Findings Of Fact On July 31, 1987, DOA mailed a Request for Proposal, (RFP), to various Health Maintenance Organizations, (HMOs), soliciting proposals for the providing of HMO services in the Orlando service area. Petitioner, Cigna, and the various Intervenors herein, submitted proposals which were opened by DOA on August 28, 1987, with a contemplated date of award of September 14, 1987 and an effective date of contract on January 1, 1988. Section 2 of the RFP defined the general purposes of the procurement as being to meet benefit objectives of DOA and to provide high quality benefits and services to state employees. Specifically, the objectives of the RFP were: A proactive approach to cost containment, including an emphasis on aggressive claims management, utilization review, and superior statistical reporting. Quality medical care which encourages health promotion, disease prevention, early diagnosis and treatment. Stability in the financial structure of offered health plans. Professional, high quality service in all administrative areas including claims processing, enrollment, membership services, grievances, and communications. Competitive premium rates which take into account the demographics and, if appropriate, the claims experience of state employees. Other stated objectives included: Have each county or contiguous group of counties be considered one service area. Award no more than two contracts per service area; however, the awards will be based on the HMO's ability to respond to the needs of employees and on accessibility by employees. Have reciprocal agreements between locations, if an HMO has multiple service areas. Enter into a two year, non-experience rates contract. A provision will be included tying renewal action at each of the two renewals to the consumer price index, (CPI), for medical care services. In order to be considered as a "qualified" proposer, an organization had to be licensed by the Department of Insurance pursuant to Part II, Chapter 641, Florida Statutes. Section IX of the RFP listed five major criteria for evaluation of the proposals. They were: Premium Cost Extensiveness of service area - by county and/or contiguous counties. Plan Benefits as follows: Covered services Limitations and exclusions Co-payments, deductibles, and coinsurance features Range of providers including specialists and numbers of hospitals D. Out of service area coverage F. Grievance procedures Accessibility as follows: Reciprocal agreements Provider locations Number of primary care physicians and specialists, in relation to membership Completeness of proposals The first four of the above objectives were called for by the Legislative action providing for these procurements to be effective January 1, 1988. The fifth, completeness of proposals, was not identified by the Legislature but was added by DOA. The Department reviewed and evaluated all the proposals submitted by Petitioner and the various Intervenors. Each proposer was evaluated by three individual evaluators. Two separate sets of evaluations were performed; the second coming upon the direction of the Secretary who, after the first evaluation and recommendation of award, concluded the standards for evaluation had been too subjective and directed a second evaluation utilizing more objective standards. During this second evaluation process, after the actual evaluations had been done but before the recommendation was forwarded to the Secretary, several computer treatments of the raw scores were accomplished by Mr. Nye because of additional unidentified factors brought to his attention. The final computer run identified that Central Florida Physicians, not a party to this action, received the highest point total followed by Health Options, Pru-Care, and Petitioner, Cigna. Mr. Nye, who had designed and supervised the evaluation process, recommended to the Secretary that Central Florida Physicians, Health Options, and Pru-Care receive the award even though the guidelines called for only two recommendees. Central Florida Physicians was recognized to be in financial difficulties though it received the highest rating, and in order to provide two viable candidates in the event that provider should be disqualified, Health Options and Pru-Care were added. Central Florida Physicians was, in fact, subsequently disqualified due to financial insolvency. This left Health Options and Pru-Care as the two providers with the highest evaluations and the Secretary made the award to them. At the final count, Health Options received a point total of 64.635; Pru-Care, 57.415; and Cigna, 56.83, or a difference of .585 between Pru-Care and Cigna. According to Mr. Black, an administrator with the Department of Insurance and responsible for the licensing of HMOs and other health care facilities, as of January 12, 1988, Pru- Care was not licensed in Volusia or Lake Counties and department records show that Pru-Care has never been or requested to be licensed in those counties. Mr. Beckerink, the Director of Planning for Cigna of Florida, who oversaw Cigna's proposal for the Orlando area and who reviewed DOA's evaluation of the various proposals submitted, carefully examined the evaluation forms for both Cigna and Pru- Care and concentrated on scores relating to costs, benefits, accessibility, service area, and completeness. He noted that Pru-Care received 10 points for proposing service in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Lake, and Volusia Counties though it is not licensed in the latter two, whereas Cigna received only 4 points for Orange and Seminole Counties. Cigna is licensed in all five counties and has hospitals and physicians in Seminole, Osceola, and Orange Counties. He contends Pru-Care received credit by the evaluators for five counties when it is licensed only in three, an unearned award of 4 points, and Cigna was awarded credit for only two counties when it is licensed in five, an improper denial of 6 points. According to Mr. Nye, the award to Pru-Care was based on its representation it would provide service in five counties. The Department of Insurance could not tell him, at the time, in which counties Pru-Care was licensed. As a result, he took the proposal, which indicated the five counties, at face value. Credit was given only for full counties to be served and Cigna's proposal indicated it would deliver service to two full counties and to only portions of three counties. The evidence indicates that Pru-Care's facilities are primarily in Orange and Seminole Counties with some service offered in the extreme northern portion of Osceola County, too far away for those individuals living in the southern portion of that county reasonably to take advantage of it. Mr. Nye indicates that driving time, which would be the problem here, is not a consideration in assessing accessibility, but merely a factor in quality of service. The department is not concerned with whether it is convenient for the employee to get to the service but merely whether the service will be offered to anyone residing in the county. For this reason, Pru-Care was awarded credit for Osceola county since it proposed to enroll any eligible employee living in the county whether service was convenient to that party or not, whereas Cigna, which limited it's enrollment in certain counties to those personnel living in only a part of the county, was not given any credit for those partially served counties. Mr. Nye admits that had he known Pru-Care was not fully licensed, he would have deferred to legal counsel, but would most likely not award points if a provider is not licensed in a county for which it proposes service. Mr. Breckerink identified additional areas in the evaluation wherein he believes errors were made, the correction of which would result in an adjustment of the award of points. For example, in evaluating plan benefits, the evaluator gave Pru- Care 20 points when only 10 points are available for award without a demonstration of additional services. For emergency room availability, Cigna was awarded 5 points when it should have received 10. In the area of co- payments, Cigna was awarded points and should have received 23. Concerning range of providers, Cigna's proposal lists seven hospitals yet the evaluation form only reflects six, resulting in a shortage of 10 points. As to turnaround time, Cigna indicated it would accomplish payment in 60 days whereas Pru-Care indicated it would in "an average" of two weeks. As a result, Mr. Breckerink, who points out Cigna's actual time is 30 days and it therefore should have been given 30 points, contends there is no opportunity for a valid comparison here since Pru-Care's answer is not responsive to the RFP's call for" an "expected" time. His point is well taken. With regard to accessibility, Mr. Breckerink states that Cigna got only 20 points for its two allowed counties but should have received 30 points since it has hospitals in three counties in the service area. DOA's rationale on this point is identical to that on the issue of full counties served. He also alleges that Cigna was shortchanged by at least 2 points on the number of counties in which specialty providers are represented and by at least 1 point on the number of providers. Mr. Nye admits Pru-Care should have received 5 points instead of 10 for benefits. This would reduce its' raw score in this area from 258 to 253 points. Nye contends, however, that the points awarded Pru-Care for its' turnaround time were correct. He does not consider the question to be a bad one since it was asked equally of all providers and each responded as it saw fit realizing that its response might become a part of a contractual obligation. This reasoning is specious at best and does not address the real question of the fairness and appropriateness of the question asked. Further, Mr. Nye also admitted that under certain circumstances, if Pru-Care were to lose credit for those two counties in which it was not shown to be licensed, the change could result in a difference sufficient to reverse the relative standings of Pru-Care and Cigna. Mr. Breckerink alleges, and Mr. Nye admits that multiple computer runs were made utilizing the raw scores developed by the evaluators before the recommendation as to award was forwarded to the Secretary. On the first run for the second evaluation, Cigna was in second place with a point total of 71.1 and Pru-Care was third with 65.86 points. On the second run, which Nye contends was done to make the computer run consistent with what had been said at the pre-bid conference and in the RFP, Cigna dropped from second place to third with 58. 2 points and Pru-Care went from third to fourth with 57.195 points. In the third run, which ultimately formed the basis for the award, the positions of Cigna and Pru-Care reversed with Cigna dropping to 56.83 points and Pru-Care rising to 57.415. Central Florida Physicians remained in first and Health Options in second. When Central Florida Physicians dropped out due to insolvency, Health Options became number one and the other two each went up one place in the standings without changing relative positions. According to Mr. Breckerink when the mistakes were identified and changes made in the raw scores, Cigna got a total of 23 more points but Pru-Care still got 16 more points than it should have. He contends that if the mistakes were accurately corrected, if Cigna were to get all the points it should and Pru- Care lose all it should not legitimately have, Cigna would come out higher in the overall ranking than Pru-Care. However, he admits there are factors involved about which he does not know which may affect the standings. What is clear is that while Mr. Breckerink could not clearly follow the evaluation procedure, neither can others charged with evaluating it. What is more, notwithstanding the direction given in the objectives of the procurement that only two providers be awarded contracts, the department continuously has been unable to abide by this guideline. In its September 11, 1987 recommendation after the first evaluation sequence, Mr. Nye recommended, for the Orlando service area, awards to Central Florida Physicians, Cigna, and Pru-Care for a part of the service area and an additional award to Health Options and Florida Health Care for other counties in the service area. When the Secretary directed the objective second evaluation, no change was made to the number of providers to be recommended (two), but again, on October 6, 1987, Mr. Nye recommended three providers, Central Florida Physicians, Health Options, and Cigna. No evidence was presented as to why this recommendation was not implemented, but it is seen that on October 26, 1987, Mr. Nye submitted his third set of recommendations to the Secretary, this time recommending only Central Florida Physicians, and Health Options. Being still unable to finalize the process, on October 30, 1987, Mr. Nye submitted his fourth set of recommendations to the Secretary recommending, for the most part, three providers, but specifically recommending Pru-Care for award in Lake and Volusia Counties, where it was arguably not even licensed. No justification or explanation for this vacillation was forthcoming from the Department and the exercise appears to have been clearly capricious.
