Findings Of Fact The parties' stipulation The parties have stipulated to the following facts: Forum and Amedex timely filed their respective letters of intent and applications with the Department and the District Local Health Council for the July 1986 batching cycle. The Department ultimately deemed the applications complete and, following review, published its notice of intent to deny the applications. Forum and Amedex each timely filed a petition requesting a formal hearing on the denial of their application. With regard to the Forum application, the Department contends that there is no need for the proposed facility, that such lack of need will render Forum's project financially unfeasible, that the project is not the best use of Forum's resources, and that Forum fails to meet the local health plan priority relating to the construction of freestanding facilities with a minimum capacity of 120 beds. All other statutory and rule criteria are satisfied, at least minimally, based on Forum's 60-bed proposal. With regard to the Amedex application, the Department contends that there is no need for the proposed facility, that such lack of need will render Amedex's project financially unfeasible, and that the project is not the best use of Amedex's resources. The Department further contends that Amedex has not demonstrated that it can provide quality of care, that it has not demonstrated that its project is financially feasible in the short or long term, that it has not provided long range plans and that, even assuming minimal need, the size of Amedex' proposed project will cause difficulty in meeting projected utilization needs based on Broward County's past utilization rates. All other statutory and rule criteria are satisfied, at least minimally, based on Amedex' 240-bed proposal. As between the applicants, they agree that a comparative review is appropriate to determine the best applicant. Further, they agree for purposes of this proceeding that the other meets all statutory and rule criteria, at least minimally, except the following: need beyond 60 beds, ability to provide quality of care, and availability of funds for project accomplishment and operation. The parties have further agreed that there are no special circumstances existent in this case upon which a certificate of need is being sought. The Amedex Proposal In July 1986 Amedex filed an application with the Department for a certificate of need to construct a 240-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Broward County, Florida. The total project cost is projected to be $9,040,228. At hearing, Amedex failed to offer any competent proof to demonstrate the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its proposed project, that it could provide quality care, or that it had available the necessary funds for project accomplishment and operation. 1/ While the Department contended that the proposed project was not the best use of Amedex's resources, it offered no proof to demonstrate what other health services would be a more appropriate use of the resources. The Forum Proposal In July 1986, Forum also filed an application with the Department for a certificate of need to construct a skilled and intermediate care nursing home in Broward County, Florida. Forum's application sought leave to construct a 60-bed facility. The estimated cost for construction of Forum's proposed nursing home is $2,39,800. Forum has the necessary resources for project accomplishment and operation. While the Department contended that the proposed project was not the best use of Forum's resources, it offered no proof to demonstrate what other health service would be a more appropriate use of such resources. Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops, and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Pertinent to this case, Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Broward County that would consist of 120 apartments for independent living, a 30-bed adult congregate living facility, and the proposed 60-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home. Forum has packaged its centers to provide these three levels of service to meet the desires of retired persons they hope to attract to their retirement community. Each of the three components which comprise Forum's retirement living center are physically connected and share some operational functions, such as a central kitchen and heating plant. Such design provides for an efficient operation, as well as an economical distribution of costs facility wide. The nursing facility proposed by Forum would offer a wide range of services for its residents including: 24-hour skilled and intermediate nursing care, physical therapy services, and other restorative services. Additionally, Forum proposes to offer, as needed, subacute services such as: intravenous care, continuous bladder irrigation, oxygen therapy, nastrogastric tube feeding, ventilator care, insulin treatment, sterile dressing changes, and sterile care of tracheotomies. Forum also proposes to offer in the future, if need is identified and if any necessary agreements can be reached, respite care, adult day care, meals on wheels and hospice care. Forum proposes to seek medicare and medicaid certification, and will dedicate 25 of its beds to medicaid patients. Forum has a history of providing quality care at its existing facilities, and will provide quality care at the proposed facility. Forum has demonstrated the immediate and long term financial feasibility of its proposed project. Forum is a national company, with substantial experience in developing and operating nursing homes and retirement living centers. Due to the excellent growth potential in Broward County for retirement living centers, Forum should be able to capture a sufficient share of the nursing home market to render its proposed nursing home financially feasible. However, in view of the lack of numeric need for such facility as discussed infra, Forum's success will be to the detriment of existing and approved facilities. Numeric need The Department has established by rule the methodology whereby the need for community nursing home beds in a service district shall be determined. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2, Florida Administrative Code. The first step in calculating need pursuant to the rule methodology is to establish a "planning horizon." Subparagraph 2 of the rule provides: Need Methodology ... the Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds 3 years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs a. through i... The Department interprets subparagraph 2, and the applicants concur, as establishing a "planning horizon" in certificate of need proceedings calculated from the filing deadline for applications established by Department rule. This interpretation is consistent with the numeric methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2, and with the decision in Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Applying the Department's interpretation to the facts of this case, establishes a "planning horizon" of July 1989. Pertinent to this case, subparagraphs 2 a-d provide the methodology for calculating gross bed need for the district/subdistrict (in this case the district and subdistrict are the same--Broward County) in the horizon year. The first step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BA," the estimated bed rate for the population age-group 65-74. This rate is defined by subparagraph 2b as follows: BA = LB/ (POPC + (6 x POPD) Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. The parties concur that the district licensed bed figure (LB) is calculated based on the number of licensed community nursing home beds as of June 1, 1986, and that there were 3,226 licensed beds in the district on that date. 2/ The parties do not, however, agree as to the date on which POPC and POPD should be derived. The formula mandated by the rule methodology for calculating BA requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. The rule does not, however, prescribe the date on which the "current population" is to be derived. Forum contends that the appropriate date to establish the "current population" for POPC and POPD is January 1, 1986. The Department contends that the appropriate date is the date of application. In the opinion of David Warner, which opinion is credited, the base for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated. For the July batching cycle, OR is based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of that date, is the appropriate date to derive POPC and POPD. Supportive of Dr. Warner's opinion are the past practices of the Department. Between December 1984 and December 1986, the Department routinely used a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" in its semiannual nursing home census report and bed need allocation. That three and one half year spread was adopted by the Department for the same reasons expressed by Dr. Warner. In the batching cycle of January 1987, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, the Department utilized a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" when it awarded beds in that cycle. The Department offered no explanation of why, in this case, it proposed to use a three year spread between the base population period and the horizon date for "current population" in calculating POPC and POPD. Application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2b to the facts of this case produces the following calculation: BA = 3,226 / (158,878 + (6 x 110,217) BA = 3,226 / (158,878 + 661,302) BA = 3,226 / 820,180 BA = .0039332 The second step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "BB," the estimated bed rate for the population age group 75 and over. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2c, and calculated in this case as follows: BB = 6 x BA BB = 6 x .0039332 BB = .0235992 The third step in the calculation of gross need for the horizon year is to derive "A," the district's "age-adjusted number of community nursing home beds" at the horizon year. This methodology is defined by subparagraph 2a as follows: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) Where: POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. POPB is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. The parties concur that POPA and POPB are, respectively, 165,533 and 128,250 for the horizon year. Accordingly, application of the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2a produces the following calculation: A = (165,533 x .0039332) + (128,250 x .0235992) A = 651.07439 + 3,026.5974 A = 3,677.67 The final step in the calculation of gross need in the horizon year is to derive "SA," the "preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds" (gross bed need in this case. 3/ This calculation is defined by subparagraph 2d as follows: SA = A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average 6 month occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Occupancy rates established prior to the first batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of July 1 through December 31; occupancy rates established prior to the second batching cycle shall be based upon nursing home patient days for the months of January 1 through June 30. The batching cycle in which these applications were filed occurred before the Department amended its rule to include the fixed need pool concept. Accordingly, the parties agree that the six month period on which the average occupancy rate is calculated is not as set forth in subparagraph 2d, but, rather is defined by former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)4 as follows: OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle... In Broward County (District X) LB and LBD are the same since the county has not been divided into subdistricts. Application of the foregoing methodology to the facts of this case produces a gross need in July 1989 of 3,453 beds, computed as follows: 4/ SA = 3,677.67 x (3226/3226) x (.845/.9) SA = 3,677.67 x 1 x .938888 SA = 3452.92 The net need calculation The final step in the numeric need methodology is to derive net reed from gross need. According to subparagraph 2i, this need is calculated as follows: The net bed need allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for certificate of need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental sub- district from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs 2.a. through f. Notably, former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9 comports with the new rule in all material respects. While the rule requires that net need be calculated by subtracting "the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds" in the subdistrict from the gross need previously calculated, it is silent as to the date that inventory should be calculated. The Department asserts, through application of "policy," that the number of licensed beds should be calculated as of June 1, 1986 (the date established by former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)7 for calculating LB and LBD), and the number of approved beds as of December 1, 1986 (the date the Department's supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report). Forum would likewise calculate licensed beds as of June 1, 1986, but would also calculate approved beds as of that date. The Department offered no proof to expose and elucidate its policy choice. As discussed below, the dates used by the Department and Forum for purposes of calculating net need were facially unreasonable. 5/ The inventory of licensed and approved beds under subparagraph 2i, as well as former rule 10-5.11(21)(b)9, are inextricably linked. As approved beds are licensed, the approved bed inventory decreases and the licensed bed inventory increases. The Department's policy choice concerning the dates at which licensed and approved beds are to be counted is neither logical nor rational since it could result in some nursing home beds not being counted as either licensed or approved. For example, if beds were approved and not yet licensed in June 1, 1986, but licensed before the supervisory consultant signed the state agency action report (SAAR), they would not be counted in either inventory. Since the purpose of subparagraph 2i is to calculate a realistic estimate of the net bed need for the horizon year, it is appropriate to use the most current inventory of licensed and approved beds at the point a decision is rendered on an application. This assures, to the greatest extent possible, that the horizon population will not be over or underserved. In those circumstances where the SAAR becomes final agency action, the Department's approach of calculating inventory on the date the supervisory consultant signs the SAAR, assuming that inventory includes licensed and approved beds on that date, might be reasonable. However, where, as here, the SAAR constitutes only preliminary agency action, and a de novo review of the application is undertaken, there is no rational basis for subsuming that inventory. The rule methodology considered, the only rational conclusion is that net need be derived on the date of de novo review, and that it be calculated by reducing the gross need calculation by the inventory of licensed and approved beds, from previous batching cycles, existent on that date. As of the date of administrative hearing, there were 3,226 licensed beds and 695 approved beds in the district/subdistrict. Applying the methodology prescribed by subparagraph 2i to the facts of this case calculates a surplus of 399 community nursing home beds in the district for the June 1989 planning horizon. Consistency with State and local health plans The parties have stipulated that both proposals are consistent with the State and local health plans except for Forum's facial failure to comply with the local health plan priority relating to the construction of freestanding facilities with a minimum capacity of 120 beds. Pertinent to this issue, the local health plan provides: In addition to controlling capacity in order to discourage the construction of unneeded beds, the certificate of need program addresses cost containment by encouraging efficiencies in operation as a criteria to certificate of need approval. A number of operational models have historically proven to be positive influences on efficiency. Licensure laws, for instance, require nursing home staffing patterns to be structured in minimum modules of 30 bed configurations. As a result, the construction of nursing homes with beds totalling numbers not divisible by 30, has the capability of encouraging over staffing. Similarly, experience has shown that freestanding nursing homes constructed at less than 120 beds also are less cost efficient compared to larger facilities. Likewise, since construction and corresponding debt service retirement is greater for freestanding facilities than for new construction on existing facilities, expansion and conversion as an alternative to new construction frequently acts to reduce costs. The basis for the 120-bed minimum size for a "freestanding" facility in the local health plan is to insure efficiency and economy of scale. The 60- bed project proposed by Forum is not "freestanding" but is an integral part of a retirement center which also includes 120 independent living units and a 30-bed adult congregate living facility. Under the circumstances, the economies and efficiencies contemplated by the local health plan will be achieved, and Forum's proposal is consistent with such plan. The local health plan also provides, as a recommendation, that: ... applications for certificates of need to construct additional nursing home beds should be approved so as to support the State policy of 27 beds/1000 population over age 65 in Broward County. Considering the population over age 65 at the applicants' planning horizon, as well as the number of licensed and approved beds in the district, calculates a 14.36 beds/1000 population over age 65 for July 1989. Accordingly, the applicants' proposal is consistent with state and local health plans regarding bed to population ratio. Comparative Review As between the competing applicants, the proof demonstrates that Forum is the superior applicant, and that were the award of a certificate of need appropriate in this case that its application would be the one of choice. Under no circumstance does the proof support an award to Amedex, since it failed to demonstrate the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its project, failed to demonstrate that it would provide quality care, and failed to demonstrate that it had sufficient resources for project accomplishment and operation. The criteria on balance In evaluating the applications of Amedex and Forum, none of the criteria established by Section 381.705, Florida Statutes (1987), or Rule 10- 5.011(k), Florida Administrative Code, have been overlooked. In the case of Amedex, the lack of need in the district, as well as its failure to demonstrate compliance with relevant criteria as discussed in paragraph 46, demonstrates that, on balance, its application should be denied. In the case of Forum, its application meets all relevant statutory and rule criteria except need. Need is the key criteria in the instant case. Forum's failure to satisfy that criterion by proof of numeric need or special circumstances is dispositive of its application for licensure, and such failure is not outweighed by any other, or combination of any other, criteria.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the applications for certificate of need filed by Amedex and Forum be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of February, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 1988.
