to evidence from any applicant regarding "updates" (changes) to their applications as they were deemed complete by the Department prior to its initial review. It was the position of the Department's counsel, but otherwise unexplicated, that the only appropriate evidence of changed conditions after the date the application was deemed complete were those changes which relate to or result from extrinsic circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, such as inflation and other current circumstances external to the application. The majority of the "updated" material offered by the applicants at hearing did result from the effects of inflation, the passage of time between the application preparation and the dates of final hearing, changes in the market place regarding nursing salaries, changes in the Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement system and typographical errors in the application. Some changes in design were offered as a result of the applicant's experience with other construction projects and in order to comply with licensing regulations. There were also some changes which resulted from better information having been secured through more current market surveys. None of the applicants attempted to change their planning horizon, the number of beds proposed, the proposed location of the facility or the services to be offered except Careage. The Department has established by rule the methodology whereby the need for community nursing home beds in a service district shall be determined. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)(2), Florida Administrative Code; formerly, Rule 10- 5.11(21)(b) Florida Administrative Code. The first step in calculating need pursuant to the rule methodology is to establish a "planning horizon." Subparagraph 2 of the rule provides: Need Methodology... The Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds 3 years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs a. through i. The Department interprets subparagraph 2, and the applicants concur, as establishing a "planning horizon" in certificate of need proceedings calculated from the filing deadline for applications established by Department rule. This interpretation is consistent with the numeric methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2, and with the decision in Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Applying the Department's interpretation to the facts of this case establishes a "planning horizon" of July 1989. Pertinent to this case, subparagraphs 2a-d provide the methodology for calculating gross bed need for the district/subdistrict in the horizon year. In this case, the applicable district is District 8, and the applicable subdistrict is Lee County. The first step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BA", the estimated bed rate for the population age group 65-74 in the district. This rate is defined by subparagraph 2b as follows: BA LB/ (POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. The parties concur that the district licensed bed figure (LB), as well as the subdistrict licensed bed figure (LBD) is calculated based on the number of community nursing home beds as of June 1, 1986. The Department's Semi-Annual Nursing Home Census Report and Bed Need Allocation prepared for the July 1986 review cycle (July 1989 planning horizon) listed 4,193 licensed community nursing home beds in District 8 and 996 in Lee County. However, that count taken on May 1, 1986, did not include 120 new beds which were licensed in Charlotte County on May 8, 1986. The count also excluded 287 beds at four other facilities in the district, including 60 beds at Calusa Harbor in Lee County, because they were listed as sheltered beds according to Department records at that time. After passage of Section 651.118(8), Florida Statutes, the Department surveyed the facilities and found that the beds at these four facilities were operated as community beds rather than sheltered beds. Under the circumstances, the proof demonstrates that as of June 1, 1986, there were 4,600 licensed community nursing home beds in district 8 (LB) and 1,056 in Lee County (LBD). The formula mandated by the rule methodology or calculating BA requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. The rule does not, however, prescribe the date on which the "current population" is to be derived. Some of the applicants contend that the current population" for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated or the July batching cycle, OR based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. Under this theory, January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of that period, is the appropriate date to calculate "current population" to derive PCPC and POPD. The Department contends that "current population" for POPC and POPD should be calculated as of July 1986, the filing deadline for applications in this review cycle. The Department's position is, however, contrary to its past and current practice. The need reports issued by the Department between December 1984 and December 1986, routinely used a three and one- half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population." In the January 1987 batching cycle, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, the Department utilized a three and one-half spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" when it awarded beds in that cycle. The Department offered no explanation of why, in this case, it proposed to deviate from its past and current practice. Under the circumstances, January 1, 1986, is the appropriate date on which the "current population" is to be calculated when deriving POPC and POPD. The parties are also in disagreement as to whether population estimates developed after the application deadline can used to establish the current population. Rule 10- 5.011(k)2h, Florida Administrative Code, mandates that population projections shall be based upon the