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration issue a Final Order rejecting all proposals submitted for the Orlando service area and readvertise for new proposals if deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of April, 1988 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 19th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5525BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By Petitioner Cigna: 1 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence not a Finding of Fact. Second sentence accepted except for conclusion as to legal license status of Pru-Care. Rejected as a restatement of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. First three sentences rejected as restatements of testimony. Balance accepted with the assumption that "those counties" indicates Lake and Volusia counties. First and second sentences rejected as restatements of testimony. Third sentence accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. First and second sentences rejected as restatements of testimony. Third sentence accepted as a possibility and, not a fact. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence rejected. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted except for use of word "awarded" in last sentence. Award is a function of the Secretary. A better word would be "recommended". Accepted. Reject Accepted. Rejected. Accepted except for word "significantly". First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as not being a proper Finding of Fact. For Respondent, DHRS: 1 - 14. Accepted and incorporated as appropriate. 15 - 16. Accepted. 17 - 19. Accepted. First, second, and fourth sentences accepted. Third sentence rejected as not supported by the evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted except for the last three sub-paragraphs which are not supported by the evidence. Absent. 25 - 26. Accepted except for last sub-paragraph which is rejected as a conclusion. 27. Absent. 28 - 29. Accepted. 30. Accepted. 31 - 37. Absent. 38. Accepted. For Intervenor, Pru-Care: 1 & 2. 3. Rejected as a restatement of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 4 - 5. Accepted. 6 - 7. Rejected as not being a Finding of Fact. 8 - 10. Accepted. 11. Accepted. 12. Rejected as not being a Finding of Fact. 13 - 14. Accepted. 15. Rejected as not being a Finding of Fact except for 16 - 17. last sentence which is accepted. Accepted. 18. Accepted. For Intervenor, Health Options: 1 - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4 - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. Accepted except for the seventh sentence which is rejected. 12 - 13. Accepted. 14. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 15 - 16. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: David Yon, Esquire 315 South Calhoun Street Suite 800 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 John Buchanan, Esquire 118 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jann Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Stanley Chapman, Esquire Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom, & Kitchen Post Office Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry Carnes, Esquire 515 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: From 1968 to the present time, petitioner University Home Foundation, Inc. has owned and operated the Convalescent Center of Gainesville, a 119-bed skilled care nursing home. In early 1977, petitioner submitted an application for a certificate of need to construct and operate a new 120-bed skilled care nursing home in Gainesville, Florida. Due to the bed need projection of the 1976 Florida State Plan for Construction of Hospitals and Related Medical Facilities, petitioner submitted a revised application for an 83-bed skilled care facility. It is petitioner's intention, should a certificate of need be issued, to downgrade the present Convalescent Center of Gainesville to an intermediate care nursing facility and to build the new facility as an 83-bed skilled facility. Petitioner's revised and completed application was acknowledged by respondent effective June 3, 1977. In the latter part of October, 1976, the respondent denied an application for a certificate of need for a 91-bed nursing home in Gainesville, Florida, proposed by Hill-Guthrie Associates. This adverse determination by respondent resulted in an administrative hearing. On June 8, 1977, the Hearing Officer entered an order finding that the procedural deficiencies surrounding the timeliness of the review process on the Hill-Guthrie application should be construed as an approval of the proposal to construct the 91-bed nursing home. On July 28, 1977, respondent issued a certificate of need to Hill-Guthrie Associates. The 1975 Florida State Plan projected a bed need for Alachua County of 91. The 1976 Plan projected a need for 83 long term care beds for the year 1981. The 1977 Plan, which was not accepted by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare until July 19, 1977, calls for a long term bed need of 106 by the year 1982. These plans do not distinguish between skilled and intermediate care bed needs. Due to federal regulations, the projected need figures do not include patients under 65 years of age. Testimony at the hearing indicated that between 10 and 14 percent of patients in nursing homes are under The figures in the State Plans are derived by subtracting from the projected number of beds needed for the area's population the number of beds presently existing in the area. In this instance, Alachua County presently has three existing nursing homes with a capacity of 332 beds. The projected number of beds needed in the 1976 and 1977 Plans (83 and 106, respectively) do not take into consideration the 91 bed proposal of Hill-Guthrie Associates, for which a certificate of need was issued on July 28, 1977. If the Hill-Guthrie home is completed, Alachua County would be overbedded by eight beds under the 1976 Plan and underbedded by fifteen beds under the 1977 Plan. On June 23, 1977, the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc. (HPC), which serves a sixteen county area, held a public hearing to receive comments on the petitioner's revised proposal for an 83-bed skilled care nursing home. Among the items discussed at the hearing were the effects of the Hill- Guthrie decision and the correctness of the figures contained in the State Plan. (Exhibit No. 2) The Staff of the HPC prepared a report on petitioner's application and recommended that a certificate of need be denied. The Staff Report considered the twelve criteria suggested by respondent and found that the proposal was not in conformity with plans, standards and criteria; that there are less costly alternatives to the proposed project; that the proposal would not promote cost containment; and that there was no documented need for the project. More specifically, the Staff found that the Hill-Guthrie approval for 91 beds would exceed by eight the 83 beds needed in Alachua County under the 1976 State Plan. Since Hill-Guthrie proposed construction at a cost of $11,407.00 per bed and petitioner's proposed cost was $13,614.00 per bed, the Staff determined that it would be less costly to utilize existing facilities and to construct the Hill- Guthrie Nursing Home than to build a more expensive facility that would create an overbedded situation. (Exhibit D) The HPC Project Review Committee held its hearing on July 14, 1977, and petitioner's president, Mr. Paul Allen, presented his comments in response to the Staff Report. He contested the population and bed need projections contained in the State Plan, and the Hill-Guthrie decision was discussed. The Committee voted to follow the Staff's recommendation to deny the petitioner a certificate of need. (Exhibits No. 3 and D) The HPC's Executive Committee meeting was held on July 25, 1977. Mr. Allen spoke to the committee, disagreeing with the figures contained in the State Plan and requesting the committee to vote only on his application and disregard the Hill-Guthrie proposal since a certificate of need to Hill-Guthrie had not yet been issued. Thereafter, the HPC voted to recommend to respondent denial of petitioner's application for a certificate of need for the same reasons set forth in the Staff Report. (Exhibits No. 4 and D) By letter dated August 23, 1977, respondent's administrator, Art Forehand, notified petitioner that its project proposal was not in conformity with established standards, plans and criteria. The 1976 State Plan was specifically referenced, but respondent stated that it also considered petitioner's proposal in accordance with the recently adopted 1977 State Plan (Exhibit No. 1) At the hearing, Mr. Forehand testified that his decision was based upon nonconformity with the State Plan without a detailed showing that a need existed irrespective of said Plan. The issuance of a certificate of need to Hill-Guthrie played a large role in Forehand's decision.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the determination of the respondent Office of Community Medical Facilities to deny petitioner's application for a certificate of need to construct and operate an 83-bed skilled care nursing home in Alachua County be upheld and affirmed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Art Forehand Administrator Office of Community Medical Facilities 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Selig I. Goldin, Esquire Post Office Box 1251 Gainesville, Florida 32602 James Mahorner, Esquire 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether there is need for a new 60-bed general acute care hospital in Seminole County? If so, to which of two applicants should a CON be awarded to construct and operate the hospital: Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc. (CON 9496), or Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Florida Hospital (CON 9497)?