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the state agency responsible for the administration of certificate of need ("CON") laws. In this case, AHCA projected a need for an additional 295 community nursing home beds in District 3 for the July 1996 planning horizon, and reviewed the applications submitted in response to the published need. A numeric need for 186 beds remains. CON applications are evaluated according to applicable statutory and rule criteria and, as required by Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes, the preferences and factors in the state and local health plans. The applicable state plan is Toward A Healthier Future - The 1993 State Health Plan. The applicable local health plan is the District Three Health Plan for 1992, with 1993 Allocation Factors, prepared by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council in Gainesville. AHCA has not promulgated a rule subdividing District 3. However, the local planning council has divided the sixteen counties into nursing home planning areas, as follows: Columbia, Hamilton, Suwannee, Bradford, Union and Lafayette Counties; Alachua, Dixie, Gilchrist, and Levy Counties; Putnam County; Marion County; Citrus County; Hernando County; Lake and Sumter Counties. In this case, one applicant, Dixie Health Care Center, L.P., ("Dixie") proposes to locate in Dixie County in planning area 2 or (b). Hilliard HealthCare, Inc., ("Hilliard"), Unicare Health Facilities, Inc., ("Unicare"), Life Care Centers of America, Inc., ("Life Care") and Beverly Enterprises- Florida, Inc., ("Beverly") propose to construct nursing homes in planning area 7 or (g). Within planning area 7, Hilliard would build a nursing home in Sumter County, while Unicare, Life Care, and Beverly would build in Lake County. The total population in planning area 2 is approximately 230,000, and in planning area 7, approximately 180,000. More relevant to a determination of need for a nursing home, the population age 65 and over in planning area 2 is approximately 25,000, as compared to 49,000 in planning area 7. Within planning area 2, the projected Dixie County population over 65 in the year 2000 is 2,211, while the Sumter County projection is 9,824 residents. The actual 1994 population age 75 and over was 644 in Dixie, and 3,296 in Sumter County, and over 20,000 in Lake County. Currently, there are 1,238 licensed and approved beds in planning area 2, and 1,391 in planning area 7. For planning area 2, which includes Dixie County, there are 22 people age 65 and over for each nursing home bed. In planning area 7, the ratio is 41.1 to one. If 120 beds are added in Lake County, the comparable county ratio will decrease from 41.4 to 37.6 persons 65 and over to a bed. The addition of 60 beds in Sumter County will result in a decline in the county from 39.5 to ratio of 30.7 to 1. The district-wide ratio for District 3 is 34.5 persons 65 and over for every nursing home bed. The local planning council has compared the relative need for nursing home beds by planning area, according to a Planning Area Nursing Home Bed Allocation Matrix ("PANHAM"). Using a comparison of the percent of population age 75 and over to the percent of district beds in each planning area, the local health council describes planning area 7 as high need/moderate occupancy. It is ranked the planning area of greatest need for this CON application cycle. Planning area 2 is described as an area of low need/high occupancy. It also ranked as an area of priority in this cycle, although lower than planning area 7. The local health council has adopted three factors for use in making more specific determinations of locations which will best meet unmet needs within a planning area. Ranked in order of priority, the factors are: the absence of nursing homes in the same county, a location more than 20 miles or 25 minutes drive from any other nursing home, and an area in which nursing homes within a 20 mile radius exceeded 90 percent occupancy for the most recent twelve months or 95 percent for the most recent six months. There is no evidence that construction of new nursing home beds is not needed or that the need is based on any inefficiency or quality of care problems in existing nursing homes. Consideration of the availability, utilization, and adequacy of other nursing homes and alternative health care providers in the district is also mandated by statute. See, e.g. Subsections 408.035(1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(c), and (2)(d), Florida Statutes. In this group of applicants, only Dixie is favored by the first local health council factor for proposing to locate in a county in which there are no existing or approved nursing homes. Dixie does not meet the preference for a location more than 20 miles or a 25 minute drive from the closest nursing home. Dixie's expert witness who believed the drive took more than 25 minutes lacked direct knowledge of the road conditions. By contrast, the deposition testimony of the administrator of Tri-County Nursing Home established that the drive from Tri-County to Cross City takes about 15 minutes, most of it on a four lane highway, U.S. 27. Tri-County in Wilcox near Fanning Springs, and Medic-Ayers in Trenton are both within 20 miles or 25 minutes drive of the proposed Dixie site. Their occupancy rates for the first six months of 1993 were 94.41 percent and 95.85 percent, respectively, or an average of 95.13 percent. Therefore, Dixie is extremely close to meeting the local allocation factor related to existing nursing home occupancies in excess of 95 percent for the January-June 1993. By contrast, there are 12 existing and approved nursing homes in Lake County, and one in Sumter County. Occupancy rates in Lake County averaged 91.7 percent, but the facility in Sumter County reported 99.13 percent occupancy in the 1992-1993 reporting period. Applicants in Lake and Sumter Counties are not favored for proposing locations in counties without nursing homes, or for locations more than 20 miles or 25 minutes drive from existing nursing homes. Lake County applicants also do not meet the preference for an area defined by a 20-mile radius in which average occupancy rates exceeded 95 percent for the most recent six months or 90 percent for the most recent 12 months. The Sumter County applicant, Hilliard, does meet the occupancy requirement for a location in which nursing homes within a 20 mile radius exceeded 90 percent occupancy for the most recent twelve months. Because the state rule methodology results in a positive need calculation, the local health council factor related to special circumstances in the absence of numeric need is inapplicable to this case. Dixie Health Care Center, L.P., Cross City, Dixie County Dixie is seeking AHCA's issuance of CON 7492 to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Cross City, Dixie County, which is in planning area 2. If issued a CON, Dixie offers to be bound by the following conditions: to construct the nursing home on a specific site in Cross City; to provide 80 percent of its total resident days to Medicaid-reimbursed residents by the second year, with all beds certified for Medicaid and 9 beds certified for Medicare reimbursement; to provide rehabilitative, respite, and adult day care, with transportation for some day care participants; and not to deny HIV+ admissions. At the time that Dixie filed the letter of intent for the 60-bed project in Dixie County, it also submitted three others for contiguous areas of District 3. Thus, four legal notices, for projects in Alachua, Gilchrist, Levy and Dixie Counties were submitted by fax and then by mail to the Gainesville Sun newspaper for publication. All four legal notices, when published, referred to Levy County, as the proposed location of the nursing home. The proof of publication sent by the newspaper to the applicant and included in the CON application states that the notice published was for Dixie County, although the notice itself states that the project will be in Levy County. Dixie's health care planning expert requested the publication of a corrected notice, but there is no evidence that one ever appeared in the newspaper. AHCA accepts CON applications, despite publication errors, if the error is made by a newspaper, not by the applicant. Dixie is a partnership formed to file the application for CON 7492. The project will be funded by Smith/Packett Med-Com, Inc. Smith/Packett is owned by James R. Smith, who with Herbert H. Frazier, is a general partner in Dixie Health Care Center, Limited Partnership. Herbert Frazier is an employee of a Florida licensed general contractor, MB Conn Construction, and president of its Frazier Division which oversees the construction of nursing homes. Separately, the two general partners in Dixie own over 20 nursing homes, and jointly own one in Virginia and one in North Carolina. The partners owned, but, in February 1994, sold a Lake City nursing home. The estimated total project cost is approximately $3,000,000, of which the general partners will provide $250,000 in cash for project development costs and initial cash flow requirements, as noted in the application in the schedule 3 assumptions. Dixie included in its application a letter of interest in financing the project from Colonial Bank, Alabama. Dixie has a contract to purchase a two acre site for the project for $33,000. As previously noted, Dixie meets the highest priority local allocation factor for proposing to locate in a county which has no nursing homes, and is close to the factor for over 95 percent average occupancy rates in the nearest nursing homes. Dixie is also favored by the local plan for proposing to construct at least 60 beds, for improving access within the planning area, and for proposing respite care, adult day care, and rehabilitative therapies. Dixie meets state health plan preferences for proposing the following: to locate in a subdistrict with over 90 percent occupancy (93.42 percent for plan- ning area 2); to serve 80 percent Medicaid, which is in excess of the subdistrict average of 79.37 percent in the first six months of 1993, for specialized services to AIDS, Alzheimers' and mentally ill patients, to provide a continuum of services including long term, respite, and adult day care; to construct a well-designed facility to maximize resident comfort and quality or care, which is a reasonable size and meets all licensure requirements; to provide rehabilitative and restorative therapies, to establish a Medicaid reimbursement rate of $91.75 in year one and $94.65 in year two, as compared to the projected subdistrict high of $92.83 in 1995 and $96.54 in 1996 (using an annual 4 percent inflation rate from the January 1994 rate); * * * to offer multi-disciplinary services to residents, with the various therapist, social workers, and counselors; to document protection for residents rights and privacy, and to establish resident's councils, quality assurance and discharge planning programs, as SunQuest and all other nursing homes operating in Florida must do by state laws; to operate with lower administrative costs and higher patient care costs than the average in the district ($21.61 and $51.33 respectively in year two (1996), in contrast to $22.02 and $41.62 in 1992 for the respective average district per diem costs); Questions were raised about Dixie's compliance with state factors (8) for providing superior resident care in existing facilities, and (9) for staffing ratios which exceed minimum state requirements and are appropriate for proposed special services. The proposal is substantially based on the assumption that the applicant will contract with SunQuest for management services. Although the application refers to a management contract with SunQuest, no contract has been executed, which is not unusual prior to the issuance of a CON. At the final hearing, however, Dixie contended that SunQuest is only one of the candidates for a management contract, while conceding that the management policies and procedures in its application are those of SunQuest. In fact, the Dixie application states in response to state allocation factor (9) that SunQuest will be the management company. SunQuest manages 10 and leases an additional 10 long term care facilities in the United States, two in Florida. One of the Florida nursing homes, Bayshore Convalescent Center in North Miami Beach, has a superior license. SunQuest also manages the Lake City Extended Care Center, which was built by the company which employs Mr. Frazier, began accepting residents in December 1993, and was sold by the Dixie general partners in approximately February 1994. The original holder of the Lake City CON became unable to develop the proposal and contacted Mr. Smith and Mr. Frazier just prior to the expiration of the CON. They acquired the CON, financed, designed, and constructed the nursing home. Lake City currently operates with a conditional license, as a result of medical record-keeping deficiencies. The testimony, by Dixie's corporate representative, that SunQuest is merely one management company candidate along with Senior Care Properties, is inconsistent with the totality of the proposal, which renders significantly less reliable the program descriptions in the original application. Dixie's intent to provide van transportation for adult day care participants was also questioned, due to the absence of any provision for the service in the financial schedules to the application. The financial feasibility of Dixie's proposal is also a matter at issue. Although Dixie has a contract to purchase a two acre site, the architect who designed the facility testified he had constructed a 120-bed two-story nursing home on less than two acres, but that two and a half to three acres are generally needed to construct a 60-bed facility. Dixie projected a net loss of $201,813 in the first year of operation and a net profit of $55,123 by the end of the second year. The general partners have committed to provide $250,000 to cover the first year negative cash flow. However, the average annual salaries projected when multiplied by number of full time equivalent ("F.T.E.") positions listed on schedule 6 of its application exceeds salaries listed in the projected income and expenses on schedule 11 by approximately $219,866 in year one and $51,694 in year two. Including the underestimate of related benefits, the loss expected in the second year is $8,759. Dixie maintains that the staffing on schedule 6 cannot be compared to the pro forma, because the staffing and related expenses in the pro forma will increase over the first year as the census increases, while the staffing schedule is a snapshot at the end of the first year. The same is not true for the second year, since the facility is projected to be full after 8 months. Dixie's expert on finance described the second year discrepancy between a $50,000 profit and an $8,700 loss as insignificant in determining the financial viability of a $2 million project which, taking into consideration depreciation, amortization, and noncash related items, still results in a positive cash flow. Dixie's financial feasibility also depends on its reaching 96 percent occupancy by the fourth quarter of the first year. One witness for Dixie has achieved 93 percent occupancy in similar facilities in a county he deemed comparable, but has operated his facilities since 1989. Dixie also has to contend with competition for residents and staff from a relatively new facility within 20 miles and a 25 minute drive, Tri-County Nursing Home. Tri-County Nursing Home in Gilchrist County opened in May 1992, close to the Gilchrist- Dixie line, serving residents of Levy, Gilchrist and Dixie Counties. Approximately 30 of its 60 beds are occupied by Dixie County residents, all of whom rely on Medicaid reimbursement. Tri-County is also establishing a 25 person adult day care, having completed the required state inspection and awaiting the issuance of its license. After 8 months of operation, 51 of the 60 beds were filled. In June of 1993, Tri-County was full, with 98 percent occupancy. Approximately 40 percent of Tri-County's staff resides in Dixie County. There was testimony that 41 registered nurses reside in Dixie County, but with no information concerning their distribution within the county, current employment, or ages, their availability to work at a new nursing home could not be evaluated. In Gilchrist County, the ratio of persons 65 and over to nursing home beds is 8.7 to 1, in contrast to 31.46 for Levy County, and 34.5 for the district. The data supports the conclusion that Tri-County relies on service to Dixie County residents, clearly has an insufficient population base within Gilchrist County to fill its beds, and even when combined with Levy County is below the district ratio of 34.5 persons over 65 per nursing home bed. AHCA's expert in health planning and nursing home financial feasibility testified that Tri-County has had financial difficulties. On balance, Dixie has failed to demonstrate that it has estimated reasonable land requirements and costs, and that it can meet the required occupancy and staffing levels to survive financially, without adversely affecting Tri-County. Hilliard Healthcare, Inc., Bushnell, Sumter County Hilliard is the applicant for CON 7485 to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Bushnell, Sumter County, which is in planning area 7. Hilliard's CON, if issued, will commit to construction of Osprey Point Nursing Center on a specific five acre site on State Road 475, and to the establishment of a 10-bed Medicare unit, and a 20-bed secure Alzheimers' unit, with all beds Medicare and Medicaid certified. Hilliard commits to providing 64 percent of total resident days for Medicaid. The total estimated project cost is $2,650,000, funded by $650,000 cash from stockholders and $2,000,000 in loans from Bankers First. Hilliard, formed in 1987, currently owns a superior licensed 120-bed facility in Nassau County, having completed a 60-bed expansion in September 1994. The Nassau County nursing home is managed by Health Care Managers ("HCM"), which is owned by Steven Sell, Hilliard's president and founder. Mr. Sell, in partnership with three others, first acquired a 55-bed facility in Jacksonville in 1984, expanded it to 120 beds in 1988, and sold it in 1994 for a profit of approximately $2.5 million. In 1991, Hilliard's president also received a CON to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Clay County, which was sold without a profit, but at a break-even point, while it was under construction. HCM is the intended manager of the Bushnell facility, if the CON is approved. Hilliard submitted a notice of its intent to file a CON application to the Sumter County Times newspaper for publication. The notice, published in November of 1993, stated erroneously that the application would be filed on December 1, 1992, rather than December 1, 1993. Hilliard's president testified that he knows for a fact that he submitted the notice with the correct date, but no document in evidence establishes what Hilliard submitted to the Sumter County Times. Hilliard's proposal does not meet the local health council factors for a location in a county without nursing homes, nor is Bushnell more than a 20 mile radius or 25 minute drive from existing nursing homes. It does merit consideration under the factor which relates to the occupancy of nursing homes within a 20 mile radius, all of which exceeded 90 percent from July 1992 - June 1993, ranging from 90.89 to 99.13 percent. The highest rate was at WeCare, the only other nursing home in Sumter County, which is located in Wildwood, in the northern area of Sumter County. WeCare has two fifteen-bed Alzheimers' units, and unchallenged CON approval to add 30 beds. The approval of the 30 additional beds at WeCare raises the bed to population ratio of Sumter County from 20.2 to 23.5 per 1000, in contrast to the current Lake County ratios of 22.4. With the approval of 60 beds at Hilliard and another 120 beds in Lake County, the ratios are increased to 30.2 in Sumter and 24.7 in Lake County. After approval of WeCare's addition, the need in Sumter County has been decreased. Hilliard, by its proposal to serve central and southern sections of Sumter County, would improve access within the planning area. The occupancy rate for Medicare patients at WeCare was 1.1 percent. Hilliard contends that the relatively low percentage of Medicare services indicates a need for short-term, post-hospitalization rehabilitation services, as proposed in its 10-bed Medicare unit. Hilliard demonstrated that average lengths of hospital stays for Sumter County residents for certain procedures exceed national Medicare reimbursement averages, but there was no comparison to average lengths of stay within the district or the state. Other local health council allocation factors which apply to and favor Hilliard's proposal are those for: establishing a facility of at least 60 beds, improving access within a planning area with over 80 percent occupancy, and serving Alzheimers' and dementia patients. Hilliard's proposal meets state preferences for: locating in a subdistrict exceeding 90 percent occupancy (95.42 percent for planning area 7); * * * providing specialized services to Alzheimers' residents; offering respite care (although limited to hospice services); designing a comfortable facility, with short corridor segments, relatively large therapy areas, and a separate enclosed courtyard for the Alzheimers' unit; proposing occupational, speech and physical therapies, particularly to enhance the functioning of Alzheimers' residents; setting Medicaid rates of $101.90 for 1996 and $104.13 for 1998, in contrast to the highest rates projected for the same time, $107.89 and $113.28, respectively (using 5 percent inflation); providing superior resident care at its existing Nassau County Nursing home; proposing staffing ratios in excess of minimum state requirements, with reasonable salaries; including multi-disciplinary staff, including occupational, speech, and physical therapists, as well as nurses and an activities director; protecting residents' rights and privacy, and developing quality assurance and discharge planning programs; and proposing lower administrative costs ($26.35) with higher patient care costs ($64.30) than the district average of $26.63 and $54.67, respectively (1977 projection with 5 percent inflation). Hilliard does not meet state preference 2 for service to Medicaid proportionate to the subdistrict average, which is 69.95 percent, in contrast to Hilliard's proposed commitment of 64 percent. Under the preference, Hilliard's proposal to emphasize Medicare reimbursed therapies does not relieve it of the obligation to serve a proportionate share of Medicaid. Hilliard's