official estimates and projections adopted by the Executive Office of the Governor, but does not limit such proof to any particular estimate. The Department advocates the use of population estimates existent at the application deadline. Accordingly, it would apply the official estimates and projections adopted by the Executive Office of the Governor as of July 1, 1986. Other parties would apply the more recent estimates adopted by the Office of the Governor as of July 1, 1987. In this case, the use of either estimate would have no significant effect on the result reached under the rule methodology; however, since all population estimates and projections are only approximations rather than actual counts, it would be more reasonable from a health planning perspective to use the latest estimates of the 1987 population than the estimates available at the time of application. In this case, this means using July 1, 1987, estimates of January 1986 populations. These estimates are still "current" as of January 1986, since It is still the January 1986 population that is to be measured, and more reliable from a health planning perspective than the prior projection. In the same manner, July 1, 1987, estimates of horizon year 1989 populations (PCPA and POP), infra, would also be used rather than July 1, 1986, estimates of that population. Accordingly, Forum's calculation POPC (128,871), POPD (77,194), POPA (149,645), and POPB (95,748) is appropriate. (Forum Exhibit 10, Appendix A) Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 26 to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: BA 4,600/(128,871 + (6 x 77,194) BA 4,600/(128,871 + 463,164) BA 4,600/592,035 BA .0077698 The second step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BB", the estimated bed rate for the population age group 75 and over in the district. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2c, and calculated in this case as follows: BB 6 x BA BB 6 x .0077698 BB .0466188 The third step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "A", the district's age adjusted number of community nursing homes beds" at the horizon year. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2a as follows: A (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) Where: POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant department district projected three years into the future. POPR is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2a to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: A (149,645 x .0077698) + (95,748 x .0466188) A 1,162.7117 + 4,422.4086 A 5,585.12 The final step in the calculation of gross need in the horizon year is to derive "SA", the preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds;" gross need in the case. 7/ This calculation is defined by subparagraphs 2d as follows: SA A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average 6 month occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Occupancy rates established prior to the first batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of July 1 through December 31; occupancy rates established prior to the second batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of January 1 through June 30. The batching cycle in which these applications were filed, however, occurred before the Department amended its rule to include the fixed need pool concept contemplated by subparagraph 2d. Accordingly, the parties concur that the six month period on which the average occupancy rate is calculated is not as set forth in subparagraph 2d of the current rule, but, rather, defined by former rule 1C--5. 11(21)(b)4 as follows: OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle... In calculating the occupancy rate (OR) for the licensed community nursing homes in the subdistrict (Lee County) the Department derived a figure of 91.91. The Department arrived at this figure based on the first day of the month patient census of each facility considered to have community beds (LBD=1,056), which included the 60 beds at Shell Point Nursing Pavilion; assumed that such census was maintained throughout the entire month; and then divided such patient days by the actual number of beds available. The Department's methodology is an accepted health planning technique, and comports with its previous practice. Some of the parties disagree with the technique utilized by the Department to calculate OR, and advocate the use of actual patient day occupancy to derive OR. This technique differs from the "first of the month" technique by utilizing the actual number of patient days experienced by the facility, as opposed to assuming a constant census based on first of the month data. This alternative methodology is, likewise, an accepted health planning technique, and if proper assumptions are utilized will yield a more meaningful result than the Department's methodology. In this case, the proponents of the "actual patient day occupancy" methodology, erroneously assumed that 160 beds at Shell Point Nursing Pavilion were community nursing homes beds, as opposed to 60 beds; and, based on an erroneous LBD of 1,156, derived a subdistrict occupancy rate of 92.97. Under such circumstances, these proponents calculations are not reliable, and the subdistrict occupancy rate derived by the Department is accepted. Applying the facts of this case to the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2d produces the following gross need calculation for the subdistrict: 5A 5,585.12 x (1,056/4,600) x (.9191/.9) SA 5,585.12 x .2295652 x 1.0212222 SA 1309.36 The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net need from gross need. According to subparagraph 2i, this need is calculated as follows: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for Certificate of Need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant department subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs 2.a. through f. unless the subdistrict's average occupancy