Findings Of Fact The Battleground: District 7 At the heart of the conflict in this proceeding is that the two corporate combatants are the dominant providers of hospital services in major metropolitan Orlando and both are providers of very high quality acute care hospital services. Each seeks authority to construct and operate a 60-bed general acute care hospital in the fast-growing community of Oviedo, Florida. The Agency for Health Care Administration, arbiter of the conflict, has introduced a quarrel of its own by its determination that there is no need for the hospital in Oviedo, a determination with which the hospitals decidedly take issue. Oviedo is an incorporated area in east Seminole County. Seminole County, in turn, is a county that with two other counties makes a contribution by suburb or city center to the conurbation in and around Orlando, Florida's largest non-coastal city. Seminole County is also one of four counties that comprise District 7, one of eleven health service planning districts into which the Legislature has partitioned the state. See Section 408.032(5), Florida Statutes. The other three counties in the District are Orange, Osceola and, removed from the controversy in this case, Brevard. The four counties are each considered by rule of AHCA to constitute a sub-district of District 7. Brevard is Sub-district 1; Orange, sub-district 2; Seminole, sub-district 3; and, Osceola, sub-district 4. The parties consider parts of Seminole and Osceola Counties to constitute the major metropolitan area of the City of Orlando together with, of course, parts of Orange County, the county that contains incorporated Orlando. As indicated above and by its irrelevance to this proceeding, no part of Brevard County is considered by the parties to make up any of metropolitan Orlando. There is also one county outside District 7 about which the parties introduced evidence, Lake County in District 3. Nonetheless, District 7 remains the primary battleground with a focus on sub-district 3 as the site of the CON sought by the parties. The Parties AHCA The Agency for Health Care Administration is the state agency responsible for the administration of the CON program in Florida pursuant to the Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. ORHS One of the two dominant health care providers in the Orlando area, Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc., is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that owns and operates eight facilities in the four-county area of Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Lake Counties, "the only market" (tr. 22) that it serves. Half of ORHS's facilities are in Orange County. These four facilities are: Orlando Regional Medical Center, a 517-bed general acute care hospital that provides tertiary services in addition to routine acute care hospital services and that is the site of a trauma center; Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children and Women, a 281-bed specialty hospital that provides women's and children's services including neonatal services; Orlando Regional Sand Lake Hospital, a 153-bed general acute care facility that provides comprehensive medical rehabilitation services; and Orlando Regional Lucerne Hospital, a 267-bed general acute care hospital that provides comprehensive medical rehabilitation and skilled nursing unit services. In Seminole County, ORHS wholly owns and operates Orlando Regional South Seminole Hospital ("South Seminole"), a 206-bed general acute care facility that provides adult/child psychiatric and adult substance abuse services as well as general acute care services. In Osceola County, ORHS owns Orlando Regional St. Cloud Hospital, an 84-bed general acute care facility. In Lake County, ORHS jointly owns and operates two health care facilities under joint venture business arrangements: South Lake Hospital, a 68-bed general acute care facility and Leesburg Regional Medical Center, a 294-bed general acute care facility. The wholly owned facilities operate under a single license and are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations ("JCAHO"). One of six statutory teaching hospitals in the state, ORHS has been in continuous existence since 1918. Its mission is to be a local, unaffiliated health care provider, providing health care services to the citizens of Central Florida. Recognized as one of the top 100 hospitals in the United States by US News and World Report, ORHS has been the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions. As but one example, it was the winner of a Consumer Choice Award from the National Research Corporation for the years 1999 through 2001. Orlando Regional Healthcare System provides outstanding health care of the highest quality to patients at its eight facilities in three of the four counties in AHCA's Health Care Planning District 7. Florida Hospital The other dominant health care provider in the Orlando area is Florida Hospital. Founded as a sanitarium, Florida Hospital has been in existence and a presence in the Orlando medical community since 1908. Florida Hospital is part of the Adventist Health System, a not-for-profit hospital organization that operates hospitals throughout the country. In the Orlando area, Florida Hospital has seven acute care campus systems operated under a single license in a three- county area: Orange, Seminole and Osceola Counties. The original and main campus is located in downtown Orlando. A second campus is in East Orlando. The five other facilities are in Altamonte Springs, to the northwest of Orlando; Apopka, further northwest; Winter Park, just north of Orlando; and Celebration and Kissimmee, both southwest of the city. Florida Hospital also operates Florida Hospital Waterman under a separate license in Lake County in District 3. The seven campuses in District 7 are unified by more than just licensure. Consistent with their operation under a single license, all seven operate under a single provider number with Medicare/Medicaid. They have a single medical staff and a single accreditation with JCAHO. The seven Florida Hospital campuses operate under a single leadership structure; all policies, procedures and matters that pertain to the operation of the hospital are part of the single body of operational guidelines and procedures that are provided by the organization. The seven campuses also operate under a single price structure, a single charge master that runs across the entire organization. The goal of operating the seven campuses in a unified manner is to maintain continuity and promote one standard of care so that when a patient enters any of the facilities, the patient can rely on receiving the same high standard of care as would be received at any other Florida Hospital facility. Operation under a single structure also provides a patient with the coverage of physicians and staff throughout the system to cover any and all needs of the patient. From its inception, the mission of Florida Hospital has been to extend a religious ministry of healing to the community consistent with Adventist principles. Among these principles are awareness of the eternal nature of the moment at which care is extended to the patient as well as recognition of each patient as a child of God, entitled to the highest possible quality of care embodied in "whole person health" (tr. 876) composed of physical, mental and spiritual well-being. Florida Hospital carries out its mission with "a strong sense of stewardship for providing care in the communities that [the hospital] serve[s] . . . ." (Tr. 875). The success of Florida Hospital's philosophy of care is evident in recognition bestowed by others. For example, Florida Hospital was recognized as being among the top 50 hospitals in the country for nine specialties in the July 2002 edition of U.S. News & World Report's "America's Best Hospitals." To take but one of the nine, "Heart & Heart Surgery," Florida Hospital is ranked 12th in the nation in the company of those ranked just above: Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic (Rochester), Massachusetts General, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Duke University Medical Center, Johns Hopkins, Texas Heart Institute-St. Luke's in Houston, Emory University Hospital, Stanford University Hospital, Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis and the UCLA Medical Center. Well-Matched Applicants In its state agency action report ("SAAR"), AHCA noted that ORHS and Florida Hospital are two large, well-matched hospital systems. Both operate over 1,500 beds in the Orlando area. Both generate approximately two billion dollars of gross charges annually. Both deliver over 300,000 patient days of patient care. Together, they are the overwhelmingly dominant providers of health care in the major metropolitan Orlando area. In the SAAR, the Agency discussed distinctions between the two applicants. Had AHCA determined that there was need for the facility, it would have had a difficult time deciding which corporation should be awarded the CON. None of the distinctions between the two were found by AHCA to be substantial enough to serve as a basis for choosing either applicant over the other. Other District 7 Hospitals Besides the two applicants, the dominant providers of hospital services in District 7 by virtue of number of facilities (13 hospitals in the District and three hospitals in Lake County immediately adjacent to the District), among other reasons, there are three other hospitals in the District. Health Central is a hospital operated by a statutorily created tax district in the City of Ocoee, in Orange County. Central Florida Regional Hospital is owned and operated by Hospital Corporation of America ("HCA") located in the City of Sanford in Seminole County. It is approximately 14 miles from the proposed locations of the applicant's facilities. Osceola Regional Medical Center, another HCA facility, is located in Kissimmee in Osceola County, not far from Florida Hospital's Kissimmee and Celebration facilities. Stipulation The parties stipulated to the following: The applicable fixed-need is zero. Both applications complied with the requirements of Sections 408.037, 408.038 and Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 408.039, Florida Statutes, and the requirements of Rules 59C-1.008 and 59C-1.010, Florida Administrative Code. Both applications meet the review criteria contained in Subsections 408.035 (3),(6),(8),(10) and (11), Florida Statutes and the review criteria in Subsections 408.035(4),(5) and (12), Florida Statutes, are not applicable in this case. The statutory review criteria at issue in this case are Subsections 408.035(1), (2), (7) and (9), Florida Statutes. Numeric Need Numeric need for general acute care beds is determined pursuant to Agency rule, Rule 59C-1.038, Florida Administrative Code. The rule's methodology for the calculation of numeric need for general acute care beds is by sub-district. Since "there really is no longer a future projection methodology in the rule . . . it was stricken out two or three years ago," Gene Nelson, one of ORHS' experts in health planning, refers to the rule as containing a "retrospective occupancy model." (Tr. 619). Under the methodology, additional beds are not normally approved in any sub-district where historic occupancy is less than 75%. If occupancy exceeds 75%, beds will be awarded to bring occupancy down to 75%. In other words, instead of projecting forward as it once did to determine need, the rule looks back to occupancy. If occupancy in the sub- district has met the threshold, then positive numeric need is established. Criticism has been leveled at the methodology. Not taking into account future population growth or occupancy rates at times other than midnight, are but two examples. Criticism, however, of the rule is of little moment in this case since the case is a challenge to agency action not to the rule that contains the methodology. Whatever the appropriateness or validity of the criticism, the calculations pursuant to the methodology