proposal does not meet the specific exceptions allowed in preference 2 for applicants proposing to serve particular ethnic or cultural groups, and those developing multi-level care systems. Hilliard has a commitment letter from Banker's First to provide a $2 million loan for a fee of 1 1/2 to 2 percent of the principal loan amount, or $30,000 to $40,000. In schedule 1 of the application Hilliard's estimate of closing costs in $10,000, with $4,120 in legal fees. Dixie's expert claimed that the closing cost was inconsistent with the Banker's First letter and unreasonably low. By contrast for a $3 million loan, Dixie estimated $10,000 for loan closing costs, $30,000 for legal fees, $10,000 for recording fees and taxes, and $60,000 in loan origination fees. Dixie's expert apparently overlooked an additional $20,000 in origination fees, which was included on Hilliard's schedule 1. Hilliard projects a loss of $177,000 in year one, and income from nursing home operations of $114,690 in year two. In the first year, a loan of $271,660 is expected to cover the losses in year one. In the second year, a pay off of $154,940 on the loan is expected. The financial ability of Hilliard's shareholders to provide the initial $650,000 equity contribution and $271,660 to cover first year losses was questioned. Hilliard's president noted that the shareholders previously raised in excess of $600,000 to develop the Nassau County facility and have received $2.5 million in profits from the sale of the Jacksonville nursing home. Personal financial statements of three of the six stockholders were included in Hilliard's application. The personal financial statements were incomplete, omitting referenced attachments. The statements were also inaccurate or inconsistent, with missing liabilities, discrepancies regarding property values, and including the total value of some property which was not owned by the shareholders individually. Nevertheless, the statements do, according to Dixie's expert, show that the shareholders could provide over $900,000 in capital needed for Hilliard to be financially feasible, although that would take virtually all of the liquid assets, unless they assumed some additional individual debts. On balance, Hilliard has shown that Sumter County is more likely than not in need of additional Medicare-reimbursed subacute services, and that its proposal is financially feasible based on the shareholders' history of being able to raise capital for similar development projects. Lake County Applicants Three applicants in this batch seek to construct new 115 or 120-bed nursing homes in Lake County. Given the remaining numeric need for 186 beds, only one of the applicants can be approved. See, Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., et al. v. AHCA, et al., DOAH Case No. 92-6656 (F.O. 10/17/94). In addition, the District 3 Allocation Factors Report Preferences includes the following guideline: To the extent possible, all planning areas ranked in one of the four categories of priority established in subparagraph d above should be approved to add some new beds. Unicare Health Facilities, Inc., Lady Lake, Lake County Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. ("Unicare") is an applicant for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home or to receive a partial award to construct a 115-bed community nursing home in the town of Lady Lake, in northwest Lake County. Unicare proposes to have its CON conditioned on the establishment of a 20-bed Alzheimers' and related dementia unit, an adult day care to accommodate an additional 20 Alzheimers' sufferers for half day care, and on providing 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents. Unicare also plans to include a 10-bed subacute unit, and to offer rehabilitative therapies, respite and hospice care. The total size of the building is 58,700 square feet. Unicare is a subsidiary of United Health, Inc., which is committed to finance the project by providing an equity contribution of 60 percent and drawing on its available line of credit for the remaining 40 percent of the total projected cost of $5,754,983. Unicare owns and operates 45 nursing homes in 7 states, has been in business for 28 years and in Florida since 1982, and currently owns and operates 13 Florida nursing homes. Life Care Centers of America Life Care Centers of America, Inc. ("Life Care") proposes to establish a 120-bed community nursing home of 53,175 square feet, in west central Lake County, in the areas of Lady Lake, Tavares, or Leesburg, for a total project cost of $5,906,000. Life Care's CON, if issued, will include its commitment to provide 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents, to establish a 20-bed Alzheimers/dementia unit, to offer adult day care services, and to include a 20-bed sub-acute unit. Life Care is a privately held company operating 150 nursing homes in 27 states. Life Care owns two and operates three other nursing homes in Florida. Life Care proposes to fund the Lake County nursing home from $206,000 cash-on-hand and $5,700,000 in financing from a non-related company. With its application, Life Care submitted letters of interest from potential lenders with interest rates ranging from 9 to 12 percent, and a 25 year amortization schedule. In reviewing other Life Care applications, AHCA has considered and rejected as incomplete a list of capital projects identical to that included in this Lake County application. Specifically, Life Care listed projects by county name, although the total amount of capital obligations, according to AHCA, was significantly underestimated. Life Care submitted, at hearing, its exhibit 6, a stipulation to certain facts and, through the testimony of its Vice President for Development, established that the facts related to the schedule 2 issues in this case are identical to those considered in Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. Agency For Health Care Administration, DOAH Case No. 94-2409 (F.O. 10/24/94), which is pending on appeal in the district court. Beverly Enterprises Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. ("Beverly") is a wholly owned subsidiary of Beverly Corporation-California, a subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Beverly proposes to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in Lady Lake or Leesburg, in Lake County, with a commitment to provide 73 percent of total annual resident days for Medicaid, to establish a 20-bed Medicare-certified subacute unit with 4 beds for ventilator-dependent patients, an 18-bed Alzheimers' wing, an adult day care for 8 clients, respite care, and to accept and care for residents who are HIV positive, or have mental health disorders. Beverly also will commit to donate $10,000 for gerontological research. Beverly Enterprises companies operate 720 nursing homes, 70 in Florida. Of the 70, 41 are operated by the applicant. Beverly's proposal to establish Lake Beverly Terrace has a total project cost of $5,421,372, for 48,969 square feet. Existing Nursing Home and Alternatives - Sections 408.035(1)(b), and (2), Florida Statutes. As of January 1994, there were 460 nursing home beds in Leesburg, 142 in Clermont, 236 in Mount Dora and 377 in Eustis. All of the facilities, exceeded the average Lake County occupancy of approximately 92 percent in 1992- 1993, except two, Waterman Hospital Extended Care Center in Eustis and Edgewater in Mount Dora. All of the parties agreed that additional subacute and Alzheimers' beds, and adult day care spaces are needed in Lake County. Local and State Health Plans - Sections 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Unicare, Life Care, and Beverly propose to locate in Lake County, within planning area 7 for Lake/Sumter Counties. The planning area has a higher priority need ranking than planning area 2, as determined by the local health plan council. Local allocation factors 1 - 5 apply equally, or are inapplicable to the three proposals. There are existing nursing homes in the county, which are within 20 miles or 25 minutes all of the proposed locations, and which exceeded 90 percent occupancy. Unicare distinguishes its proposal based on its intention to locate in the town of Lady Lake, rather than further contributing to the concentration of nursing homes in Leesburg. Lady Lake was, in 1990, the third largest municipality in Lake County, and projected to be the largest in 2000. The 1990- 2000 projected growth rate is over 100 percent, in contrast to 13 percent for Leesburg, 50 percent for Tavares, and 37 percent for the entire county. Lady Lake was also mentioned in the Life Care and Beverly applications as a possible location for their facility, along with other towns in Lake County. Beverly's Vice President has investigated the cost of sites only in Leesburg, Fruitland Park, and Eustis, but concedes that Leesburg is a desirable location due to its proximity to the hospital. Without a CON condition, which AHCA could impose, all three applicants could locate anywhere within Lake County. Although Lady Lake is only 8 miles from Leesburg, Unicare's proposal, all other factors being equal, would be favored as more consistent with local allocation factor 6, which discourages the concentration of nursing homes in one community within a multi- county planning area. The final local allocation factor, 7 (as related to Alzheimers' and adult day care), as well as state health plan factors 3 (as related to Alzheimers') and 4 (as related to adult day care), and subsection 408.035(1)(o), Florida Statutes, favor applicants proposing specialized care or therapies to meet the needs of community and nursing home residents suffering from Alzheimers' and related forms of dementia. Unicare's 20-bed Alzheimers' unit and programs, and half day adult day care for 20 additional Alzheimers' sufferers are consistent with the specialized services that are needed. Life Care also proposes, as conditions for its CON, that it will establish a 20-bed Alzheimers/dementia unit and an adult day care center to accommodate 10 participants a day, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Beverly proposes to provide services in an 18-bed Alzheimers' wing, and an 8-person adult day care program. State health plan allocation factors met by all of the Lake County applicants include the following: locating in a subdistrict exceeding 90 percent occupancy (approximately 92 percent for planning area 7 for January-June 1993); see, also Subsection 408.035(1)(b), (d), and (2) (a) - (d); proposing to serve 73 percent Medicaid- reimbursed residents in comparison to the subdistrict average of 72.65 percent in the first six month of 1993; and * * * (11) documenting measures and procedures to protect resident's rights and privacy, and the use of resident councils, quality assurance and discharge planning programs. The Lake County applicants' proposals differ more when compared in accordance with state health plan factors and related statutory criteria, for: services to AIDS residents and the mentally ill; respite care, adult day care, and other services in a continuum of care (Sections 408.035(1)(o), F.S.); facilities with designs which maximize residents' comfort and the quality of care, and the costs and methods of construction (Sections 408.035(l)(m), F.S.); innovative therapeutic programs to enhance mental and physical functioning; charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict (Sections 408.035(2)(e), F.S.); a record of providing superior care in existing nursing homes (Sections 408.035)(1)(c), F.S.); staffing in excess of minimum requirements, with the highest ratio of registered and licensed practical nurses to residents (Sections 408.035)(1)(h), F.S. - availability of staff and personnel); use of professionals from a variety of disciplines; and * * * (12) administrative cost which are lower patient care costs which are higher than the district average. State health plan preference 3 is given to applicants for care to AIDS residents and the mentally ill, and state health plan 4, in part, applies to respite care. Beverly points to its increase in service to HIV positive patients from 39 patients for 124 patient days in 1993 to 3500 patient days in 1994. Unicare also has served AIDS residents. All of the Lake County applicants plan to offer respite care. Beverly offers a wider array of specialized services. By providing a range of levels of care to inpatients and outpatients, including adult day care and respite care, the applicants also, in part, meet the criterion of subsection 408.035(1)(o), Florida Statutes. Nursing homes with more features to enhance resident comfort and quality of care are given state health plan preference 5. Unicare's 58,720 square foot plan, includes semi-private patient rooms designed for the placement of the heads of residents' beds on opposite walls, each side with a window, rather than the alignment of beds next to each other, typical of semi-private hospital rooms. The plan includes indoor wandering space for Alzheimers' residents in a loop around an activity and recreation area, separated by a 3 to 4 foot wall. The Alzheimers' unit has a separate dining room with access to a secured courtyard, which, in turn, connects with the day care center. AHCA's architectural report notes that the construction cost of $60 per gross square foot is below the median cost projection, because Unicare will use a design/build contract. The design/build contract provides for one contractor to provide all of the services, including architectural and design, engineering and construction management, which saves time and money. Unicare's contractor, KM Development Corporation, has been in business since 1977, and has renovated and enlarged Unicare's facilities in Florida without cost overruns, and has done residential construction in the state. Unicare's design, based on the AHCA architectural review and the contractor's testimony, meets requirements for licensure and safety, and is a one-hour fire safety protected structure with a stucco finish, and brick and wood trim. Although skeptical and concerned that the design/build contract can be manipulated to cut corners to stay within budget, AHCA's expert in architecture testified that it is possible for Unicare to build the facility at the projected cost, but he would expect a cost over- run. Life Care's 53,175 square foot building will cost $75 a square foot. AHCA's architects described it as wings organized around a central courtyard, providing good visual control of short corridors. Life Care's design also includes a gift shop, library, and ice cream parlor. A separate wing for Alzheimers residents is adjacent to the adult day care center, with a separate dining room and courtyard. The institutional effect of corridors is decreased by using recessed entrances and doors to residents' rooms. There were no concerns expressed by architectural experts with the appropriateness of the design for the functions in each wing, the adequacy of the project cost, or the safety of the structure. Beverly's construction cost per gross square feet, listed as $63 on line I in response to question 4A was challenged as too low by Life Care's experts. Beverly's construction cost plus a 10 percent contingency or $70 a square foot for 48,969 square feet is considered reasonable by AHCA, although that eliminates the availability of the contingency for unknown conditions on an unselected site. Beverly's design is organized generally around a core area of courtyards with therapy space in the center. Beverly's Alzheimers' unit has a separate courtyard which allows wandering residents to exit a door near one end of the corridor and return by a door near the opposite end. AHCA's architectural review concludes that Beverly's design meets licensure and safety requirements. In general, Unicare's design better meets the preference for enhancing resident comfort and quality of care with rooms over 30 percent larger than required, four outside landscaped areas, physical therapy rooms, and three staff lounges, and an in-service training area, but its cost may be underestimated. Life Care's design is second in terms of accommodating program needs with space arrangements. Adult day care clients with Alzheimers, for example, are located adjacent to the area for Alzheimers residents' programs and activities. Life Care's projected construction costs are also the highest. Innovative therapeutic programs effective in enhancing physical and mental functions are favored in state health plan preference 6. Unicare will provide physical, occupational, and speech therapy and has developed special programs to serve Alzheimers's and related dementia residents and day care clients. Life Care and Beverly will offer IV therapy, wound care, and ventilator and respiratory therapy in addition to other therapies offered by Unicare. Beverly's therapy programs are more innovative and intense, based on the staffing and level of detail provided in describing the proposed services. Preference 7 is given for proposed charges not exceeding the highest Medicaid per diem in the subdistrict. Unicare proposes a Medicaid per diem rate for $86.57 for 120 beds in the second year while at least one provider in the subdistrict for 1997 will be charging $95.27. Unicare computed projected future rates by using 9.1 percent inflation of the Medicaid rate at one facility, which is not necessarily the highest existing provider, which results in a $98.44 rate. Unicare criticized Beverly's use of a 5 percent inflation rate of the highest current provider resulting in a projected rate of $99.47. The highest Medicaid rate in the district, inflated forward to 1997, was $99.31 at the time the application was submitted, so that Beverly's proposed charge of $99.00 is lower, as is Life Care's projected $97.11 and Unicare's $86.57. Preference 8 and subsection 408.035(1)(c) require a comparison of the applicants' records in terms of the quality of care provided in their existing nursing homes, as indicated partly by licensure ratings over the last 36 months. During that time, Unicare's 13 nursing homes have had 468 months of operation at approximately 63 percent superior, 29 percent standard, and 9 percent conditional. Beverly has had a total of 976 months of operations, 67 percent superior, 25 percent standard, and 7 percent conditional. Beverly has also paid a fine to the State of Oregon to settle claims related to patient care problems. The two Florida nursing homes owned by Life Care are rated standard, one in Citrus County opened in November, 1994 and is not yet eligible for a superior license. The other, in Altamonte Springs has been in operation for over 36 months, 29 of those with a superior licensure rating. The three applicants generally have operated and have the capacity to continue to operate superior facilities. Preference 9, on proposed staffing ratios and preference 10 related to the use of varied professional staff are also indications of the quality of care. AHCA requires one registered nurse on the day shift and none on the night shift in a 120-bed nursing home. All of the applicants exceed the minimum. The number of nursing hours per patient day will be 3.2 at Unicare, 3.35 at Life Care, and 3.85 at Beverly. One of four registered nurses on the day shift at Beverly will always be in the subacute unit. However, the ratio outside the unit, for the remaining 100 residents, still exceeds the minimum and meets the preference requirements. All three companies have existing Florida facilities available to provide training and, if needed, transfers of experienced staff to a new nursing home. They currently use and are proposing to continue to use professional staff from a variety of disciplines to meet residents' and clients' needs. Average administrative costs in the district, inflated forward, will be $24.58 and average patient care costs will be $49.49. The applicants report their comparable projections on Schedule 11. Unicare's projected costs are $27.80 and $50.59, respectively. Life Care's costs are $24.84 and $65.94, respectively. Beverly's are $24.44 and $62.30, respectively. With erroneously omitted laundry costs added to administrative costs, Beverly's administrative costs increase to $26.52. All three applicants propose higher administrative costs than the district average, but Life Care's are the lowest. All three have higher than average patient care costs, with Life Care favored as the highest. The following subsections of the CON statutory review criteria do not apply, in this case, to distinguishing among the Lake County applicants: - availability or adequacy of alternatives, such as outpatient care or home care; - economics of joint or shared resources; - need for equipment or services not accessible in adjoining areas; * * * - special needs of health maintenance organizations; - needs of entities which provide substantial services beyond the district; and - impacts on costs and effects of competition. Subsection 408.035(1)(g) - research and educational facilities needs Unicare and Life Care have established foundations to foster education and research in gerontology and health care. Beverly will commit, as a condition for the issuance of its CON, to providing a $10,000 research grant for a gerontological studies to Florida State University. All three companies assist in providing clinical experiences for nursing and therapy students in technical schools, community colleges, and universities, and benefit by recruiting employees from the programs. Subsection 408.035(1)(h) - availability of funds to establish and operate project, and Subsection 408.045(1)(i) - immediate and long-term financial feasibility Unicare has $5 million in available cash and a $30 million line of credit. Unicare, using costs from other facilities adjusted to take into consideration geographical differences, projects a net loss of $250,672 in the first year and a profit of $50,482 in the second year. Unicare failed to include $3,000 in housekeeping equipment in its projected expenses, but can more than cover that omission with a $75,000 contingency. Life Care had a net worth of $50 million in 1993. For calendar year 1992, its audited financial statement shows over $10 million in net earnings and $4.5 million in cash on hand. Life Care projects a net loss of $548,190 in year one and a net profit of $236,022 in year two. Beverly has access to over $200 million for project development, combining its cash, cash equivalents, commercial paper and lines of credit. Beverly projects a pre-tax loss of $314,000 in the first year and a net profit of $214,000 in the second year. Beverly's figures were questioned based on its use of the experience of a Tampa area facility to determine some costs and expenses, its assumption that Medicare will be 13 percent of its patient mix, and its projected lengths of stay and revenues from Medicare. Beverly's use of unit-costs from existing facilities with modifications to fit the specific proposal is reasonable. Although the district Medicare rate is 5.7 percent and Lake County's is 6.1 percent, Beverly's higher proportion of Medicare is consistent with the level of subacute services it proposes in 20 of its 120 beds. After the maximum of 100 days of Medicare coverage, Beverly will have weaned or will transfer ventilator patients who do not have private insurance. Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - past and proposed Medicaid participation Unicare has no nursing homes with CON conditions requiring a specified level of Medicaid participation, having purchased older, existing facilities in Florida. Nevertheless, eleven of its thirteen facilities exceed the Medicaid average in their respective subdistricts. For the first six months of 1993, Life Care's Medicaid resident days were 78 percent in Altamonte Springs (with no CON condition), 70 percent in Punta Gorda, 88 percent and 68 percent, respectively, in the two West Palm Beach nursing homes. Beverly's percent of patient days for Medicaid increased 63.3 percent to 66.8 percent from 1993 to 1994 for facilities in Florida. Beverly paid a $1500 fine to the state for falling below its Medicaid commitment in one of 17 state facilities with such conditions, Coral Trace in Lee County. AHCA agreed to reduce the Coral Trace medicaid condition from 78 percent to 53.3 percent to reflect the subdistrict average. In 1994, at Coral Trace, 49.5 percent of total patient days were Medicaid. All three Lake County applicants have demonstrated strong compliance with Medicaid participation criterion. Comparison of Lake County Applicants On balance, the Lake County applications are all more in compliance than not with statutory review criteria, with varying strengths and weaknesses. They are financially sound, experienced nursing home owners and operators. Unicare will improve access within the planning area. The demographic data on the municipality of Lady Lake shows significant growth. Unicare also will build a better designed and larger facility, and will focus its programs on meeting the needs of Alzheimers' residents and day care participants. Unicare's weaknesses are AHCA's architect's expectation that it will experience cost- overruns and the absence of ventilator services. Unicare relies on its actual experience with Florida construction projects to support the reasonableness of its projections. Unicare also projects the lowest Medicaid per diem rate. Life Care proposes to offer a wider range of specialized programs and therapies than Unicare, a design second to Unicare's in terms of size and residential amenities. Life Care's project costs are the highest of the Lake County applicants, but Life Care, when operational, will have the highest proportion of its costs applied to patient care. Beverly offers a range of programs comparable to those offered by Life Care, with greater emphasis on subacute care, and less emphasis than Unicare on Alzheimers' services. Beverly will build the smallest nursing home at the lowest cost, but is highest in projected Medicaid per diem rate. Unicare is recommended for CON approval due to its superior design, and superior Alzheimers' and day care services, and proposed location. Because the proposed location is a factor in Unicare's favor, it is recommended that Unicare's CON be conditioned on its obtaining a site in Lady Lake. Absent Unicare's agreement to a condition on location, Beverly is recommended for approval based primarily on its lower project cost, scope and intensity of subacute of services, and higher staffing levels.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA issue CON No. 7489 to Unicare to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in District III, conditioned on the establishment of a 20-bed unit for residents with Alzheimers and related dementia and an adult day care providing half day care for 20 clients, the provision of 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents, and the selection of a site for the facility in the municipality of Lady Lake, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASES NOs. 94-2452, 94-2453, 94-2462, 94-2467 and 94-2971 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner, Dixie's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 7-9 and 14. Rejected conclusions in Findings of Fact 15-19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 7, rejected in part in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted first sentence in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected second sentence in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 13. 19-22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 17-19. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. 28-30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. 33-34. Rejected in Findings of Fact 8 and 22. 35-36. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 40-41. Accepted in part in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 42-46. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 35. 47. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 22. 48-49. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 50. Rejected in Findings of Fact 23. 51-52. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21-23. 53-54. Accepted. 55-57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9 and 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 62-63. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement. 68-69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4 and 9. 70-76. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12. 77-78. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 79-80. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Petitioner, Life Care's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2-4. 3-4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4. Accepted, except 6, in Findings of Fact 51-53. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 56-67. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42 and 58. 11. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4, 8-10 and 51-53. 12. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 13. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51. 14. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. 15. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 52. 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 71. 17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54-67. 18. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. 19. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 59. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 43 and 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 68. 32-34. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 35. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 68. 36-38. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. 39-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. 43-44. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 45-53. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Rejected in Findings of Fact 70. 56-59. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 61-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. 66-67. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Petitioner, Hilliard Health Care's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. 3-4. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 8-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted. 12-15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3, 4 and 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 31. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16, 24 and 30. 26-27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11, 15 and 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. 31-34. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 17-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 17-19. 37-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Rejected in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 48-49. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Rejected as "lowest need" in Findings of Fact 7. 52-61. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5, 6 and 22. 62-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-16 and 23. Accepted. Rejected in Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 5-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-9 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 25. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 16-19. Rejected as not at issue. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. 77-79. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24 and 30. 80-85. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 31-36. Rejected except first sentence in Findings of Fact 21. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. 88-91. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21-22. 92. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. Respondent, AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 2-6. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 7. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12. 8-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47-49. 10-12. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 39-41. 13-16. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24-26. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 42-44. Accepted. 20-23. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4-9. 24. Accepted. 25-26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. 27-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15, 24-30 and 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 67. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15, 31, and 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, 30 and 55. 33-35. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16-19. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. 39-40. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in Findings of Fact 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47 and 61. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47 and 56. 46-48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. 51-52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 21. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 21 and 23. 53-55. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 56. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22. 57-58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 21. 59. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. 60-64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 49 and 70. 65-66. Rejected in Findings of Fact 70 and in conclusions of law 76. 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. 68-69. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. 70-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57-60, except "probable" in last sentence of proposed findings of fact 74. (See, T-p 2197.) Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 and 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31. Petitioner/Respondent, Beverly's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1 and 37. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45 and 46. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 47. Accepted in Findings of Fact 43. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Accepted in Findings of Fact 51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 6. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 37 and 50. 16-17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 52. 20,22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51 and 54. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 39, 42 and 47. 25 Accepted in Findings of Fact 39, 42, 47 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in Findings of Fact 56. 28-29. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 59 and 60. 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 62, 63 and 64. Accepted in Findings of Fact 65. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Rejected as speculative. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in general except conclusion in Findings of Fact 66. 40-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66 and 68. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. 50-51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 70. 54-55. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 56-58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Rejected, as irrelevant based on previous interpretations by AHCA, in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 62-64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57-60. 65-66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 71. 67. Accepted, but list not construed as exclusive in Findings of Fact 56. 68-69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in preliminary statement and subordinate to Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Petitioner, Unicare's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 37 and 39. 2-3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40, 41, and 66. Subordinate to preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. 7-8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-8 and 51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40. Subordinate to preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 39. 12-13. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 14-16. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 52. 17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 18-22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Accepted. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. 26-27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 36-39. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. 40-41. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 44-48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39 and 61. 49-52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. 53-62. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 63-68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 70. 71-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 51. 76-78. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 79. Accepted in Findings of Fact 53. 80-81. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 82-83. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. 84. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 85-86. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in Findings of Fact 65. 89-90. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. 93-94. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57, 59 and 60. 95. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 96-103. Rejected as having been modified and adjusted in Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Rejected in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 67. Rejected in Findings of Fact 66 and 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 60. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57-60. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42 and 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Rejected as not supported by the record. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45 and 46. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire Jay Adams, Esquire Broad & Cassel Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Cobb, Cole & Bell 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. David Watkins, Esquire Patricia Renovitch, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire Pennington, Haben, Wilkinson,Culpepper, Dunlap, Dunbar, Richmond & French, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, 2nd Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Tom Wallace Assistant Director Agency For Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue In their Prehearing Stipulation the original parties described the background and general nature of the controversy as follows: In January, 1985, HCR filed an application for certificate of need to develop a new 120 bed nursing home in Collier County, Florida. By notice dated June 28, 1985, HRS stated its intention to deny HCR's application. HCR timely filed a request for formal administrative proceeding, and the proceeding was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. By application supplement dated May 15, 1986, HCR has reduced this application to a 90-bed new nursing home. The nursing home will provide skilled nursing care to Alzheimer's patients and to patients discharged from hospitals in need of additional intensive nursing care, in addition to the typical nursing home patient. HRS has denied HCR's application because, pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code there is insufficient need for the additional nursing home beds proposed by HCR. In the Prehearing Statement the Petitioner described its position as follows: HCR contends that there is an identifiable need for a nursing home in Collier County, Florida, to serve the needs of patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and similar disorders and patients who are discharged from hospitals with a continuing need for a high level of intensive care, often provided through sophisticated technical or mechanical means. Existing nursing homes in Collier County do not offer adequate facilities for such patients and refuse admission to such patients. These patients have experienced an inability to obtain such care in Collier County. HCR's proposed nursing home will provide needed care which is otherwise unavailable and inaccessible in Collier County. The application meets all criteria relevant to approval of a certificate of need. HCR further contends that the nursing home formula shows a need for additional nursing home beds in Collier County. Previously, in circumstances where a need for additional nursing home services has been identified, HRS has approved certificates of need even though the nursing home formula showed a need for zero additional beds or a small number of additional beds. In the Prehearing Statement the Respondent described its position as follows: HRS contends, pursuant to the formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, that there is insufficient need in the January, 1988 planning horizon demonstrated for additional nursing home beds in Collier County to warrant approval of a-new nursing home. Therefore, HRS contends that the HCR application should be denied. Further in its original application, HCR did not identify services proposed specially for Alzheimer's disease patients or "sub-acute" patients. HCR did not and has not complied with provision of Chapter 10-5.11(21)(b 10., Florida Administrative Code, regarding mitigated circumstances. The Respondent also identified the following as an issue of fact to be litigated. "HRS contends that it should be determined whether HCR's supplement dated May 15, 1986, is a significant change in scope for which the application was originally submitted." Because of its late intervention into this case, the Intervenor's position is not described in the Prehearing Statement. In general, the Intervenor urges denial of the application on the same grounds as those advanced by the Respondent. The Intervenor did not attempt to become a party to this case until the morning of the second day of the formal hearing. Respondent had no objection to the Petition To Intervene. The original Petitioner objected on the grounds that the effort at intervention was untimely and that the Intervenor was without standing. The objection to intervention was overruled and the Intervenor was granted