rate for the most recent six months is less than 80 percent, in which case the net bed allocation is zero. The number of approved and licensed nursing home beds for the second batching cycle in 1987 shall be based on the number of approved and licensed beds as of August 1, 1987, in subsequent nursing home batching cycles, the number of licensed and approved beds to be used in establishing net need for a particular batching cycle shall be determined as of the agency's initial decision for the immediately preceding nursing home batching cycle. While the rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" In the subdistrict from the cross need previously calculated, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated when, as here, the batching cycle at issue predates its enactment. In the face of this dilemma, the parties rely on the provisions of former rule 10-5.11(21)(b) , Florida Administrative Code, which was existent when their applications were filed to resolve their dispute. Under the circumstances, reference to former rule 10-5.11(21)(b), is appropriate. Former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9 provides: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subaragraphs 1 through 9 (sic 8).... (Emphasis added) While the former rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" in the subdistrict from the gross need calculated under subparagraphs (b)1-8, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated. The Department asserts that the number of licensed beds should be calculated as of June 1, 1986 (the date established by subparagraph (b)7 of the former rule as the data base for calculating LB and LBD, and the number of approved beds as of December 18, 1986 (the date the Department's supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report). The other parties would likewise calculate licensed beds as of June 1, 1986, but would also calculate approved beds as of that date. The Department offered no reasonable evidentiary basis for its interpretation of the date at which the total number of licensed and approved beds are to be calculated under subparagraph (b)9 of the former rule. As discussed below, the dates used by the Department and the other parties for purposes of calculating net need were facially unreasonable. The Inventory of licensed and approved beds under subparagraph (b)9 of the former rule, as well as subparagraph 2i of the current rule, are inextricably linked. As approved beds are licensed, the approved bed inventory decreases and the licensed bed inventory increases. The Department's interpretation of the dates at which licensed and approved beds are to be counted is neither logical nor rational, since it could result in some beds not being counted as either licensed or approved. For example, if beds were approved and not yet licensed on June 1, 1986, but licensed before the consultant supervisor signed the SAAR (state agency action report), they would not be counted in either inventory. On the other hand, the other parties' approach would ignore all beds licensed or approved from previous batching cycles after June 1, 1986 which beds were intended to serve at least a portion of the future population. The fundamental flaw in the parties' approach to establishing an inventory date under subparagraph (b)9, was the assumption that subparagraph (b)7 of the former rule defined licensed bed inventory for purposes of subparagraph (b)9. The Department's rule must be construed in its entirety, and all parts of the rule must be construed so as to work harmoniously with its other parts. So construed, the only logical conclusion to be drawn, as hereinafter demonstrated, is that subparagraph (b)7 defines LB and LBD ("current" licensed beds) for the cross need calculation under the methodology defined by subparagraphs (b)1-4, and does not presume to define licensed beds for the net need calculation under subparagraph (b)9. Subparagraphs (b)1-4 and 7 of the numeric need methodology prescribed by the former rule is designed to yield a gross bed need for the horizon year. The keys to this methodology are the calculation of a current bed rate (BA) and current occupancy rate (OR) for the current using population, and the projection of those rates on the population to be served in the horizon year. A meaningful calculation of the current bed rate cannot, however, be derived without a current inventory of licensed beds (LB and LBD). Accordingly, the relationship between subparagraph (b)7, which defines the data base (June 1, 1986 in this case) for defining LB and LBD (the "current" licensed bed inventory) to the gross bed need calculation is apparent. The parties' suggestion that subparagraph (b)7 defines licensed bed inventory under subparagraph (b)9 not only ignores the inextricable link between subparagraph (b)7 and the gross bed need methodology, but also the language and purpose of subparagraph (b)9. The purpose of that subparagraph is to derive a realistic estimate of actual (net) bed need in the horizon year. Since all licensed and approved beds from previous batching cycles were intended to serve at least a portion of the horizon population, it would be illogical to ignore any of those beds when calculating net need. Accordingly, it would be unreasonable in this case not to count any beds that were licensed or approved from previous batching cycles between June 1, 1986, and the date a decision is rendered on these applications. Indeed, subparagraph (b)9 speaks to "the total number" of licensed and approved beds, not beds existent on June 1, 1986. In sum, subparagraph (b)7 cannot be read to define licensed bed inventory under subparagraph (b)9, and the parties' suggestion that it can is rejected as contrary to the clear language of the rule methodology. See: Boca Raton Artificial Kidney Center, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 493 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Since the purpose of