have not yielded a fixed-need pool above zero for any of the many sub- districts in the eleven districts of the state for some years now. Nor is numeric need for general acute care beds expected by the Agency to exceed zero anywhere in the state for the foreseeable future. During this time of numeric need "drought," AHCA, nonetheless has awarded CONs for new general acute care beds and even new hospitals on a number of occasions. For example, "[d]espite the fact that there was an applicant proposing to relocate beds within the subdistrict, which wouldn't have affected the bed inventory at all, the state elected to approve [another] applicant . . . that applied for a brand-new 60 bed hospital" (tr. 635) in the community of Lady Lake in District 3. The application in that instance had been filed in the fall of 1998. In a second example, in the fall of 2001, a few years later, Osceola Regional and Florida Hospital Celebration were each approved to add beds to existing facilities despite the fact that there was no numeric need and the hospitals did not meet the statutory occupancy levels for additional beds. Mr. Nelson also testified about a third recent example where a new hospital was built when the subdistrict occupancy was low, the facts of which compare favorably, in his view, with the facts in this case. As he tells it, these three cases, compared to this case, produce inconsistency: In the fall of 1999, Sacred Heart Hospital applied to build a new 60-bed hospital in the southern portion of Walton County. That particular subdistrict is actually a two-county subdistrict consisting of Okaloosa and Walton counties, has some existing hospitals, current subdistrict occupancy in that area is 56.3 percent. Despite . . . the low occupancy . . . the state recognized the validity of the arguments about a growing population, about accessibility, many of the same issues that you have here and approved Sacred Heart to build a new 60-bed hospital in that location. * * * I am not criticizing any of these approvals. I . . . am criticizing [that the state was] presented with a similar set of circumstances in this case [and] the applications were all denied. And I think there is an inconsistency here. (Tr. 637-8). During the same period, moreover, beds have been added to existing hospitals without CON review, accomplished by way of Section 408.036(n), Florida Statutes. The statute allows 10 beds or 10% of licensed bed capacity to be added to a hospital's acute bed inventory upon certification "that the prior 12-month average occupancy rate for the category of licensed beds being expanded at the facility meets or exceeds 80% . . . ." Section 408.036(n)(1)a., Florida Statutes. See also Rule 59C-1.038(5), Florida Administrative Code. The bed additions made with and without CON review contribute to current numeric need determinations of "zero" and the continued reasonable expectation that AHCA's methodology for determining acute care bed numeric need will not yield numeric need in excess of zero for years to come. Most pertinently to this case, these additions erode AHCA's position advanced in hearing in this case for a preference to keep open the option for a future competitor, a competitor other than one of the two dominant providers, presumably when numeric need has been determined to exist, a condition not likely to come into play for the foreseeable future. However the future plays itself out and the effect on AHCA's current methodology, there remains one point central to consideration in this case. In light of a numeric need of "zero" for the applicable batching cycle, for a CON to be awarded as a result of this proceeding, as a first step, the applicants must demonstrate the existence of "not normal" circumstances that support an award. The two applicants attempt that step in tandem. Both ORHS and Florida Hospital contend that rapid population growth, problems of access to acute care and emergency services in the Oveido area, and mal-distribution of beds in the sub-district and district constitute circumstances that justify need for their proposed facilities. In other words, they are "not normal" circumstances. Not Normal Circumstances - Population Growth A rural farm community not long ago with a population of about 7,500, the City of Oviedo, in the last 15 years, has grown into an Orlando bedroom community. The population increase within the city limits is proof of the city's metamorphosis from countryside to suburb. During this period of time, the municipal population has nearly quadrupled to 28,000 with no end in sight to continued growth in the area as explained by ORHS' expert, Dr. Rond: The special circumstances . . . that drive this application are, first, the unprecedented population growth. As we have seen, we are experiencing population growth in excess of a hundred percent in the east Seminole area. In the adjacent Winter Springs area, we are experiencing a rate in excess of 51 percent. We are talking about a population that is going to reach almost 200,000 people by the year 2006. (Tr. 377-8). The area is projected for an additional 18.2% growth by 2006, when as testified to by Dr. Rond, the population will reach nearly 200,000. The municipal population is not the only population of a political entity in the area to quadruple in modern memory. Over the past three decades Seminole County has grown fourfold - from 83,692 in 1970 to 365,196 in 2000. As a result, the county is the third most densely populated of the state's 67 counties. Until the mid-1990's, population growth was concentrated in the western half of the county as Orlando area development spread north into Seminole County along the I-4 and U.S. Highway 17/92 corridors. Since then the rate of population growth has been dramatic in east Seminole County in part because of the opening of another major transportation corridor, the "Greenway," Highway 417. Between 1990 and 2001, east Seminole County more than doubled in size (24,840 to 51,287; a 107% increase) while West Seminole grew by only 22%. East Seminole County is expected to remain the fastest growing portion of the county into the foreseeable future. With approximately 43% of the total land area of the county but only about 16% of the population, it remains much less densely populated than the remainder of the county, affording greater opportunities for future growth. Seminole County is unique in the state from the perspective of bed-to-population ratios. The three hospitals in Seminole County with a combined total of 575 licensed beds, yield a ratio of 1.55 beds per 1,000 population; tied for lowest bed to population ratio of the sub-districts in the state. The only area with a comparable ratio is Sub-district 8-4, comprised of Glades and Hendry Counties, located southwest of Lake Okeechobee, "a very rural area." (Tr. 625). While these two sub-districts are similar in bed to population ratio, they are at opposite extremes in terms of population density. The population of Seminole County, at 371,000 is nearly nine times the combined populations of Glades and Hendry Counties at slightly more than 42,000. Sub-district 8-4 is "totally unlike Seminole County from the standpoint of population demographics; and yet in terms of resource availability, . . . it has a comparable amount of resources per thousand population." (Id.) Thus, Seminole County occupies a unique place in the state for its low bed-to- population ratio considering its overall population. Population forecasts for the next five-year period support the expectation of continued strong growth in east Seminole County. For example, the downtown area of Oviedo plans a residential area with a density up to 50 dwellings per acre, at least one of the highest in the County. In the City of Oviedo vicinity, median densities are increasing from 4 homes per acre to 10, to allow for townhouses. East Seminole County is reasonably expected to have 60,597 residents by the year 2006, an 18.2% increase over 2001. By comparison, West Seminole County is expected to experience only a 6.3% rate of growth. Projected growth in the City of Oviedo, moreover, is in all likelihood understated due to significant residential developments currently underway that alone are expected to add up to 6,238 new residents to the city's population. One need only look to actual growth in the area for support for such a prediction. Actual growth has consistently outpaced projected growth governed by methodologies that have repeatedly failed to reflect the reality of population growth in Oviedo. Related to population growth are utilization projections by the applicants' health planning experts for an Oviedo hospital. Judy Horowitz, Florida Hospital's expert health care planner, explained Florida Hospital's: [W]e looked at historically what had come out of the service area as we defined it. We projected that that volume would grow in proportion to population growth. We looked at a subset of services, those that were likely to be provided at a community hospital as was being proposed by Florida Hospital Oviedo. We looked at what we thought a reasonable market share would be; and our overall forecast is that within two years of opening this facility, that we would reach 77 percent occupancy at a 60-bed facility. So our year two, which is the 12 months ending June of 2007, . . . . we would already be at 77 percent occupancy. Then our first year we would be at approximately 68 percent occupancy. * * * [T]here is clearly sufficient demand to support the hospital as proposed; and the fact that we are projecting a relatively high utilization very quickly shows the magnitude of that demand. (Tr. 1352, 1353). With the high level of population growth and the demand for hospital services that such growth generates, the citizens of Oviedo expect access to hospital care within the community. In keeping with citizen expectation, the City of Oviedo has adopted a resolution that urges AHCA to approve a new hospital in the Oviedo community. It has been joined in its resolve by the Board of County Commissioners for Seminole County through a resolution of its own. To underscore the force of the two resolutions, the corporate parties presented the testimony of representatives of both the City Council and the County Commission. Grant Malloy, the County Commissioner for County District I who grew up in the area with fond childhood memories of "being overcome by the orange blossom smells, they were so intense," (tr. 802) described the growth observed first-hand by him during his lifetime as "phenomenal." (Tr. 806). In answer to the question whether his constituents would benefit by a new 60-bed hospital, Commissioner Malloy testified I do believe so. There is . . . the growth that's occurring there. And I heard . . . discussion about getting to some of the other hospitals. And once you get out of Seminole County . . . the roads are very, very difficult to travel on especially getting into Orlando. Especially rush hour . . . . . . . [T]he growth . . . would support such a facility. I know our board passed a resolution, along with the City of Oviedo[.] [O]ur board, and all the commissioners are unanimously supportive of a hospital in the area. I haven't heard from any residents or constituents that have said it was a bad idea. . . . [P]eople are pretty excited about it. (Tr. 807-8). Tom O'Hanlon, Chairman of the City Council, in the company of three other members of the council, unequivocally backed up Commissioner Malloy's appeal for a new hospital. The changes he has seen in Oviedo, he described as: Dramatic changes. When I moved there, [Oviedo] was a very rural area, and it is no longer . . .; it’s a highly compacted urban area. [W]e are working on a new master plan for downtown, which will