party status subject to taking the case as it found it. Accordingly, intervention having been granted at the conclusion of the evidentiary presentation of the other parties, the Intervenor was not permitted to call any witnesses or offer any exhibits. Intervenor's participation before the Division of Administrative Hearings was limited to an opportunity to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Following the hearing a transcript of proceedings was filed on July 8, 1986. Thereafter, all parties filed Proposed Recommended Orders containing proposed findings of fact. Careful consideration has been given to all of the Proposed Recommended Orders in the formulation of this Recommended Order. A specific ruling on all proposed findings of fact proposed by all parties is contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this Recommended Order. The Petitioner also filed an unopposed post-hearing motion requesting that its name be corrected in the style of this case. The motion is granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Findings based on admitted facts The parties agree that HCR properly filed a letter of intent and application for certificate of need for a new nursing home to be located in Collier County. The application was reviewed by HRS in the ordinary course of its activities, and HRS initially denied the application. HRS continues to oppose issuance of a CON because (a) there is an insufficient need, pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, for additional nursing home beds to warrant approval of a new nursing home [Section 381.494(6)(c)1., Florida Statutes]; (b) the long term financial feasibility and economic impact of the proposal is questionable because of low occupancy being experienced by existing nursing homes "Section 381.494(6)(c)9., Florida Statutes]. HRS proposes no other basis for denial of the application. The parties agree that HCR meets all criteria for a certificate of need, with the exception of those two criteria listed in the immediately foregoing paragraph relating to need and financial feasibility/economic impact (relevant to low occupancy), which HRS contends have not been met. The parties agree that HCR would provide good quality care to patients, that the project would be financially feasible if the occupancy projections asserted by HCR were obtained, that the costs and methods of proposed construction are appropriate and reasonable, and that the proposed facility would be adequately available to underserved population groups. The rest of the findings In January 1985, HCR filed an application for a certificate of need to develop a new 120-bed nursing home facility in Collier County, Florida. The original application described a traditional approach to nursing home care. By notice dated June 28, 1985, HRS stated its intention to deny HCR's application. HCR timely filed a request for formal administrative proceedings and this proceeding ensued. By application supplement dated May 15, 1986, HCR made certain changes to its original application. These changes included reducing the size of the proposed nursing home from 120 to go beds and changing the-concept of the nursing home from a traditional nursing home to one specifically designed to address the treatment of Alzheimer's disease patients and sub-acute care patients. The supplement specifically provided that 30 of the 90 proposed beds would be "set aside to offer a therapeutic environment for patients with Alzheimer's or similar disorders." The project description in the original application contained no such provision. HCR's proposed facility would consist of 90 nursing home beds, 30 assisted living beds, and an adult day care facility located adjacent to the nursing home portion of the facility. Those portions of the facility relating to assisted living and adult day care do not require certificate of need review. The estimated cost of the portion of the project which requires certificate of need review is $3.5 million. HCR estimates that approximately 33 1/3 per cent of the patients in the facility will be Medicaid reimbursed. It is proposed that 30 of the 90 nursing home beds be designed and staffed specifically to provide care and treatment necessary to meet the special needs of certain patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and dementia and exhibit need for care different from that found in the typical nursing home. It is proposed that another 30-bed wing be staffed and equipped to provide sub-acute, high-tech services such as ventilator, I.V. therapy, pulmonary aids, tube feeding, hyperalimentation and other forms of care more intensive than those commonly found in a nursing home and necessary for the care of patients discharged from hospitals and patients in the last stages of Alzheimer's disease. The remaining 30-bed wing would be devoted to traditional nursing home care. HRS has adopted a rule which establishes a methodology for estimating the numeric need for additional nursing home beds within the Department's districts or subdistricts. This methodology is set out in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. This rule determines historic bed rates and projects those bed rates to a three-year planning horizon. Allocation to a subdistrict such as Collier County is adjusted by existing occupancy in the subdistrict and the subdistrict's percentage of beds in relationship to the total number of beds in the district. Additional beds normally are not authorized if there is no need for beds as calculated under the rule. HRS calculated need utilizing current population estimates for January 1986 and projected need for the population estimated for January 1988, arriving at a need of approximately 16 additional nursing home beds for the January 1988 planning horizon. HCR projected need to the January 1989 planning horizon and projected a numeric need of approximately 38 additional nursing home beds. There are no applicants for additional nursing home beds in the January 1989 planning horizon (batching cycle). Alzheimer's disease is a primary degenerative disease of the central nervous system which results in a breakdown of the nerve cells in the brain. The disease is progressive, in that it begins subtly, often with forgetfulness or simple personality changes, and ultimately results in death following a phase in which the patient is bedridden and totally dependent upon others for survival. The cause of the disease is not known. The disease is much more common in the older age groups and is very common in the southwest Florida area. (However, nothing in the evidence in this case suggests that Alzheimer's disease is more common in southwest Florida than in other parts of the state.) There is no known cure for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's disease patients are characterized by such symptoms as memory loss, communication problems, difficulty understanding, confusion, disorientation, inability to recognize care givers, waking at night, wandering, inability to socialize appropriately, and incontinence. The progress of the disease can be divided into stages. During the initial stage, the patients will display forgetfulness and subtle personality changes. As the disease progresses, the patients encounter increasing difficulty performing more than simple tasks, tend to be more emotional, become more confused, encounter difficulty with concentration and retaining thoughts, and often display poor judgment and a denial of the significance of their actions. In the next stage, the patients begin to require assistance to survive. Forgetfulness and disorientation increase and wandering patients are often unable to find their way. The patients become incontinent, experience sleep disturbances, become restless at night, and wander during the day, leading to considerable family distraction and difficulties for the care givers. The patients encounter difficulty recognizing family members and often become paranoid and fearful of those family members within the house. violence and aggressive outbursts may occur. Finally, the patients progress to a stage in which they are totally inattentive to their features physical needs, requiring total care. These Patients are totally incontinent, experience frequent falls, develop seizures, and eventually become bedridden, going into a fetal position and becoming totally unable to provide any care for themselves. Traditionally, most nursing homes offer no special programs for patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and mix these patients with other patients in the nursing home. There is no nursing home in Collier County which provides program specifically designed for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease patients. The nearest nursing home where such care can be found is in Venice, some 92 miles from Naples. The total facility proposed by HCR is designed to provide a continum of care for Alzheimer's disease patients and their family care givers. The adult day care portion of the facility would enable family members to place Alzheimer's disease patients in day care for a portion of the day in order for the family care givers to maintain employment, perform normal household chores, and find relief from the extremely demanding task of constantly supervising and caring for an Alzheimer's disease victim. The adult day care portion of the facility would be designed and staffed to provide a therapeutic program for the Alzheimer's disease patient and the patient's family. The assisted living portion of the facility would allow an Alzheimer's disease patient in the early stages of the disease to live in an environment, with his or her spouse if desired, where immediate care and routine supervision at a level lower than that required by a nursing home patient would be provided. Thirty nursing home patient and who do not display those characteristics which are disruptive to non-Alzheimer's patients, such as wandering, combativeness, and incontinence. For those Alzheimer's patients who should not be mixed with other nursing home patients because of their disruptive routines and who require unique programs and facility design features to meet their specific needs, a 30-bed wing would be set aside. Finally, for Alzheimer's patients in the final stages of the disease who require total care and are bedridden, and for patients discharged from local hospitals who require high-tech services, a 30-bed wing designed, staffed and equipped to provide such services would be set aside. The facility would provide a high level of staffing to meet the demanding, personal care needs of Alzheimer's patients and would provide 24-hour nursing supervision in that portion of the facility dedicated to intensive services for the bedridden and high-tech patient. The design and equipment of the proposed facility are particularly addressed to the needs of Alzheimer's disease patients. Physically, the facility would allow patients freedom of movement both inside the facility and in an outside courtyard with porches, but the facility would be sufficiently secure to prevent the patient from wandering away from the facility. There would be amenities such as therapeutic kitchens which would allow patients still able to cook to do so. Fixtures in the facility would be designed so that the Alzheimer's disease patients could easily identify the functions of fixtures such as wastebaskets, toilets, and sinks. Features such as low frequency sound systems, lever door knobs, square instead of round tables, barrier-free doorways, special floor coverings, appropriate labeling, automatic bathroom lighting, and provisions for seating small groups of patients together would all provide the special care required by the Alzheimer's patient. The concept of a separate unit for Alzheimer's disease patients is a new one, growing out of increased medical awareness of the disease. The proposed unit would be a prototype for the Petitioner. There are four nursing homes in Collier County and 413 licensed nursing home beds. There are no approved but unlicensed nursing home beds in Collier County. At the time that HRS initially reviewed the HCR application, Collier County nursing homes were reporting an average occupancy of approximately 70 percent. At the time of the hearing, average occupancy of existing nursing home beds in Collier County was 83.5 per cent. Existing nursing home beds in Collier County are underutilized and there are a number of nursing home beds available to the public. Also there are available alternatives to nursing homes in Collier County. HCR has projected reaching 95 per cent occupancy within one year of opening. This projection seems overly optimistic and unwarranted by prior history, as only one existing facility has an occupancy rate that high. HCR's occupancy projections are based on assumptions that the future growth will be similar to that experienced between 7/1/85 and 12/1/85. But more recent data shows that growth has been decreasing and that there was no growth for the most recent period prior to the hearing. If projected occupancy is not met, projected revenues will not be realized, and projections of financial feasibility will not materialize. The record in this case does not contain evidence of patients' need for nursing home care documented by the attending physicians' plans of care or orders, assessments performed by the staff of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or equivalent assessments performed by attending physicians indicating need for nursing home care. The local health plan (Policy 1, priority 4) requires an occupancy level of at least 90 per cent before new nursing homes can be approved. The local health plan (Policy 1, priority 6) also provides, "No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds. However, less than 60 beds may be approved as part of an established acute care hospital facility."
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue a Final Order in this case denying the Petitioner's application for a certificate of need to construct either its original proposal or its supplemented proposal. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulation of facts "entered into by all parties, the following relevant facts are found: Along with six other applicants, the petitioner, Health Quest Corporation, d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Center, and the respondent, Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center, submitted applications for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate new nursing homes in Sarasota County, In June of 1982, the respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) determined to issue the application of Sarasota Health Care Center and deny the remaining seven applications. For the purposes of this proceeding, the parties have stipulated that there is a need for at least a 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home in the Sarasota, Florida area. In November, 1982, respondent HRS adopted Rule 10- 5.11(21) , Florida Administrative Code, which provides a formula methodology for determining the number of nursing home beds needed in areas throughout the State. Briefly summarizing, this formula begins with a bed to population ratio of 27 per thousand population age 65 and over, and then modifies that ratio by applying a poverty ratio calculated for each district. The theoretical bed need ratio established for Sarasota County by this portion of the Rule's formula is 23.2 nursing home beds per thousand elderly population projected three years into the future. The population figures to be utilized in the formula are the latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. After determining the theoretical need for nursing home beds in an area, the Rule purports to determine the actual demand for beds by determining the current utilization of licensed community nursing home beds, establishing a current utilization threshold and, if this is satisfied, applying a prospective utilization test too determine the number of beds at any given time. Applying the formula methodology set forth in Rule 10- 5.11(21) to Sarasota County results in a finding that there are currently 807 excess nursing home beds in that County. The need for sheltered nursing home beds within a life care facility are considered separately in Rule 10-5.11(22), Florida Administrative Code. Generally speaking, need is determined on the basis of one nursing home bed for every four residential units in the life care facility. Elderly persons 75 years of age and older utilize nursing homes to a greater extent than those persons between the ages of 65 and 74. Persons under the age of 65, particularly handicapped individuals, also utilize nursing home beds. The formula set forth in Rule 10-5.11(21) does not consider those individuals under the age of 65, and it does not provide a weighted factor for the age 75 and over population. In the past, the BEBR mid-range population projections for Sarasota County, compared with the actual census reached, have been low. Petitioner Health Quest, an Indiana corporation, currently owns and/or operates some 2,400 existing nursing home beds in approximately 13 facilities in Indiana. It holds several Certificates of Need for nursing homes in Florida and construction is under way. Petitioner owns 53 acres of land on the South Tamiami Trail in Sarasota, upon which it is constructing a 474-unit retirement center. It seeks to construct on six of the 53 acres a 120-bed nursing home adjacent to the retirement center. Of the 120 beds, it is proposed that 60 will be for intermediate care and 60 will be for skilled care. The facility will offer ancillary services in the areas of speech, hearing, physical, occupational, and recreational therapy. Thirty-five intermediate care beds would be classified as beds to be used for Medicaid recipients and the facility would be Medicare certified. Retirement center residents will have priority over nursing home beds. The total capital expenditure for the petitioner's proposed nursing home project was estimated in its application to be $3.1 million, with a cost per square foot of $46.29 and a cost per bed of approximately $26,000,00. As of the date of the hearing, the estimated capital expenditure for the petitioner's project as $3.9 million. The respondent Quality Health Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center (QHF), is a Mississippi corporation and owns nursing homes in Tennessee, North Carolina and Haines City, Florida, the latter site having been opened in August of 1983. It also holds three other outstanding Certificates of Need. QHF proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing home containing intermediate and skilled care beds which will be equally available to all members of the community. It is anticipated that it will have approximately 65 percent Medicaid usage and 5 percent Medicare usage. Though it has not yet selected its site, QHF plans to utilize a four-acre site near the City of Venice in Sarasota County. At the time of the application, the total capital expenditure for QHF's proposed project was estimated to be $2.3 million. Its construction costs were estimated at $1.16 million or $33.14 per square foot. QHF's recently constructed Haines City nursing home facility was completed at a construction cost of $1.22 million, or $31.00, per square foot. The Sarasota County facility will utilize the same basic design as the Haines City facility. At the current time, the cost of construction would be increased by an inflation factor of about ten percent. As of the date of the hearing, the projected capital expenditure for QHF's Sarasota County proposed facility was approximately $2.6 million or about $21,000.00 per bed. The owners of QHF are willing and able to supply the necessary working capital to make the proposed nursing home a viable operation. As depicted by the projected interest and depreciation expenses, the QHF facility will have lower operating expenses than the facility proposed by petitioner, Health Quest. In Sarasota County, there is a direct correlation between high Medicaid utilization and high facility occupancy. The long term financial feasibility of a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County is undisputed, as is the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services in the health service area.