subparagraph (b)9 is to calculate a realistic estimate of the net bed need for the horizon year, it is appropriate to use the most current inventory of licensed and approved beds at the point a decision is rendered on an application. This assures to the greatest extent possible that the horizon population will not be over or undeserved. In those circumstances where the SAAR becomes final agency action, the Department's approach of calculating inventory on the date the supervisory consultant signs the SAAR, assuming that inventory includes licensed and approved beds on that date, might be reasonable. However, where, as here, the SAAR constitutes only preliminary agency action, and a de novo review of the application is undertaken, there is no rational basis for subsuming that inventory. The rule methodology considered, the only rational conclusion is that net need be derived on the date of de novo review, and that it be calculated reducing the gross need calculation by the inventory of licensed and approved beds from previous batching cycles existent on that date. As of the date of administrative hearing there were 1,056 licensed beds and 120 approved beds in the subdistrict. Applying the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2i to the facts of this case calculates a net need of 145 community nursing home beds for the July 1989 planning horizon. Special Circumstances. The Department will not normally approve an application for new or additional nursing home beds in any service district in excess of the number calculated by the aforesaid methodology. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Succinctly, the need for nursing home services, whether they be general or special, is a product of the rule methodology, and not relevant to a calculation of need absent a demonstration of special circumstances. The Department has adopted by rule the methodology to be utilized in demonstrating special circumstances that would warrant a consideration of factors other than the numeric need methodology in deciding the need for nursing home services. That rule, 10-5.011(1)(k)2; Florida Administrative Code, provides: In the event that the net bed allocation is zero the applicant may demonstrate that circumstances exist to justify the approval of additional beds under the other relevant criteria specifically contained at Section 10-5.011. Specifically, the applicant may show that persons using existing and like services are in need of nursing home care but will be unable to access nursing home services currently licensed or approved within the subdistrict. Under the provision, the applicant must demonstrate that those persons with a documented need for nursing home services have been denied access to currently licensed but unoccupied beds or that the number of persons with a documented need exceeds the number of licensed unoccupied and currently approved nursing home beds. Existing and like services shall include the following as defined in statute or rule, adult congregate living facilities, adult foster homes, homes for special 505 home health services, adult day health care, adult day care, community care for the elderly, and home care for the elderly. Patients' need for nursing home care must be documented by the attending physicians' plans of care or orders, assessments performed by staff of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or equivalent assessments performed by attending physicians indicating need for nursing home care. In the instant case, some of the applicants have proposed special services, including an Alzheimer's unit, subacute care unit, and beds for technology dependent children. They offered, however, no proof that any person with a documented need for such services had been denied access to available beds that the number of persons with a documented need exceeded the number of available beds. Succinctly, there is no credible proof that the need for nursing home services in Lee County exceeds that calculated pursuant to the numeric need methodology. While there are no special circumstances existent in this case that would justify an award of beds in excess of that calculated by the rule methodology, that does not mean that consideration of the Alzheimer's, subacute and technology dependent children services offered by some of the applicants is not relevant to the comparative review of the subject applications. Rather, it means that the need for such services will presumptively be met within the need calculated by the rule methodology. How the applicants propose to address that need is, however, a matter for consideration in a comparative review of their applications. Each of the applicants propose to provide subacute care, with Careage proposing a special 10-bed subacute care unit which would accommodate technology dependent children. HCR and Careage propose special Alzheimer's care units; a 15-bed unit by HCR and a 21-bed unit by Careage. Hillhaven will admit Alzheimer's disease patients as presented, and will develop a dedicated Alzheimer's unit if demand should subsequently develop. The prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and the increased demand for subacute services brought about by DRGs, demonstrates that there will be a demand for such services within existing and proposed facilities. There was, however, no persuasive proof of any demand for technology dependent services in Lee County. While there is a demand for Alzheimer's disease care, and the preferred mode of care is in a separate unit specifically designed, staffed, and equipped to deal with this degenerative disease, there was no persuasive proof that the demand is such as to warrant the creation of a separate unit such as proposed by HCR and Careage. 