have higher densities than we have in our city today. (Tr. 812). Chairman O'Hanlon went on to describe how the pace of the growth continuously outstrips population projections that are the product of the City's best efforts to follow appropriate methodologies for making such projections: [T]he city continually makes population projections. I have always been involved with them[.] [T]here are guidelines . . .; and everytime we make them, the city grows far in excess of th[e] projections. The area is such a dynamic area because we have got the University of Central Florida there, which is just growing as fast as the city is, maybe even faster. You have the Research Park there and you have got excellent schools. And for that combination . . . everybody wants to move there. (Tr. 812-3). The university is just south of the city limits. It has minimal dormitory facilities on campus. The result is that "a vast majority [of students] live off campus in housing and apartments [and they are impacting all the services that must be provided in Oviedo.]" (Tr. 814). Following this testimony of Chairman O'Hanlon, the following colloquy ensued between him and counsel for ORHS: Q Is it fair to say, Councilman O'Hanlon, that the City of Oviedo and surrounding area is in growing urban area that has everything but a hospital? A That is a true statement. Q Are you familiar, Councilman O'Hanlon, with the proposals of Orlando Regional Healthcare System and Florida Hospital to locate a 60-bed hospital in the City of Oviedo? A Yes. Q Do you support that effort? A A hundred percent. Q Do you believe, Councilman O'Hanlon, it would be of benefit to your constituents to have that [hospital] in the city of Oviedo? A Absolutely. People approach me every week wanting to know where our hospital is. Q Can't understand why it's not there already?A Well what they understand is that there is a tremendous need for a hospital and they don't understand why it's not in the process. (Tr 816-7). Residents of Oviedo also do not understand why they have to drive for such a long time to reach a hospital particularly when their goal is the emergency department. This concern about which Councilman O'Hanlon hears from a constituent "at least once a month" (tr. 819) also made its way into the resolutions of the two political bodies in the form of an identical introductory clause, as follows: "WHEREAS, there are increasing problems with timely access to care especially for emergencies," (Joint ORHS/Florida Hospital Nos. 8 and 10). It is, moreover, a concern that takes up the second prong of the applicants' case for "not normal" circumstances: issues of access. - Access The Oviedo Service Area Although similarities exist between the two, the Oviedo Service Areas defined by the two applicants are somewhat different. The service area selected by ORHS is larger than the service area selected by Florida Hospital. The Primary Service Area ("PSA") for ORHS' proposed hospital is composed of four zip codes: 32765, 32732, 32766, and 32708. Of the four, the first three are in eastern Seminole County, that is, east of Highway 417, the Greenway, and south of Lake Jessup. The fourth, 32708 in the Winter Springs area, is just west of the Greenway. The Winter Springs zip code was included in ORHS' PSA in part because it is adjacent to the Greenway. It has also experienced tremendous population growth and is very close to the proposed site for ORHS' hospital. A secondary service area proposed by ORHS is composed of a zip code in Seminole County north of Lake Jessup, 32773, and three zip codes in Orange County, 32817, 32820, and 32826. Located in the midst of the three Orange County zip codes is zip code 32816. It appears on ORHS exhibits as part of the secondary service area. As the zip code for the University of Central Florida, it has a very low residential population so that there are only a few students who might live in a dorm that would list it as their residence when receiving hospital services. There are actually "very few" (tr. 302) discharges from zip code 32816. If one does not include zip code 32816 then ORHS' service area is a comprised of eight zip codes. The April 1, 2001, population for the primary and secondary service areas or the service area designated by ORHS is 170,774. This service area has more than doubled in population over the last decade. Over the next five years, the service area is expected to reach 193,408 residents, of which 45% will be of prime child bearing age (15-44), "a dominant position for that age cohort within the population." (Tr. 315). The Oviedo service area is defined by Florida Hospital as four zip codes in Seminole County, 32708, 32732, 32765, and 32766 and one in Orange County: 32826 (all zip codes in ORHS' service area) with a population of more than 100,000. Florida Hospital's service area does not include Zip Code 32773 (the zip code north of Lake Jessup) that is in ORHS' service area nor, with the exception of 32826, does it include any of the Orange County zip codes that are in ORHS' service area. Thus, there are five zip codes in what Florida Hospital regards as the Oviedo Service Area and eight in what ORHS regards as the Oviedo Service Area if zip code 32816 is excluded. Although somewhat different, for purposes of examining travel distance and time between Oviedo and area hospitals, the Oviedo Service Areas of the two applicants are similar enough to be considered to be the same. Or, as William E. Tipton, an expert in traffic transportation and civil engineering, testified at hearing, the results of his study entitled "Travel Time Analysis Proposed ORHS Oviedo Campus, Oviedo, Florida" (ORHS Ex. 14) would not be substantially different if he had focused on the Florida Hospital site instead of the ORHS site. Travel Time Analysis Mr. Tipton prepared a travel time analysis to evaluate the differences in travel time that could be anticipated with the development of a hospital campus in Oviedo. Mr. Tipton's study concluded that there would be a reduction of average daily travel time from the ORHS PSA to a hospital by 64% or 18 minutes. The maximum reduction will be 75% of the time or 21 minutes. In the critical peak afternoon hour, there will be a maximum reduction of 79% or 22 minutes in time from that which exists today. The reductions in drive distance for Oviedo area residents if a hospital were in Oviedo would be significant especially in the arena of emergency services. Emergency Services Access to emergency services at a hospital emergency department ("ED") is one of the most important factors in making sure people have reasonable access to community hospitals. "[Y]ou really need . . . immediate care for emergencies, and so it's important to be able to get to the emergency department quickly and to receive care rapidly once you get there." (Tr. 336). Between 1997 and 2001, the hospitals experiencing the highest percentage of ED visit increase, other than Health Central, were Florida Hospital East in Orange County and South Seminole Hospital in Seminole County. During the period between 1997 and 2001, although the population of Seminole County grew less than Orange County, Seminole County had a larger percentage of ED visits. Specifically, the population of Seminole County grew 12% but its ED visits increased 23%, twice its population growth. During the same period, the population of Orange County grew by 15% but its ED visits only increased by 17%. Closer examination of these statistics reveals that ED visits in the downtown area of Orlando, to include Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital, were below the county average. However, suburban hospitals, or those in outlying areas, particularly near Oviedo, had much greater ED visit growth: ED visits grew 27% at Florida Hospital Apopka and 37% at Florida Hospital East. Florida Hospital East is the closest hospital in Orange County to the Oviedo area. Of the hospitals in Seminole County, South Seminole was the most severely affected by ED visit increase with a 38% increase of ED visits between 1997 and 2001. (ED visits in excess of 27,000 by area residents are projected in 2006.) In the Oviedo area there are unfortunate but not uncommon delays in emergency transport. More than 20% of emergency transports involve delays of in excess of 45 minutes after arrival at the hospital. These delays are serious because patient outcomes decline dramatically if definitive care is not delivered within the "golden hour," a concept that: reflects the fact that patient outcomes decline [dra]matically in terms of . . . mortality rates if definitive care is not delivered within one hour of the traumatic injury that has been sustained. In cardiology, they tend to . . . say "time is muscle," * * * the longer it takes for a patient to get definitive care following a major cardiovascular event, the more muscle mass is likely to be damaged. . . . [Y]ou can go on and talk about stroke victims, cerebral vascular patients and just a whole array of patients who [fare] much better in terms of morbidity and mortality if they receive definitive care within an hour of the episode. (Tr. 336). Part of the delay for patients in need of prompt emergency services is due to ambulance standing time. Standing time is the time a patient waits in the ambulance or hallway of the emergency department before the patient is seen by medical staff. This standing time does not include the time it takes the ambulance to respond to the call or the time the EMS personnel spend at the scene to stabilize the patient. Nor does it include the travel time to the hospital from the scene. Ambulance standing time for patients from the Oviedo area on average is between 42 and 47 minutes. When average travel times established in Mr. Tipton's study are combined with the standing times, there is not one existing provider of emergency services that can provide a patient from Florida Hospital's Oviedo Service Area or ORHS' PSA with emergency care within the "golden hour." This combination, moreover, as stated above, does not take into account the dispatch time and time of the ambulance at the scene. The typical types of emergency calls EMS personnel see in Oviedo include difficulty breathing, auto accidents, kids falling off bicycles, heart attacks, and drug overdoses. The largest majority of calls would go to a local community hospital as opposed to trauma center in downtown Orlando. Jeffrey M. Gregg, Chief of the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation, which includes the Certificate of Need Program for the Agency for Health Care Administration, testified that emergency room access is a problem that has gotten worse over time. Mr. Gregg also stated that a new hospital in the area will improve emergency access for people in the immediate area. A new hospital in Oviedo service area would also benefit and improve emergency access for patients in Orange County emergency rooms by lessening the emergency patient loads they experience. Wayne Martin, Fire Chief, Emergency Management Director, City of Oviedo, testified that the standing times and delays at the area hospital emergency rooms tie up Oviedo area ambulance services for an extended period of time. Emergency Medical Service ("EMS") staff must stay with their patient until the patient is taken into the emergency room and given medical care by emergency department staff. Because of these delays, EMS staff are out of their service area for extended periods of time. This decreases the level of service for the residents of the Oviedo area. One aspect of the problem influences another so as to create a compounding effect. Dr. Robert A. Schamberger, a family practitioner in Oviedo, testified that recently a patient went to the emergency room at