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Lake Pointe Woods Health Care, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Sarasota County be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that the application of Quality Health Facilities Inc. d/b/a Sarasota Health Care Center for a Certificate of Need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Sarasota County be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st Day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Laird, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 John T. C. Low, Esquire Paul L. Gunn, Esquire Low & McMullan 1530 Capital Towers Post Office Box 22966 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 James M. Barclay, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 1317 Winewood Blvd. Suite 256 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue [Case No. 79-2407] Whether the Department is entitled to reimbursement of certain Medicaid funds previously paid to a nursing home owner in the amount of $118,061.00, based upon a recommendation by the Department and subsequent determination by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, under Section 1122, Social Security Act, that Federal reimbursement of expenses attributable to the purchase of the nursing home should be withheld due to the Owner's lack of timely notice of intent to acquire the nursing home; [Case No. 80-467] Whether, based on the Section 1122 determination, the Department wrongfully disallowed and withheld payment to the nursing home owner, certain medicaid reimbursement funds in the amount of $101,348.00. Conclusions and Recommendation: Conclusions: Here, each party has the burden of presenting a preponderance of evidence in support of its affirmative claim. Each claim rests on the propriety or impropriety of imposition of Section 1122 penalties against the nursing home. Since the Department failed to present sufficient evidence justifying the imposition of Section 1122 penalties and the nursing home failed to establish the Section 1122 penalties were erroneously imposed, neither party sustained its burden of establishing entitlement to the relief requested. Recommendation: That the Department's Medicaid overpayment claim against the nursing home owner, in the amount of $118,061.00 be DENIED, and the nursing home owner's claim against the Department for $101.348.00 in Medicaid underpayments be DENIED. Background: On April 26, 1979, and May 2, 1979, Petitioner/Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("Department") notified Respondent/Petitioners, Lakeview Nursing Home, Robert Becht and R. B. Care, Inc., d/b/a Lakeview Manor and d/b/a Intercoastal Nursing Manor ("Owner") that a desk review of the annual cost report for the Lakeview Nursing Home (a/k/a Lakeview Manor) indicated that the nursing home had been overpaid $18,900.00 by the Department's Medicaid Program during the eight months, ending June 30, 1978, and that such overpayment should be returned to the Department. On October 8, 1979, the Department notified the nursing home Owner that, pursuant to a "Notice of Determination Under Section 1122" issued by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare ("HEW") the Department had recalculated the nursing home's historic per diem rates and determined that the Owner had been overpaid $61,155.00 in Medicaid funds during the period ending June 30, 1978. On November 19, 1979, the nursing home Owner requested a formal hearing, under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge the validity of the Department's overpayment claim. On November 30, 1979, the Department forwarded the Owner's request for a hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings. [DOAH Case No. 79-2407] On January 10, 1980, the Department notified the nursing home Owner that an additional $56,906.00 should be repaid to the State of Florida--based upon alleged overpayment to the nursing home during the period ending June 30, 1979. On February 14, 1980, the nursing home Owner filed a Petition with the Department alleging numerous wrongful and negligent Department actions resulting in the withholding and underpayment of Medicaid funds to which the nursing home was entitled, demanding full payment, and requesting a formal Section 120.57 hearing. On March 12, 1980, the Department forwarded the nursing home Owner's Petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer. [DOAH Case No. 80-467] By Notice of Hearing, dated April 11, 1980, Case No. 80-467 was set for final hearing on May 29, 1980. By agreement of the parties, the two cases were subsequently consolidated for final hearing. At final hearing, the Department called John T. Donaldson, and offered Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 9, into evidence, each of which was received. The nursing home Owner called as its witnesses, William McCaulley, Leonard Cordes, and Linda Zarecki, and offered Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 5, (Composite) and 6, each of which was received. At the request of the nursing home, and without objection by the Department, official recognition was taken of Rule 10C-7.48(6)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The nursing home further stipulated that the only allegations which it would pursue in the administrative hearing concerned whether the Department wrongfully withheld from the nursing home certain Medicaid funds to which its was entitled. Neither party submitted post-hearing proposed Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to an agreement with HEW, the Department administers the Medicaid Program within Florida which includes allocation and payment of Medicaid funds to nursing homes which provide health care to patients qualifying for Medicaid benefits. (Testimony of Donaldson, Petitioners Exhibit 5; Respondent's Exhibit 9) On November 1, 1977, Robert Becht, on behalf of R. B. Care, Inc. ("Owner") purchased a nursing care facility located at 208 Lakeview Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida, known as Intercoastal Nursing Manor. No evidence was presented to establish the purchase price paid for the facility. Subsequent to its purchase, the name of the nursing home was changed to Lakeview Manor, although Department correspondence frequently refers to it as Lakeview Nursing Home. (Testimony of Donaldson, McCaulley, Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2, 5, 9 [Composite]) On January 9, 1978, a representative of the Regional Health Care Planning Agency--Health Planning Council, Inc.--advised the Department's Bureau of Community Medical Facilities of an apparent change in ownership of the Intercoastal Nursing Home, noted that the new owner had not "sought, applied for, or received the necessary Certificate of Need for this change of ownership transaction," and asked for Department assistance in determining the present status of the nursing facility. (Testimony of Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibit 1) In response to the Health Planning Council's letter, the Department's Office of Medical Facilities sent a letter to the Nursing Home Owner, dated January 26, 1978. That letter enclosed Department rules which provided that, when certain expenditures have been incurred by a health care facility without prior notice of such expenditure being given to the designated planning agency (Office of Medical Facilities), that agency should notify the health care facility that such obligation was subject to review, that timely notice of the proposed expenditure was not given, and that the Agency proposed to recommend to the Secretary of HEW that the expenditure be disapproved. The nursing home was given 30 days to reply, or file the necessary application for approval of the expenditure (acquisition of the nursing home). The letter closed with the following: "You should understand that we must report the purchase of Intercoastal Nursing Manor to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare on a no timely notice and that it may affect depreciation, interest, and fair returns on the project and reimbursement on the project." (Respondent's Exhibit 2) By letter dated March 22, 1978 (with copy to the nursing home Owner), the Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities subsequently informed the regional office of HEW that notice had been given the nursing home Owner concerning the need to file an application for review of the November 1, 1977, acquisition of and change in ownership of the nursing home, but that it had failed to respond. The recommendation of the Office of Community Medical Facilities was attached to the transmittal letter; however, that recommendation was not offered into evidence by the Department. The letter of transmittal concluded that, because no application for approval was submitted by the nursing home Owner, there was "no indication on the HRA-45 of the amount of capital expended for the acquisition." (Respondent's Exhibit 3) During April, 1978, the Regional Health Administrator of HEW issued a "Notice of Determination under Section 1122--Reimbursement to be Excluded." The Notice was addressed to the nursing home Owner and concluded that reimbursement for expenses related to the capital expenditure (acquisition of the nursing home facility) would be excluded from payment for services provided under the Social Security Act based upon the finding that (1) the expenditure was subject to Section 1122, and (2) Notice of Intent to make the expenditure had not timely been given. By way of explanation, the regional administrator added that reimbursement would be "withheld for an indefinite period" because the State had been unable to make a finding that the expenditure conformed to applicable plans, standards, and criteria due to the failure to submit an application. (Respondent's Exhibit 4) By separate agreements entered into by the Department and the nursing home Owner on November 2, 1977, October 30, 1978, and September 5, 1979 (which enabled the nursing home to participate in Florida's Medicaid Program) the nursing home Owner expressly agreed to comply with state and federal laws and rules applicable to the Medicaid Program. The Owner also agreed that Medicaid cost reporting would be governed by the procedures and methods contained in the Medicare Provider Reimbursement Manual (HIM-15). The agreements relieve the nursing home from responsibility in "those instances of overpayment due to Agency [Department] errors in eligibility investigation and determination. . ." (Respondent's Exhibit 9 [Composite]) Section 2422 of HIM-15 describes the requirements concerning approval of capital expenditures imposed by Section 1122 of the Social Security Act. The Manual cautions providers desiring to make or having made expenditures subject to Section 1122 to familiarize themselves with the regulations and direct questions concerning its implementation to the designated planning agency. (Respondent's Exhibit 8) Notwithstanding having been sent repeated notices by the Department and HEW concerning the requirements of Section 1122, the nursing home Owner has not filed an application for approval of the capital expenditure associated with acquisition of the nursing home; neither has it contended that such capital expenditure does not fall within the ambit of Section 1122 and implementing HEW and Department rules. (Testimony of McCaulley, Donaldson) Despite the Department's withholding and disallowal of payment to the nursing home of expenses relating to the acquisition of the facility (due to the federal Section 1122 determination), the nursing home continued to qualify for and participate in the Medicaid Program. The nursing home provided efficient and satisfactory medical care to Medicaid patients during 1978, and 1979, and the Department does not assert otherwise. The three Medicaid participation agreements entered into during 1977, 1978, and 1979, do not directly address or purport to relieve health care facilities from compliance with Department rules and Section 1122. (Testimony of Donaldson, McCaulley, Respondent's Exhibit 9 [Composite]) It is probable that the nursing home received actual notice of the requirement that certain capital expenditures by health care facilities must receive Section 1122 approval. Although the nursing home Owner's secretary since June, 1978, does not recall receiving the HEW Section 1122 Notice, she was not employed by the nursing home during the time the notice was issued, and she admitted that she could not testify that the owner had not received the HEW Notice. Moreover, her testimony did not address the earlier Department correspondence to the Owner concerning the need to obtain State and Federal Section 1122 approval, including the Department's Section 1122 recommendation to HEW. (Testimony of Zarecki, Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Between 1977 and 1979, the Department overpaid the nursing home $118,061.00 (which includes the $18,900.00 claimed by the Department in its May 2, 1979, letter) in per diem patient reimbursements which the nursing home was not entitled to under the Section 1122 Notice and Penalty. This overpayment was caused by the Department's failure to exclude that portion of per diem patient reimbursements attributable to the Owner's acquisition of the nursing home property. (Testimony of Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibits 5 and 7) If the Section 1122 penalty was incorrectly recommended by the Department, and imposed by the HEW, the Department has withheld between November 1, 1977, and December 31, 1979, $101,348.00 which is now due and owing to the nursing home Owner. (Testimony of McCaulley, Petitioner's Exhibit 6) Since January 2, 1979, the Owner has no longer owned or operated the nursing home in question. (Testimony of McCaulley, Cordes)
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
Findings Of Fact Venice Hospital, a general acute care hospital offering 342 medical/surgical beds and 30 bed's for general psychiatric care, services a population of approximately 110,000 people in Southern Sarasota and Northern Charlotte Counties. Approximately 80% of its patients are covered by Medicare. This figure being higher than average, puts it somewhere in the top 5% of Medicare providers in Florida. The hospital's services are concentrated on geriatric patients and it is developing several programs devoted to that type of patient. It has recently received approval for nursing home development and operates a home health agency. Missing from the geriatric spectrum of services is the hospital based skilled nursing facility, (SNF), which is the subject of this action. Sarasota County currently has four med/surg hospitals, including Petitioner which is the only hospital in the Venice area. Petitioner has a licensed psychiatric unit which operates under separate rules and which is licensed separately but within the hospital cycle. The patients which are treated in that unit are of a different demographic make up than those treated in the med/surg beds and the staff which treats them is different. Petitioner completed a study of the potential need for SNF beds in the hospital which led to the conclusion being drawn by it that this service should be established. Mr. Bebee's review of the applicable rules and statutes indicated to him that the hospital could elect to designate a special care unit within the hospital without even having to go through Certificate of Need, (CON), review. A letter was submitted by the hospital to the Department on February 8, 1990, asking for an exemption from CON review for that project. Because no response to that letter was forthcoming, and because the hospital review cycle was fast coming up, on February 22, 1990, Mr. Bebee submitted a LOI to the Department seeking to convert 42 med/surg beds to a hospital based SNF facility at a cost of $310,000.00. After the LOI was sent, on February 26, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin, on behalf of the Department, responded by letter to Bebee's inquiry letter, indicating the CON review process was a necessary part of the process for Petitioner's facility, but that the LOI and application should be filed in the next nursing home batching cycle by April 30, 1990. Shortly thereafter, by letter dated March 13, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin rejected the LOI which Petitioner had submitted in the hospital cycle since, according to the Department, it was properly "reviewable under the nursing home review cycle rather than the hospital review cycle." Notwithstanding that rejection, and understanding the Department's position as to which cycle was appropriate, on March 26, 1990, Petitioner submitted its CON application for this project, modified to seek only 36 beds. By undated letter, the envelope for which was postmarked April 16, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin declined to accept that application for the same reason she had rejected the LOI. Petitioner has since filed a CON application for the same project in the current nursing home cycle, on a nursing home application form. It did this to keep its options open but considers that action as being without prejudice to the application at issue. Though numerical bed need is not in issue in this proceeding, a brief discussion of general need is pertinent to an understanding of why Petitioner has applied for approval of this project. Petitioner is of the opinion that SNF beds within the hospital setting will provide better care for the patients than could be provided in a nursing home. Many of the patients in issue are receiving intravenous applications of medicines; taking antibiotics; require orthopedic therapy; or are in respiratory distress calling for ventilator or other pulmonary procedures. These patients need a continuing level of nursing care on a 24 hour basis but no longer qualify for a hospital continued length of stay. Petitioner currently has and is taking care of such patients in the facility, but would like to do so in a more organized, systematic manner which could be accomplished in a hospital based SNF. In addition, reimbursement rules dictate that patients no longer needing full hospital care but who remain in the hospital, become, in part, a cost to the hospital because no meaningful reimbursement is received for thatlevel of care. They would qualify for Medicare reimbursement, however, if the unit were designated and certified as a SNF. Medicaid does not recognize these beds as reimbursable because they are in a hospital. Certification for the hospital based SNF would be through the Health Care Financing Administration, (HCFA), and the Medicare program. To secure this certification, the hospital based unit would have to be a distinct part of the facility and not merely consist of beds scattered throughout the facility. Once certified, the unit is not referred to as a nursing home by HCFA or Medicare, but is classified as a hospital based unit. Because Petitioner sees this as a hospital project - a service that the hospital would be providing under its license, it chose to file for the approval in the hospital cycle rather than in the nursing home cycle. Bebee is familiar with the certification process for both hospitals and nursing homes. The latter is a lengthier process and is substantially different from that used for hospitals. In his opinion, it does not give the hospital based applicant the opportunity to properly justify the approval of a hospital based SNF since it deals more with the requirements of a community based facility. The nursing home form is highly structured whereas the hospital form makes it easier to identify and supply the appropriate supporting information for the project applied for. Further, Bebee does not consider the hospital based SNF bed in the same context as a community nursing home bed. The type of patient is not the same nor are the resources required to treat that patient. Petitioner has purchased a CON to construct a 120 bed community nursing home within the Venice area which will have some SNF beds in it. Nonetheless, because of the basic difference between the services, it still plans to pursue the hospital based SNF. A Florida Hospital Association study concluded that SNF in hospitals are different and there is a lack of this type of service in the hospitals throughout the state. This study, dated May, 1989, at Page 5 reads: Conversion of hospital beds to nursing home beds could improve the financial viability of hospitals, reduce purchasers' and consumers' health costs, and improve access to care for patients requiring higher levels of nursing care, [if they are needed and meet quality care requirements]. Bebee also points out that if this project is considered in the nursing home cycle rather than in the hospital cycle, it would result in a hospital competing with nursing homes which are seeking a different type of bed - community versus SNF. Current community nursing home bed need is set at 0. Petitioner's nursing home cycle application was filed under the "not normal circumstances" provision, but there may still be substantial contest. This type of litigation, he believes, adds unreasonably and unnecessarily costs and is a resultant financial burden to the hospital. Mr. Balzano, a health care consultant and Petitioner's other expert, confirmed and amplified the substance of Mr. Bebee's thesis. He compared hospital based SNFs with those in community nursing homes and found notable differences aside from the statutes and rules governing each. Petitioner's current beds are controlled under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D- 28, F.A.C. If some were converted to SNF beds under the pending application, they would still fall under the purview of that statute and rule. On the other hand, community nursing home SNF beds would be controlled by the provisions of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-29, F.A.C. There is a substantial difference between them. Other differences are: Patients in hospital based SNF beds generally have greater nursing requirements than those in SNF beds in community nursing homes. Staffing in hospital based SNF is generally higher than in free