10/ Absent such quantifiable demand, the application of Hillhaven more realistically addresses the need for Alzheimer's disease patients than does that of the other applicants. With regard to subacute care services, the proof likewise fails to quantify the demand for such services. Under such circumstances, Careage's proposed 10-bed subacute care unit is not objectively warranted, and does not serve to better its proposal to provide such services over the proposals of the other applicants. Consistency with district plan and state plan The District 8 health plan contains the following pertinent standards and criteria: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county, 4 within District Eight. At a minimum, community nursing home facilities should make available, in addition to minimum statutory regulation, in the facility or under contractual arrangements, the following services: a. pharmacy h. occupational therapy b. laboratory i. physical therapy c. x-ray j. speech therapy c. dental care k. mental health counseling e. visual care l. social services f. hearing care m. medial services g. diet therapy New and existing community nursing bed developments should dedicate 33-1/3 percent of their beds to use for Medicaid patients. Community nursing home (skilled and intermediate care) facilities in each county should maintain an occupancy rate of at least 90 percent. No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds... Each nursing facility should have a patient transfer agreement with one or more hospitals within an hour's travel time, or the nearest hospital within the same county. All community nursing homes and applicants for community nursing homes should document their history of participation in Medicaid and Medicare programs. ... The State Health Plan contains the following pertinent goals: GOAL 1: TO DEVELOP AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LONG TERM CARE SERVICES THROUGHOUT FLORIDA. GOAL 2: TO ENSURE THAT APPROPRIATE LONG TERM, CARE SERVICES ARE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL RESIDENTS OF FLORIDA. Each of the applicants demonstrated that their proposal would conform, at least minimally, with the foregoing provisions of the state and local health plans. Of particular significance to Lee County is, however, an applicant's commitment to Medicaid service. The District 8 Council has reported that hospitals in Lee County are having difficulty placing Medicaid patients in nursing homes due to the unavailability of Medicaid beds. The current Medicaid experience is 46 percent. Therefore, the local council has directed that new and existing community nursing home developments should dedicate at least 33-1/3 percent of their beds for Medicaid patients. While all applicants propose to meet this standard, Hillhaven's proposal to dedicate 53 percent of its beds to Medicaid care is substantially greater than the commitment of the other applicants, and is consistent with its current experience in meeting a community's need for nursing home care. Availability, appropriateness, and extent of utilization of existing health care services Section 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires Consideration of the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the service district. When the subject applications were filed, there were 1,056 licensed beds in Lee County with an occupancy rate of 91.91 percent. The nursing home bed supply in Lee County is obviously strained, and there exist no reasonable alternatives to the addition of new beds to the subdistrict. To coordinate with existing health facilities, each applicant proposes to establish appropriate transfer agreements and affiliations with local physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers. While some of the applicants have proposed an Alzheimer's unit and subacute care unit, the proof failed to demonstrate any quantitative need for such units in the subdistrict. Some applicants also proposed to provide day care in conjunction with their nursing home. Currently, there exists adequate day care in Lee County at little or no expense to the patient, and there was no persuasive proof of a need for additional day care services. Economies derived from joint health care resources HCR and Hillhaven each proposed 120-bed facilities which would provide for a more efficient and economical operation than a 60-bed facility. The 60-bed facilities proposed by Forum and Health Quest are, however, part of a larger complex which likewise lends itself to an efficient and economical operation. HCR, Hillhaven, Forum and Health Quest are major operators of nursing home facilities, and are thereby able to negotiate and obtain bulk prices for food, medical and nursing supplies. These savings are ultimately passed on to the residents. Additionally, by drawing upon a broad spectrum of expertise existent within their corporate networks, these applicants are best able to maintain and improve the services they offer. The criteria on balance In evaluating the applications at issue in this proceeding, none of the criteria established by Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, or Rule 10- 5.011(k), Florida Administrative Code, have been overlooked. As between the competing applicants, consideration of those criteria demonstrates that Hillhaven is the superior applicant whether it is evaluated on its application as initially reviewed by the Department or as updated at hearing. Among other things, the Hillhaven facility is spacious with large and well appointed patient rooms, its project costs are most reasonable (whether type 5 or type 4 construction), its programmatic proposal and staffing levels are most reasonable in light of existing demand, its provision for Medicaid services is the highest, and its patient charges are the lowest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Hillhaven's application for a certificate of need to construct a new 20-bed community nursing home in Lee County, and denying the applications of HCR, Forum, Health Quest and Careage. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of November, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 1987.