an area hospital and it took 16 hours from the times she arrived until she was seen by the emergency room personnel. Dr. Schamberger tried to admit another patient of his in an area hospital on a recent Friday and was informed there were no beds. The hospital said they would call when they had an available bed. The patient was finally admitted on Monday. Emergency room waiting times across the entire community are several hours, which is an unacceptable care standard. Dr. Zulma Cintron practices internal medicine in Oviedo. Dr. Cintron testified that there is a "huge need" for a hospital in the Oviedo area. "We definitely need the beds." Dr. Cintron has had patients with chest pains who ended up waiting in the emergency room for four, five, and six hours before receiving care. Patients with less imminent needs have waited 12, 16 even 24 hours. Dr. Cintron's testimony for Florida Hospital was confirmed by the testimony produced by ORHS of Scott Greenwood, M.D., a cardiologist who heads a cardiology group. The evidence provided by Drs. Schamberger, Cintron And Greenwood, anecdotal though it may be, supports the existence of a problem with emergency services access in the Oviedo area that is shown by the analysis provided by the combination of Mr. Tipton's traffic study and ambulance standing time. So does projected volume for ED visits. Projected volume at Florida Hospital Oviedo in year two would be in excess of 27,000 visits. The Oviedo area has a population that "is adequate to support a hospital at high utilization levels within [a] short period of time and also will generate a significant number of emergency visits." (Tr. 1355). A new hospital facility in the Oviedo service area would help to alleviate the delays currently being experienced in the area hospital emergency departments. The Agency is not unaware of the problem and the solution that an Oviedo hospital would provide. The issue for AHCA is "[w]ould the improvement that would result for some people justify the construction of an new hospital?" (Tr. 726). The applicants claim that the three existing Seminole County hospitals are not appropriately located to provide emergency services required by the growing population of Oviedo. Put another way, within the sub-district and District 7, ORHS and Florida Hospital assert there is a mal-distribution of beds. Mal-distribution of Beds While population growth has increased dramatically in east Seminole the opening of health care facilities in the east part of the county has lagged behind; the area has more than 100,000 people but no hospital. The three acute care hospitals in Subdistrict 7-4 are all located in the western portion of Seminole County. People tend to use hospitals closest to them especially for emergency services. Because of the north/south nature of the road corridors in Seminole County and the congestion and distances involved in east/west travel in the county, the Oviedo area population's access to existing hospital service in the district is problematic. The population has better access to resources in Orange County, a different subdistrict, and, in fact, 66% of the Oviedo population take advantage of that better access. Consistent with the pattern of transportation development in Seminole County, all three hospitals in Seminole County are located between I-4 and U.S. Highway 17-92. Florida Hospital Altamonte is situated along the 436 corridor, whereas South Seminole Hospital is located further to the north on State Road 434, while Central Florida Regional Hospital is situated at the northern border of the county along the U.S. Highway 17-92 corridor. Dr. Rond had this to say about the locations of the three Seminole County hospitals in relation to the population in east Seminole County: The resources in the western part of the county are not situated in such a way that they are being utilized effectively by residents of [ORHS'] service area. Instead, they seek to move along the north/south corridor, primarily the Greenway, to utilize the services located in Orange County or … they take other routes of access to reach Winter Park Hospital, which is . . . in Orange County. (Tr. 319). The problem of distribution of hospitals is not restricted simply to inside the county. There is a mal- distribution in District 7 as well. Overall in the district, there are 2.3 beds per thousand. Orange County enjoys a ratio that is very high when compared to Seminole County's. Orange County's bed to population ratio is 2.7 beds per thousand, whereas Seminole County's is only 1.55 beds per thousand. The average bed ratio in Florida is 2.85 per thousand. Whether measured against the state ratio or the Orange County ratio, general acute care hospital beds per thousand population in Seminole County is low. The ratio comparison between Orange County and Seminole County will improve with an Oviedo Hospital although it makes the overall ratio only "a little closer; so that Orange County has beds per thousand and Seminole County would have 1.6 beds per thousand." (Tr. 316). The applicants intend to make that improvement with their proposed projects. The Proposed Projects ORHS' Orlando Regional proposes to construct a new 60-bed acute care hospital in the City of Oviedo. The location was described at hearing by Karl W. Hodges, ORHS vice president of Business Development: [T]he hospital [will be built] within a two- mile radius of . . . Highway 426, also called Loma and Mitchell Hammock Road which is also called Red Bug Road. [The CON Application] further stipulates we'll be east of 417. (Tr. 20). Within that area, ORHS proposes to build a three-story 155,000 square foot facility on approximately 35 acres of land. Although a site has not yet been purchased, there is at least one parcel of 35 acres of land available in the area that can be acquired by ORHS at a price of $7,000,000 or less, as indicated in its application. The bed complement of the proposed facility will be eight ICU beds, ten labor-delivery-recovery and post-partum ("LDRP") beds serving the obstetrics department, 15 telemetry monitored beds, and 27 medical/surgical acute care beds. The proposal will add 30 beds to the inventory of beds in the sub-district but it will not add beds to the inventory of District 7. The 60 beds will be transferred by ORHS from two facilities. Thirty of the beds will come from South Seminole Hospital (in Seminole County). By itself, moving the 30 beds within the sub-district "for the stated goal of enhancing access . . . is a non-controversial project" (tr. 627) that is not subject to a certificate of need methodology but that still requires CON review and approval. The other thirty beds will come from Orlando Regional Lucerne Hospital in Orange County. However attractive for its minimization of controversy, all 60 beds could not have been transferred from South Seminole because to do so would have raised its occupancy above 80%, "an untenable result." (Tr. 630). For the additional 30 beds, "Lucerne seemed like a logical choice, given its bed size and its utilization." (Tr. 628). The design of the proposed hospital is based on another ORHS facility: South Lake Hospital, a replacement facility that opened in January of 2000. Florida Hospital's Florida Hospital also proposes to construct a 60-bed acute care hospital in the City of Oviedo. Unlike ORHS, Florida Hospital owns the site, 15 acres at 8000 Red Bug Lake Road near an intersection with the Greenway. The site currently includes a two-story, 41,000 square foot medical office building and a one- story, 6,000 square foot urgent care center. A two-story, 161,000 square foot facility is proposed to be constructed on the remaining vacant space at the site that has been approved under the Development of Regional Impact process for a 120-bed hospital. Ownership of a DRI-approved site will save Florida Hospital time and expense entailed by permitting requirements. All 60 beds will be part of an innovative design referred to as a "universal room and universal care delivery model." For the present, Florida Hospital does not intend to provide obstetrics at the Oviedo facility but "all of the universal patient rooms are capable of being LDRP rooms" (tr. 1181) should Florida Hospital decide in the future to provide obstetric services at the hospital. Florida Hospital will transfer 60 beds from Orange County facilities so that Florida Hospital's proposal will increase the sub-district's bed inventory by 60 beds, 30 more than the increase that will be affected by ORHS' proposal. Just as with ORHS, Florida Hospital's proposal will not increase the bed inventory in District 7. Fifty beds will be transferred from Florida Hospital's Winter Park facility and 10 beds will transferred from Florida Hospital's Apopka facility. AHCA's View of the Proposals The Agency's conclusion that the applications did not demonstrate "not normal" circumstances was reached with difficulty. Review of the applications taxed the agency's decision-making process because of the challenging circumstances presented by the applicants. As Jeffrey Gregg testified for the Agency, when there is "no fixed-need pool," AHCA look[s] at applicants in terms of a unique set of circumstances that they present . . . and in this instance, The circumstances . . . in this case challenge the system, make it more difficult for [the Agency] to make a sound decision in the tradition of the CON program. (Tr. 723). However much in keeping or not with the tradition of the CON program, the determination that there were no "not normal" circumstances to justify need afforded a benefit to the Agency; it would not have to make the difficult choice between the applications. While it could have granted both applications, an option considered by the Agency (see tr. 729), no party contended in this proceeding that circumstances justify two new 60-bed hospitals in Oviedo. If need is proven for but one hospital, then a selection must be made. Yet, at every turn, AHCA has found one advantage held by an applicant to be defeated by another held by its opponent or one set of circumstances that would normally be an advantage neutralized by other considerations. For example, in view of the nature of the Orlando market, AHCA reasonably did not give much weight to ORHS' proposal to add fewer beds than Florida Hospital to the sub- district despite the fact that usually there would be advantage to a mere intra-sub-district move. In the absence of fixed need, for example, such a move would not have to be supported by "not normal" circumstances. To the contrary, however, from the point of view of practicality, it makes more sense "to take beds from a more urban setting [in Orange County, a different sub-district] where they are not being used [as proposed by Florida Hospital] and move them to a new rapidly growing area where there are not hospital beds." (Tr. 739). A sense of practicality guided AHCA throughout its CON review in this case. The Agency, in fact, approached the applications by "trying to be as practical as possible." (Id.) As explained by Mr. Gregg, again on behalf of AHCA: [The Agency] do[es] not give much weight to the fact that [the applicants] would be crossing subdistrict lines here and that one of them [ORHS] is in a position to . . . add fewer beds to the planning area. That's noted in the SAAR, but practically speaking, we are talking about a metropolitan area here. We are talking about in both cases large systems wanting to move beds from one part of their system to another part. So in many ways, . . . once again, [ORHS and Florida Hospital] are really well-matched and difficult to distinguish. (Tr. 724, emphasis supplied). The difficulty inherent in distinguishing between the applicants was repeatedly emphasized by the Agency. The