standing nursing homes. The average stay is shorter in a hospital based SNF. Patients are not there for continuing care but for restorative care. The size of a hospital based SNF unit is generally smaller than that in a free standing unit. Costs are usually greater in a hospital based SNF unit reflecting the greater needs of the patient. Therefore, reimbursement is generally higher. Health services in the different systems are different and a comparative review would be difficult. The questions in the different application forms reflect a different approach and in the nursing home application, relate to residential type care. This is not the case in the hospital form. Costs relating to the use of an existing facility would be cheaper for the hospital based unit when compared with building a new nursing home facility. However, the costs of hospital construction are usually higher than nursing home construction though the quality of construction is generally better. The operating costs for the more complex services provided in a hospital based unit are higher and Petitioner would have trouble competing if reimbursement were based on the classification as a nursing home. Higher staffing levels and higher staffing costs in a hospital based facility would act in disfavor of that facility. The state generally looks with greater favor on projects for Medicaid patients. Hospital based units are not oriented toward that group and would, therefore, not be given the same consideration, as would be a nursing home which catered to Medicaid patients. The type of patient, (residential vs. subacute) has an impact. The hospital based unit provides treatment to the more acutely ill patient. SNF patients who need that higher degree of care would get it better at a hospital based facility which has greater resources to meet patient needs. Mr. Balzano feels it is unfair to compare the two types of properties. The differences in the programs would have an impact on the issue of need when comparative review is done. A SNF in the hospital setting is different but would be compared, if the nursing home cycle were used, against the total pool of community nursing home beds even though the patients are different and their need for services are different. Need methodology looks at historical utilization. Hospital based SNF patients turn over more frequently than do community nursing home patients and the occupancy level is not as high in the hospital based setting. This would bring the average occupancy rate in an area down and could affect the need for community beds across the board. It is also noted that hospital based SNF beds would not be appropriate to house community nursing home patients who could not be accommodated in a nursing home, and vice-versa. SNF patients could normally not be appropriately treated in a community nursing home because of their greater needs. If compared in a batched review, however, they would be considered together without that distinction being made. Since all other hospital services are reviewed under the provisions of Chapter 395 parameters as hospitals, Balzano sees it as inconsistent to review hospital based SNF beds under the nursing home criteria. He can find no statutory or rule provision requiring this. The Department has drafted a proposed rule on the subject but that proposal is presently under challenge. Further, Medicare considers hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home based SNF beds as different entities with the hospital based beds earning a higher reimbursement ceiling due to the increased services and the different type of patient. According to Mr. Balzano, in Florida, hospital based SNF beds account for 1/2 of 1% of all hospital beds. Nationwide the figure is 4%. Balzano feels this is because in Florida there is no criteria to judge need against and therefore these beds are compared to all nursing home beds. He considers this wrong, especially in a state where there is such a high percentage of elderly patients. It is, in his opinion, poor health planning, and when compared against other nursing homes, the hospital based SNF unit will always be at a disadvantage. The testimony of Ms. Sharon Gordon-Girvin, Director of the Department's Office of Community Health Services and Facilities, reveals the Department's rationale in its rejection of the Petitioner's LOI for the instant project and the subsequent return of its application. The application was rejected because there was no underlying LOI for the project. The LOI was initially rejected as having been filed in an inappropriate cycle, (hospital). The Department's policy, calling for applications for all extended care or hospital based skilled nursing facility beds to be filed in a nursing home batching cycle has been in place for an extended period going back before 1984. The Department looks at extended care beds and SNF beds as somewhat equivalent but different. The designation of extended care facility beds initially used by HCFA, (Medicare), in hospital situations is no longer applicable. Now, Medicare recognizes SNF beds in hospitals, but does not distinguish them from other types of hospital based beds. The service is considered the same and the patients must meet identical admissions criteria. The reasons relied upon by the Department, from a health planning standpoint, for reviewing applications for hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home cycle are: Medicare conditions of service and admission criteria are the same, and The State nursing home formula rule projects a need for all nursing home beds, (SNF and ICF) , and does not differentiate between type. Providers compete for the beds, not where they will be used or under what conditions. The mere need for special treatment such as ventilators or intravenous antibiotics is not controlling. If the patient does not need the acute care provided to hospital acute care patients, since a "subacute" status is no longer recognized by the state, it is the Department's position that that patient should be in intermediate care status. This position is incorporated in the Departments proposed rule which is currently under challenge. It had been elucidated, however, in both the 1988 and 1990 editions of HRSM 235-1, relating to Certificates of Need, where at section 9-5 in both editions the text reads: 9-5 Skilled Nursing Unite in Hospitals. Beds in skilled nursing units located in hospitals will be counted in the nursing home bed inventory, even though they retain their licensure as general medical surgical beds. In addition, the Florida State Health Plan for 1989 and for each year since 1984, has counted hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home bed inventory. The parties stipulated to that point. Ms. Gordon-Girvin admits that it is sometimes difficult for an applicant to apply for hospital based SNF beds on a nursing home application for, but claims that is as it should be. She asserts that the patients are the same, (disputed), and since, she claims, a hospital cannot provide the same services that a full service nursing home could provide, the applicants should be differentiated on the basis of services rather than patient category to justify the additional cost inherent in the hospital based setting. In short, she believes the current situation is appropriate since it requires the applicant, a hospital, to look more carefully at the terms and conditions of the services to be provided. In so far as this results in health care cost savings, her position is accepted. She also contends that the Florida Hospital Association study relied upon by Petitioner to support its position that hospital based SNF bed applications for distinct units cannot compete fairly against nursing homes in a comparative CON review, is not pertinent here considering it was prepared to examine an excess of hospital bed inventory and possible alternative uses as income sources. Regardless of the purpose of the study, absent a showing that it is unreasonably slanted or biased, its conclusions have not been successfully rebutted. Ms. Gordon-Girvin also contends that the low percentage of hospital based SNF beds as compared to total hospital beds is a positive result of the state's efforts to reduce costly services in favor of less costly alternatives. The Department has the exclusive charter to determine which services are to be reviewed and how the review is to be conducted. Even if the proposed rule formalizing the procedure questioned here is stricken, the policy currently being utilized by the Department would still be valid and appropriate. Psychiatric, substance abuse, and rehabilitation beds in hospital inventories are considered distinct from acute care beds, but are still classified as hospital beds because there are no reasonable alternatives for treatment of those conditions. With regard to those patients using hospital based SNF beds, however, the Department claims there is an alternative, the community nursing home based SNF beds. In further support of the Department's position, Amy M. Jones, the Department's Assistant Secretary for Health Care Facilities and an expert in facility licensing and certification in Florida, pointed our that the Department treats hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home SNF beds the same because: conditions of participation are the same and the Department wants to look at and compare similar activities in the same cycle, and pertinent statutes and rules both provide for comparison of similar beds and similar services. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, defines the various types of hospital beds as psychiatric, rehabilitative, and general medical/surgical acute care beds regardless of how they are used. The HCFA Conditions of Participation call for certification of SNF beds as either a distinct part of another facility or as a free standing facility. The agency regulations, as outlined in The Federal Register for February 2, 1989, outlines the requirement that SNF beds in a hospital be surveyed just as are community nursing home SNF beds. Taken as a whole, it would appear that both federal and state regulatory agencies look at SNF beds, regardless of where located, as an integral part of a nursing home operation as opposed to a hospital operation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department affirming its rejection of the Petitioner's Letter of Intent and CON application for the conversion of medical/surgical beds to SNF beds filed in the hospital batching cycle. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES NOS. 90-2738 & 90-3575 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Not a proper Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein as it relates to Petitioner's filing of the LOI and the CON application. The balance is background information and is not a proper Finding of Fact. 3.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a proper Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Accepted and incorporated herein except for first sentence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. &13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14.&15. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18.-21. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but merely a restatement of the testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. &26. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. &29. Not a Finding of Fact but argument and a restatement of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact but argument. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted. Recitation of the witnesses testimony is accurate, but the conclusion drawn does not necessarily follow. Frequency of use does not necesarily determine the finality of the policy. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted as a presentation of the contents of the document. Accepted. Accepted as represented. 38.-40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 42.&43. Accepted. Accepted. &46. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1.&2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive - Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jeffery A. Boone, Esquire Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Linda K. HarSris General Counsel DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner originally applied for a certificate of need to construct and operate a 180 bed community nursing home in Broward County, Florida. By stipulation, the Petitioner's application was amended to be an application for a certificate of need for 120 nursing home beds at a cost of $4,600,000. Stipulation filed August 9, 1985. The only issue in this case is whether there is a need for 120 nursing home beds in Broward County. T. 25. The parties agree that need is to be determined in this case by application of rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Prehearing Stipulation, pp. 2-3. In the case at bar, the relevant district is District X, which is Broward County and is not subdivided into subdistricts. T. 147. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)1-4, which is applicable to this case, requires use of the following data and abbreviations: The number of licensed beds ("LB"). The current district population age 65-74 (POPC"). The current district population age 75+ ("POPD"). The district population age 65-74 projected three years ahead ("POPA"). The district population age 75+ projected three years ahead ("POPB"). The average occupancy rate for licensed nursing home beds in the district ("OR"). The number of nursing home beds in the district which have received CON approval but are not yet licensed ("approved beds"). HRS gathers data-from local health councils as to the number of patients in a given nursing home on the first day of each month, and this data, collected in six month segments, is compiled into a semiannual occupancy report. T. 145-46. Joint Exhibit 17 is the semiannual census report and bed need allocation published June 3, 1985, and contains data collected on the first days of the months of October-December 1984 and January-March, l98. T. 147; Joint Exhibit 17. The population figures to be used in this case are from the office of the Governor, and neither party disputes the accuracy of these figures. Relying upon the data in Joint Exhibit 17, HRS concluded that there is only a net need for 11 community nursing home beds in District X on the date of the hearing. Joint Exhibit 17, Joint Exhibit 15, T. 150. This was correctly calculated in Petitioner's proposed finding of fact 20: Underlying data: LB = 2,875 POPC = 157,371 POPD = 104,860 POPA = 168,793 POPB = 124,570 OR = 87.59 percent Approved beds = 415 Calculations: Bed rates: BA = LB POPC + (6 x POPD) = 2,875 157,371 + (6 x 104,860) = 2,765 786,531 = 3.65/1,000 BB = 6 x BA = 6 x 3.65/1,000 = 21.93/1,000 Age-adjusted bed total: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) = (168,793 x 3.65) + (124,570 x 21.93) 1,000 ( 1,000) = (168.793 x 3.65) + (124,570 x 21.93) = 617 + 2,732 = 3,349 Occupancy-adjusted total: SA = A x OR 90 = 3,349 x 87.59 90 = 3,259 Deduction for licensed & approved beds: Net beds = SA - LB - .9 (approved beds) = 3,259 - 2,875 - .9 (415) = 384 - 373 Net beds = 11 Beverly Manor was licensed as a community nursing home for 120 beds on May 13, 1985. T. 140-41, 151; Petitioner's Exhibit 16. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has a policy to use May 1, 1985, as the cutoff date for Counting licensed nursing home beds for the June 1985 semiannual report, and based on that policy, did not consider the licensed beds at Beverly Manor in calculating bed need in Joint Exhibit 17 and 15. T. 149, 151-52. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services uses a variety of other cutoff dates in compiling the semiannual report. Poverty data is from 1980. Approved bed count is from May 1, 1985. Population data is from January 1985. T. 148-50. The reason offered by HRS for using May 1, 1985, for a cutoff date for counting licensed nursing home beds was to give HRS employees enough time to put all the data together t issue the semiannual report on the due date, June 1985. T. 159-60. Daystar, Inc., is reported to be a 44 bed nursing home in District X on Joint Exhibit 17. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services includes in the semiannual report all nursing homes that are licensed by the HRS office of licensure and certification. T. 152. HRS included Daystar, Inc., on the semiannual report. Id. Daystar, Inc., operates a 44 bed facility far Christian Scientists that does not offer medical treatment or medication of any kind, but relies solely upon spiritual healing. T. 36-37. On September 29, 1981, certificate of need number 1746 was issued to Colonial Palms Nursing Home East. Petitioner's Exhibit 18. The termination date was extended to March 27, 1983. Id. Three days before the termination date, HRS issued an amended certificate of need number 1746, to Colonial Palms, Inc. to construct the 120 beds in two phases. Phase I was the addition of 46 beds to an existing facility, which HRS did not name, and phase II was to construct a new 74 bed nursing home facility. Petitioner's Exhibit 19. On April 5, 1983, a Robert T. Held wrote to HRS on "Colonial Palms Nursing Home" letterhead stating that construction regarding certificate of need 1746 had commenced. On June 3, 1985, a William R. Meyer spoke with a Ruth Dixon, Control Clerk, Broward County Permit Bureau, and Ms. Dixon advised Mr. Meyer that no building permit had been issued to Colonial Palms West at 51 West Sample Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 or to Bodee Construction Company for 74 beds. Ms. Dixon further advised Mr. Meyer that "Colonial Palms" has not been issued a building permit since 1983, and that she checked both addresses of Colonial Palms and under the construction company in her investigation. HRS takes the position that the Colonial Palms Certificate of need for 74 new beds is still valid since it is still on its approved list and has not been taken off as void. T. 156-57. The foregoing evidence is not sufficient to conclude that certificate of need lumber 1746 is void in whole or in part due to failure to commence construction. The evidence is ambiguous as to which entity holds the certificate of need or which entity was checked for construction permits, and there is no evidence as to whether construction could have been initiated without a construction permit on file in Broward County. Moreover, the Broward County evidence is hearsay, and although there has been no objection to it, the Hearing Officer independently does not regard it to be sufficient, pursuant to section 120.58(1)(a), Fla. Stat., to be relied upon. Finally, it is entirely unclear what type of construction, undertaken by what entity, would be required for this certificate of need to satisfy the "commence construction" requirement. Colonial Palms was not licensed for an additional 46 beds until January 18, 1985, and thus it had only 81 licensed beds on the first of January, 1985; thus, the occupancy report for Colonial Palms for January, 1985, should have been 83 patients in 81 licensed beds. T. 154; Petitioner's Exhibit 13. The "occupancy rate" contained in the semiannual reports, Joint Exhibit 17 and Petitioner's Exhibit 9, is calculated by dividing the total of the patient census in all nursing homes on the first of each month for the six month reporting period by the total of all licensed nursing home beds for those same facilities during the same months. T. 161. Petitioner's Exhibit 10 is an example of how HRS makes this calculation. Id. As a result of adding the 120 licensed beds at Beverly Manor, the "licensed beds" (LB) figure in the formula increases to 2,995, and "approved beds" changes from 415 to 295. The correction to the January 1985 licensed beds at Colonial Palms (corrected to 81 licensed beds), results in a change to the "occupancy rate" from 87.59 percent as reported in Joint Exhibit 17, to 88.06 percent. This calculation is derived from Petitioner's Exhibits 12, 13, and 14. The patient census for October 1984 through March 1985 was 13,051. The licensed beds total for the same months, however, would be 14,820, which is the result of subtracting 46 beds from Colonial Palms for January 1985. The result, 13,051 divided by 14,820, is 88.06 percent. In the past, HRS has granted partial approval of a lesser number of beds than sought by the applicant for a certificate of need. T. 142. The computations contained in conclusion of law paragraph 10 are found to be the correct computation of need pursuant to the rule, and are hereby incorporated by reference as a finding of fact.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended, subject to paragraph 12 above, that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue to the Petitioner, Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Regents Park of Broward, a certificate of need to construct and operate 120 community nursing home beds in District X. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of November 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 6th day of November, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-3297 The following proposed findings of fact by Petitioner are adopted herein, if these proposed findings have not already been adopted in the findings of fact: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20 and 21. The following proposed findings were concerned with the December 1984 semiannual report, and thus are not relevant since better and more current data, the June 1985 semiannual report, exists: 9, 10, 11, 15, and 16. See conclusions of law 2-6. The following proposed findings are rejected to the extent that they concern exclusion of Daystar, Inc., data, or to the extent that they are based upon exclusion of Colonial Palms data due to the theory that the Colonial Palms certificate of need is void due to failure to commence construction: 18, 22, and 23. The rejection of these factual matters has been explained in findings of fact 14-16 and conclusions of law 7-9. Proposed finding 24 is rejected as irrelevant, since a net bed need is shown by the rule formula. See rule 10- 5.11(21)(b)10. Moreover, even if the net bed need, which is called the "net bed allocation" by the rule, were zero, the facts proposed in finding of fact 24 are not of the type permitted under this exception of the rule. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul V. DeBianchi, P.A. 2601 East Oakland Park Blvd. Suite #500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Charles M. Loeser, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Health Quest Corporation 315 W. Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601-1586 Harden King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Department of Health, Board of Nursing Home Administrators (the “Department”), was “substantially justified” under section 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes,1 in initiating the underlying action against the nursing home administrator license of Petitioner, Sebrina Cameron, N.H.A. (“Petitioner” or “Ms. Cameron”).