point was brought home once more in questioning of Mr. Gregg by counsel at hearing: Q [W]ith regard to the minute distinctions between the applicants, at your deposition, some of the statements you made in that regard included [that ORHS and Florida Hospital] are both good citizens. All of these things in this case, coming up so close and so equal, that . . . in terms of CON analysis, it becomes very difficult . . . to make a distinction between the two of them. They are both just that good. And then also [the Agency] think[s] they compare very favorably, and very evenly, noting again and again and again that they are very, very close, very, very comparable. Is that still your position here today? A Yes. (Tr. 766-7). However close the Agency regards the two, there are differences in the applications. While some may not be of great benefit to a decision, others may serve to sustain a principled choice. Differences in the Applications Obstetrics The leading reason for hospitalization among area residents is the need for obstetrical services with births running at more than 2,000 per year. During the 12-month period ending June 2000, for example, childbirths accounted for 2,041 discharges. Of the top ten DRGs for discharges among area residents, uncomplicated vaginal delivery accounts for the most discharges, cesarean section ranks third and vaginal delivery with complications is seventh. In keeping with the demand for obstetrical services, the utilization patterns of the population in the Oviedo Service Area and the area's age composition, upon the opening of its facility, ORHS proposes to provide obstetrical services. The proposal is also due, in part, in response to the closing of the obstetric program at Florida Hospital East in May of 2001. There is physician support for ORHS' proposed obstetric services. Robert Bowles, M.D., testified by deposition that his group practice, Physician Associates of Florida, comprised of 14 obstetricians and gynecologists would cover obstetrics at an Oviedo hospital. While Dr. Bowles would not personally admit obstetrics patients at the new hospital, three of his partners would. Florida Hospital does not propose to provide obstetrics upon opening although it has designed its physical plant to provide an OB unit so that Florida Hospital would have the capability of initiating that service without a problem. In other words, Florida Hospital's proposed facility would be "OB- ready." (Tr. 725). Unlike ORHS, Florida Hospital does not have physician support for providing obstetric services at its proposed facility, a part of the reason for not offering OB. The basis for Florida Hospital's lack of physician support is a malpractice insurance crisis for obstetricians. Florida Hospital's proposed facility is not projected to open for another three years. If, during that time, the malpractice crisis eases and there is greater physician coverage availability, Florida Hospital could open obstetric services at the same the hospital opens since it will be OB-ready. Another reason that Florida Hospital has decided against offering obstetrics upon opening is that most maternity patients are more comfortable delivering babies in a setting that has neonatal intensive care services available. Two such settings are ORHS-Arnold Palmer and Florida Hospital's main campus. Indeed, a significant number of maternity patients from Oviedo are choosing to travel past multiple hospitals that offer obstetric services to have their babies delivered at one or the other of these two hospitals. Arnold Palmer, in fact, is the leading provider of obstetrical services to the residents of the Oviedo area's two most populous zip codes: 32708 and 32765, both more than 30 minutes driving time away from the hospital. Medicaid and Charity Care Conditions Approval of ORHS' CON is conditioned on a minimum of 7% of total annual patient days for Medicaid patients and 1% for charity care. Florida Hospital's application offers no conditions with regard to Medicaid or charity care. Like ORHS, Florida Hospital is one of the top ten providers in the State of indigent care, and a disproportionate share Medicaid provider. The Agency's view of the difference between ORHS' provision of indigent care conditions and Florida Hospital's decision to not condition its application was explained by Mr. Gregg: Conditions [such as those for indigent care] are important when it allows us to distinguish between applicants. They are less important when we have competing applicants, both of whom has such strong track records as these two do. . . . [W]e look at evidence of past performance relative to indigent care . . . . [I]n a case like this . . . both of these applicants have such good records in th[e] area [of indigent care]. They are both in the top ten statewide. . . . [A] promise of this condition or that condition [does not] give us particular concern one way or the other. They are both very good in that area [of Medicaid and charity care] and very tough to distinguish between. (Tr. 735-6). Architectural Design and Site The architectural plans of both applicants meet all codes that apply to a new hospital in the state of Florida. The ORHS design is tried and proven at ORHS' South Lake facility and will work on a 35-acre site. The size of Florida Hospital's site, 15 acres much smaller than ORHS', led to criticism of the site from ORHS experts. But the site is large enough to incorporate growth in the future. It can accommodate 320 beds and ancillary services. The design, moreover, takes these expansion capabilities into account. Related to the size of the site, the site's conservation area, comprised of wetlands and a forested upland buffer that will remain undeveloped indefinitely also produced criticism that the site is too cramped for a new hospital. But the conservation area, with its mature tree canopy, presents advantages. The hospital was designed to incorporate the view of the conservation area from hospital rooms because such a view is beneficial to the healing process. Furthermore, the conservation area can be used to satisfy water retention requirements. Florida Hospital's site is DRI-approved and part of a DRI master storm water plan that connects many ponds and wetlands. Surrounded by three roads, it has excellent access from existing roadways. Vehicular circulation is split to provide different public, service and emergency entrances. Innovation by Florida Hospital Unlike traditional hospital care models where the patient is moved from room to room depending on type and intensity of care, all care and services are provided to the patient in one "universal" room under the "universal delivery of care model." The model was developed by Florida Hospital. "The nursing leadership of the universal room design . . . was under the direction of Connie Hamilton." (Tr. 1080). Ms. Hamilton, accepted as an expert in nursing and nursing administration, explained at hearing that under the model, the room is designed to provide any type of care the patient might need. Whether the patient is admitted in acute care and then moves to intermediate care or med-surg, all care is provided within one "universal" room. Not only does the patient stay in one place, but as Ms. Hamilton testified, "[t]he nurses stay in one place in providing that care to [the patient] and the families know where the patient is and the physician knows where the patient is [at all times]." (Tr. 933). The universal care model streamlines the interactive processes of care of a patient. The care and attention of physicians, nursing staff and families devoted to moving the patient from room to room and keeping track of the patient as type and intensity of care changes is reduced to nearly zero if not eliminated entirely. The time, energy and resources formerly devoted to all that is entailed with changes in the patient's room is then free to be re-directed to care and attention paid to the patient. The result is enhancement of Florida Hospital's ability to provide "whole person" care consistent with Adventist principles of health care. The universal care delivery model is an innovative approach to the delivery of healthcare. Pioneered by Florida Hospital at Celebration Health, the universal care delivery model has been shown there to reduce medical error, reduce length of stay, reduce pharmacy costs, reduce nursing workload, reduce housekeeping work, and probably to reduce infection rates. Following the universal care model employed at Celebration Health, Florida Hospital has designed its proposed Oviedo hospital facility with universal rooms. Consistent with the universal care delivery model, the rooms are designed to improve the healing experience during hospitalization and minimize the patient's feeling of being in a hospital setting. Another benefit of the universal care model is high physician satisfaction due to continuity of nursing care and other factors. The physicians know where the patient is, that is, in the same location every day. Physicians, moreover, are not called at all hours of the day and night to effectuate patient transfers to other rooms. Kathleen Mitchell has studied the universal care model and published and submitted articles on the model to nursing journals. She has consulted with hospitals around the country interested in the model as well as the "health care arm of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Army, Navy, Veteran's Administration." (Tr. 1084). Ms. Mitchell, accepted as an expert in nursing amplified the testimony of Ms. Hamilton. With regard to the problem the universal care delivery model is designed to address, Ms. Mitchell testified: [T]ransferring patients for different levels of care . . . fractures continuum of care. It is . . . disruptive to everyone . . . involved . . . to the patient and their families . . ., to nursing, pharmacy, the physicians . . . . It creates a great deal of anxiety for patient and the families . . . even [those] who are getting better and moving to a lower acuity of care. One of the most significant things about transferring patients for different levels of care is it involves a great deal of work. Not only bundling the patient up, but the documentation and all the communication that goes along with securing a new location for the patient and expediting a transfer. And moving patients around creates a risk of medical error. The length of stay in hospitals has gotten so short and everybody is focused on reducing the length of stay that in the traditional model of care, nurses are turning over more than half their patient assignment daily . . . . [T]here is the confusion and risk that goes along with that. (Tr. 1086-1088). The benefits of the reduction and elimination of transfers produced by the universal care model were listed by Ms. Mitchell: increase in the continuity of care, reduction in nurse workload, high physician satisfaction, reduction in emergency room waiting time, family satisfaction, connectivity between patient, family and staff. Others were elaborated on by Ms. Mitchell. For example, reduction in pharmacy costs, probable reduction in infection and reduction in housekeeping costs: When you are meeting the needs of the patient in one location, you are not leaving medications behind or sending them to the wrong place, and there is work that nurses and pharmacists do with calling each other with ['] where is it, I can't find it, I sent it[',] all that goes away. We are demonstrating a low incidence of nosocomial infections because we expose our patients to one environment of organisms. This is a very difficult one to prove; even though we have a low incidence of nosocomial infections, we also have a fairly new facility [at Celebration], but it makes common sense that