Findings Of Fact Based on the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department, through the Board, is the entity authorized by statute to issue licenses to nursing home administrators and to impose discipline on those licenses when warranted. § 468.1685(4), Fla. Stat. Ms. Cameron is a licensed nursing home administrator, having been issued license number NH 4950. Case No. 20-3025PL was initiated by the Department, a “state agency” for purposes of section 57.111(3)(f). Ms. Cameron qualifies as a “small business party” as defined in section 57.111(3)(d). Because the Administrative Complaint underlying Case No. 20- 3025PL was ultimately dismissed by the Board, Ms. Cameron is a “prevailing small business party” under section 57.111(3)(c)1. The sole issue presented in this bifurcated proceeding is whether the Department was substantially justified in bringing the Administrative Complaint against Petitioner’s nursing home administrator license. Section 57.111(3)(e) states that a proceeding is “substantially justified” if “it had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by a state agency.” On May 4, 2020, the Department presented its investigation and recommendation in Department Case No. 2020-12066 to the Panel, which decides whether there is a sufficient legal and factual basis for the Department to move forward with formal charges in license discipline cases. The Panel reviewed the following materials (hereinafter “Panel Materials”): a draft of the proposed Administrative Complaint; a copy of the Department’s Order of Emergency Suspension of License; Petitioner’s detailed response to the allegations; a 980-page Supplemental Investigative Report dated April 23, 2020; and a 196-page Final Investigative Report dated April 22, 2020. The Panel found probable cause and authorized the filing of the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron. The investigation and subsequent Administrative Complaint related to an outbreak of COVID-19 involving several residents at Cross Landings Health and Rehabilitation Center, a nursing home in Monticello. The outbreak commenced on or about April 5, 2020, when a resident at Cross Landings tested positive for COVID-19. By April 14, 2020, 11 additional residents had tested positive. On April 9, 2020, a team of four registered nurses (“RN Team”), contracted by the Department’s Division of Emergency Management, arrived at Cross Landings with the stated assignment of assessing the facility’s infection control procedures and providing education and training on hygiene practices, infection control, isolation procedures, and the proper use of personal protective equipment (“PPE”). The RN Team was also tasked with identifying and recommending actions to be taken to control the spread of COVID-19 infections. The RN Team worked at Cross Landings until April 14, 2020. The record indicates that the RN Team’s dealings with the staff of Cross Landings was contentious, particularly with regard to the facility’s owner, administrators, and senior nursing staff, who regarded the team’s behavior as high-handed, intrusive, and not consistent with its supposed mission of helping Cross Landings cope with the COVID-19 outbreak. From the RN Team’s point of view, Cross Landings’ leadership was uncooperative when not outright obstructive. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Cross Landings had two licensed nursing home administrators on site responding to the outbreak. The administrator of record was Mark Daniels. However, Mr. Daniels submitted his resignation to Cross Landings on April 7, 2020. During the team’s stay, Ms. Cameron was also at the facility in her role as regional administrator for the parent company of Cross Landings, to ensure continuity of care for the residents and to help on the administrative side. Petitioner argues that the title “regional administrator” was an honorific bestowed upon her by the parent company in recognition of her years of service to the organization. The title carried no additional powers or duties. Petitioner states that Ms. Cameron had no supervisory authority over Mr. Daniels, who was at all relevant times the administrator of record at Cross Landings. At the time of the investigation, the Department was unaware that the title “regional administrator” carried no actual authority. The Department understood the title to mean that Ms. Cameron was senior to Mr. Daniels and exercised some level of administrative authority at Cross Landings. It appeared to the RN Team that Ms. Cameron was a figure of authority at Cross Landings and that she was treated as such by the staff of the facility. The RN Team created daily reports detailing its observations at Cross Landings for April 9 through 11, 13, and 14, 2020. During its subsequent investigation, the Department interviewed the members of the RN Team regarding their observations at Cross Landings. The daily reports and the interviews were part of the investigative file that was before the Panel when it deliberated probable cause in Ms. Cameron’s case. The RN Team reported widespread failure in Cross Landings’ infection prevention and control measures, including the improper use of PPE by staff, inadequate hygiene procedures, the failure to properly isolate COVID-19 suspected or positive residents, the failure to timely notify staff members of COVID-19 positive residents, and the failure to properly screen individuals entering the facility, including Ms. Cameron.2 The RN Team also reported an overall failure to deliver adequate resident care, including residents who were soiled with feces or urine, 2 The RN Team’s reportage was disputed by Cross Landings and would have been subject to challenge by Ms. Cameron at any subsequent hearing. The RN Team’s reportage is relayed in this Final Order not as fact but as information that was available to the Panel in its deliberations. residents who did not have bed sheets, residents who were not receiving adequate wound care, and residents with undated and soiled surgical dressings. The RN Team reported being “shocked and horrified” by the conditions at Cross Landings. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron instructed Cross Landings’ staff to not listen to the RN Team’s recommendations and that Ms. Cameron called the RN Team “nothing but trouble.” Ms. Cameron and her fellow senior employees believed, not without reason, that the main purpose of the RN Team was not to help Cross Landings cope with the COVID-19 outbreak, but to compile a record for the purpose of disciplinary action against the facility and its administrators. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron, Mr. Daniels, and Director of Nursing Mary Lewis actively obstructed the RN Team’s efforts to improve conditions at the facility. The RN Team reported that the trio became increasingly hostile to the RN Team. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. Lewis stated that they were following orders from the facility’s owner, Karl Cross. On or about April 14, 2020, the Department issued Quarantine/ Isolation Orders directing that 13 of Cross Landings’ 42 residents be relocated to another facility due to Cross Landings’ insufficient infection control practices and the resultant spread of COVID-19 within the facility. On or about April 15, 2020, the Department issued additional Orders requiring the remaining Cross Landings’ residents to undergo COVID-19 testing. Petitioner’s Motion does not dispute the factual allegations of the Administrative Complaint as to her actions at Cross Landings between April 9 and 14, 2020. Petitioner’s case rests on the legal argument that the Department cannot take disciplinary action against Ms. Cameron’s nursing home administrator license under the facts alleged because Ms. Cameron was not the designated administrator of record at Cross Landings. The Motion states: Here, the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron was not substantially justified because Mark Daniels—and NOT Sebrina Cameron—was the designated administrator of Cross Landings at all times referenced in the Amended Complaint. Ms. Cameron was at all relevant times, and continues to be, the administrator of a completely different facility, Crosswinds Health and Rehabilitation Center (“Crosswinds”). These facts were known to the [Department]. The identity of the actual administrator was readily available to [the Department] and was easily determined through a simple review of readily available state records. Petitioner relies on a rule of the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) regulating the licensure, administration, and fiscal management of nursing homes. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A- 4.103(4) provides: Administration. The licensee of each nursing home must have full legal authority and responsibility for the operation of the facility. The licensee of each facility must designate one person, who is licensed by the Florida Department of Health, Board of Nursing Home Administrators under Chapter 468, Part II, F.S., as the Administrator who oversees the day to day administration and operation of the facility.[3] Each nursing home must be organized according to a written table of organization. (emphasis added). 3 This portion of the rule implements section 400.141(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that a licensed nursing home facility shall “[b]e under the administrative direction and charge of a licensed administrator.” Section 400.021(1) defines “administrator” as “the licensed individual who has the general administrative charge of a facility.” The Motion notes that the Administrative Complaint acknowledges that Ms. Cameron was not the designated administrator of record at Cross Landings by repeatedly referring to her as the “regional administrator” of the facility. The Motion goes on to argue as follows: There are no rules, codes, statutes, or any other authoritative sources that recognize the existence of or define the responsibilities of a “regional administrator.” Ms. Cameron was given the honorific title as recognition of her years of quality service, but the title did not come with any legislatively recognized responsibilities, official responsibilities, authority, or monetary incentives for any time she chose to spend helping out at Cross Landings during the once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic. To be clear, Ms. Cameron was not required by contract, duties, law, or regulation to step foot in Cross Landings and put herself at risk during a deadly pandemic. Despite this, the [Department] elected to proceed against her license through [sections] 468.1755(1)(h) and (k). Count I of the Administrative Complaint alleged that Petitioner violated section 468.1755(1)(h), by engaging in fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of nursing home administration, which is defined as follows by section 468.1655(4): “Practice of nursing home administration” means any service requiring nursing home administration education, training, or experience and the application of such to the planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling of the total management of a nursing home. A person shall be construed to practice or to offer to practice nursing home administration who: Practices any of the above services. Holds himself or herself out as able to perform, or does perform, any form of nursing home administration by written or verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, or card; or in any other way represents himself or herself to be, or implies that he or she is, a nursing home administrator. The Department argues that the statutory definition of the practice of nursing home administration does not limit its regulatory reach to the designated administrator of a nursing home, but reaches a person who holds herself out as able to perform or who does perform nursing home administration. The Department states that an AHCA rule regarding the overall operation of nursing home facilities does not govern the Department’s regulation of an individual licensee. The Department contends that Ms. Cameron’s undisputed actions at Cross Landings met the statutory definition of the practice of nursing home administration and that it was reasonable for the Panel to find probable cause based on those actions. The Department points out that Ms. Cameron used her title of regional administrator to order supplies on behalf of Cross Landings, including PPE and sanitizing products. Ms. Cameron verbally directed Cross Landings’ staff members. In one instance noted by the RN Team, a newly hired Cross Landings certified nursing assistant (“CNA”) was given a painter’s mask that was too large for her face. The RN Team instructed her to replace it with a smaller mask. The CNA told the RN Team that Ms. Cameron had given her the mask and that she had been given no training on COVID-19 procedures or PPE. Ms. Cameron subsequently refused to give the CNA a smaller mask and instead offered her a used N95 mask from the trunk of her car. When the CNA refused to put on the used mask, she was forced to resign from her position. Ms. Cameron represented Cross Landings in dealing with the Department regarding the placement of a resident who was suspected to have COVID-19. Ms. Cameron met with the RN Team on behalf of Cross Landings. The Department notes that Ms. Cameron held herself out as able to perform nursing home administration and/or represented or implied that she was a nursing home administrator at Cross Landings. Ms. Cameron was physically present at Cross Landings in her role as regional administrator. She employed the title “regional administrator” to some effect and used the administrator’s office while at Cross Landings. She was privy to communications between Mr. Cross and AHCA regarding the RN Team and COVID-19 infection control procedures at Cross Landings. Though she was not the administrator of record, Ms. Cameron held herself out and was treated as having actual administrative authority at Cross Landings during the COVID-19 outbreak and the RN Team’s visit in April 2020. There was a reasonable basis in law and fact to find that Petitioner engaged in the practice of nursing home administration at Cross Landings as defined in section 468.1655(4)(a) and/or (b), due to her performance of nursing home administrator services and/or by her holding herself out to be a nursing home administrator. Count II of the Administrative Complaint alleged that Petitioner violated section 468.1755(1)(k), by repeatedly acting in a manner inconsistent with the health, safety, or welfare of the patients of the facility in which she is the administrator. Chapter 468, enacted to ensure that every nursing home administrator practicing in Florida meets the minimum requirements for safe practice, defines a nursing home administrator as, “a person who is licensed to engage in the practice of nursing home administration in this state under the authority of this part.” § 468.1655(3), Fla. Stat. (2019). As noted above, section 400.021 defines “administrator” as “the licensed individual who has the general administrative charge of a facility.” The stated purpose of chapter 400, part II, is to provide for the development, establishment, and enforcement of basic standards for the health, care, and treatment of persons in nursing homes and the maintenance and operation of such institutions in a manner that will ensure safe, adequate, and appropriate care, treatment, and health of persons in such facilities. § 400.011, Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Cameron was a licensed nursing home administrator pursuant to chapter 468 and used the title of regional administrator. The title “regional administrator” is not defined by statute but in context carries an ordinary meaning that the individual is the administrator supervising more than one nursing home in a geographic area. Ms. Cameron stated that she was at Cross Landings to ensure continuity of care after Mr. Daniels tendered his resignation. It was not illogical for the Department to conclude that “continuity of care” meant that Ms. Cameron was sent to Cross Landings to perform the duties of administrator as Mr. Daniels prepared for his departure. Ensuring “continuity of care” would certainly require control over the various components of a nursing home to provide health care and activities of daily living, including the management of nursing and housekeeping staff, oversight of meal services, and the facilitation of social and recreational activities. Such oversight or control is tantamount to the general administrative charge of the facility. Ms. Cameron would not have been able to ensure continuity of care if she did not have de facto general administrative charge of Cross Landings. Ms. Cameron’s general administrative charge over the facility was evidenced by her actions at Cross Landings, including ordering supplies, distributing supplies to staff members, directing staff members, communicating on behalf of the facility, meeting with the RN Team in the place of Mr. Daniels, and using the administrator’s office as her own. Ms. Cameron’s licensure as a nursing home administrator, her use of the title regional administrator, her stated purpose for being present at Cross Landings, and her actions at Cross Landings provide sufficient grounds for a reasonable person to believe that she had the general administrative charge of Cross Landings. Though she was not the administrator of record and did not have sole administrative charge of the facility, Ms. Cameron presented herself as the person in charge and was treated as such by Cross Landings’ staff. Based on the foregoing, at the time this proceeding was initiated, the Department had a reasonable basis in law and fact to find that Petitioner was the administrator at Cross Landings as defined in sections 468.1655(3) and 400.021(1), and was subject to discipline for repeatedly acting in a manner inconsistent with the health, safety, or welfare of the patients of the facility. During the probable cause hearing on May 4, 2020, the Panel discussed and considered whether Ms. Cameron was subject to discipline for her actions at Cross Landings. Members of the Panel raised questions about her status as the administrator of Cross Landings. The Department informed the Panel that Mr. Daniels was the administrator of record for Cross Landings. The Panel discussed what duties and obligations a licensed administrator other than the administrator of record would have in this specific scenario. The Panel considered that Ms. Cameron was the regional administrator for the parent company, that she was acting in an administrative capacity on the ground at Cross Landings, and that she therefore had some degree of responsibility. The Panel concluded that Ms. Cameron was operating in the capacity of administrator by being the regional administrator on site. The chair of the Panel reasonably concluded that a regional administrator would be in a position to exercise control over Mr. Daniels and that Mr. Daniels was reporting to Ms. Cameron. It is found that the information before the Panel was sufficient to support the Panel’s decision. The Department was substantially justified in finding probable cause and deciding to pursue an Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron.
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