if you are reducing the transfer of the patient and the exposure . . . to different environments, you are reducing their exposure to organisms and will have a lower . . . infection rate. . . . [W]e don't strip linens off the beds and clean the beds where the bed was just made three hours ago, with all the patient transfers that are involved. So there is a reduction in . . . housekeeping work and . . . linen expense. (Tr. 1089-1090). Like the housekeeping efficiencies, the nursing staff benefits from the efficiencies associated with supplies. All of the supplies the nurse needs to care for the patient are close by, so the nurse saves time otherwise retrieving supplies from down the hall or in other areas of a hospital wing. Another benefit of the design is "connectivity to the outside world. The rooms have large windows . . . patients feel connected to the outside world . . . . " (Tr. 1091). This design feature will make use of the conservation area on the Florida Hospital site and the soothing vista it will provide to the patient, and assist in the healing process. Other Design Features Design drawings are a living and continually evolving process. The planning process of Florida Hospital for the design of its new Oviedo hospital involved specialty department experts and ancillary representatives discussing delivery of quality care for a patient throughout the system. The specialty experts and ancillary representative include radiology, emergency department, lab, pharmacy, and respiratory. The involvement of these people assures optimal patient flow throughout the system. In Florida Hospital's design plans, the patient flow and interaction between departments are well designed and well laid out so as to minimize the opportunity for confusion. In order to maximize efficiency, a larger number of beds in one nursing unit works better than smaller pockets. Florida Hospital's design plans have one 40-bed unit and one 38- bed unit. This design gives more flexibility and can expand or shrink more easily as needed. You don't have to open up another unit and staff it so often, when adding only one or two patients. Florida Hospital designed its facility specifically to take advantage of the economies of scale that being a satellite hospital in a larger system provide. For example, Florida Hospital's general storage, central lab, and other areas were purposely designed smaller than one would typically find because Florida Hospital operates a system-wide central warehouse, thus greatly reducing the need for central storage areas. Likewise, Florida Hospital operates a system-wide central clinical lab, thus minimizing the space necessary within a hospital like Oviedo for lab space. ORHS did not design its facility to take advantage of the economies scale of being part of a system. Presence in Oviedo Florida Hospital has had a presence in the Oviedo community since the 1970's, when it purchased land in the Red Bug corridor area. In the 1980's, Florida Hospital built a medical office facility in Oviedo and began to recruit and encourage physicians to practice in the area. When Florida Hospital acquired Winter Park Hospital, its commitment to the community of Oviedo increased by virtue of the fact that the Winter Park Hospital organization already had property and outpatient facilities in Oviedo. The result of Florida Hospital's early presence in Oviedo is that it has a high degree of physician support in place in the Oviedo community. Many of the primary care physicians in Oviedo refer their surgical cases to Florida Hospital. Florida Hospital purchased Winter Park Hospital on or about July 1, 2000. With that purchase, Florida Hospital acquired the hospital site in Oviedo. With the purchase of Winter Park Hospital, Florida Hospital also "purchased" Winter Park's plan to build a hospital in Oviedo. The Florida Hospital site has long been recognized as the "Hospital Site" in Oviedo. Immediately after purchasing Winter Park Hospital, Florida Hospital went to work on developing a plan to build a hospital in Oviedo. Florida Hospital began meeting with Oviedo city leaders in the fall of 2000 and early 2001; Florida Hospital also assembled a team of people from all areas of Florida Hospital including radiology, clinical services, marketing, finance, facilities, and engineering to work toward the development of a Certificate of Need application for a hospital on its site in Oviedo. Florida Hospital's two existing medical office buildings in Oviedo contain over 60,000 square feet of medical office space, in which are housed physicians practicing in a wide range of areas including Family Practice, Internal Medicine, General Surgery, Orthopedic Surgery, Urology, Radiology, Gastroenterology, Ear, Nose and Throat, OB/GYN, and Dental and Psychological Practitioners as well. These physicians are all currently on the staff of Florida Hospital. Also included in these facilities are a Florida Hospital owned and operated radiology center, outpatient rehabilitation center, and outpatient lab. The radiology center offers general radiology services, including CT scanning and ultrasound. The larger of the two medical facilities that Florida Hospital owns in Oviedo is located on the site where the new hospital will be located. This is the facility that includes the outpatient radiology, rehabilitation and laboratory services. An urgent care center is also located on the site. As a result, residents of Oviedo are used to coming to Florida Hospital's site for medical services and already recognize it as a medical facility site. The fact that Florida Hospital has such a significant presence in the Oviedo Community, and that a large number of staff physicians are already in place in Oviedo, is a great benefit because of the existing referral patterns in place between the physicians at the existing Florida Hospital facilities in Oviedo and specialists and sub-specialists on Florida Hospital's staff. In contrast, ORHS had an outpatient surgery center in Oviedo; however, it has been closed due to lack of physician support. Likewise, ORHS originally offered radiology diagnostics at its Oviedo office building, but has since sold that business to the radiologists. Finally, ORHS does not own the medical office building in Oviedo anymore, having sold it two weeks before this final hearing commenced. Dr. Joseph Portoghese, a Board Certified Surgeon, practicing in the Orlando area for over 13 years and president- elect of the Florida Hospital medical staff, testified that his group, Surgical Associates, which is made up of six surgeons, derives approximately 20% of their patients from the Oviedo area. In his opinion, Florida Hospital knows the Oviedo population best as evidenced by its "major presence" in Oviedo with its two facilities. Dr. Portoghese also testified that his group knows most of the primary care physicians in the Oviedo area and that a good many of them send their surgical cases to his group. Dr. Portoghese is on the staff of Florida Hospital, but not on the staff of Orlando Regional. Dr. Schamberger, a family practitioner who has practiced in Oviedo for 16 years and whose patients come primarily from the Oviedo, Chuluota, Winter Springs and East Orlando area testified that Florida Hospital has the best infrastructure for the provision of medical care in the Oviedo area. "The physicians who provide a great bulk of the care for that Oviedo, Chuluota, Winter Springs area practice at Florida Hospital. Their referral patterns are to Florida Hospital. Florida Hospital provides us with all the specialty and sub- specialty care we need for our patients." Dr. Schamberger is on the staff of Florida Hospital, but he is not on the staff of Orlando Regional. Dr. Schamberger further testified to the disruption in continuity of care that would occur for many Oviedo area patients whose physicians are on the staff at Florida Hospital if Orlando Regional were to be the only applicant approved to build a hospital in Oviedo: "[I]ts a negative impact for continuity of care. If I have been attending a patient for many years, the first thing that happens to a patient when they get in the hospital is that they have a history and physical examination done to establish what their underlying medical conditions are. I know a lot more about that from my patients than someone who doesn't see them and doesn't know them." (Tr. 1318) Dr. Cintron, a physician practicing in the area of Internal Medicine, whose main office is in Oviedo at the Florida Hospital site, testified that she has approximately 3,000 active files and 75% to 80% of those are in the Oviedo area. She has been practicing in Oviedo since 1994. Dr. Cintron testified that approximately 85% of her patients that get admitted to a hospital are admitted to one of Florida Hospital's facilities. Also, when she makes a referral to a specialist or a sub-specialist, approximately 85% of those patients go to a Florida Hospital facility. Competition "[T]he U.S. health care system is a competitively driven market . . . with some regulatory components and based on a managed care model." (Tr. 485). Rather than every insurance plan having a contract with every provider, the managed care model uses selective contracting. Competing health insurance plans select providers with which to contract for the provision of health care services to their subscribers. The ability of the competing insurance plans to engage in selective contracting requires providers such as the two hospitals in this case to compete along a number of dimensions including price. When successful, this competitive price model holds down price and maintains quality. The State of Florida has a "fairly well developed and active managed care sector." (Tr. 507). "[M]anaged care in and of itself [however] is not really able to save much money for consumers. . . . [T]he key ingredient in the ability of managed care plans to control health care cost increases is the competitiveness of the hospital market, the structure of the market in which they are negotiating on behalf of their health plan subscribers." (Tr. 500). The parties define the "market" differently. Florida Hospital uses the Elzinga-Hogarty ("EH") Test. The test, along with appropriate supplemental information, indicates that the market is all of Orange and Seminole Counties or the tri-county area that also includes Osceola County. Whether a two county or tri-county market, Florida Hospital refers to its market as the metropolitan Orlando market or the "overall Orlando market." Orlando Regional identified a smaller area as the relevant market, one that is more local to Oviedo. The reason for this more local market was explained by Glenn Alan Melnick, Ph.D., and an expert in health care economics who testified for ORHS: [I]n order for [managed care plans] to attract subscribers, they have to have a health plan that's attractive to people. And one of the features that people look for in their health plans is the availability of local hospital services. . . . [I]n order to make their products marketable, they have to include reasonably accessible hospitals . . . [I]f there is limited local competition, then the opportunities for them to generate price competition by leveraging competitive conditions . . . are very limited and [the managed care] model will not be successful. (Tr. 489). Dr. Melnick used the five and eight zip code Oviedo Service Areas as defined by the applicants as the market. He calculated Herfandahl-Hershman Index ("HHI") valuations for each zip code in the two Oviedo Service Areas. He also calculated HHI valuations for another seven zip codes in Orange County "to provide background to [his] understanding of the allocations in [the] area . . . . ." (Tr. 516). Dr. Melnick's calculations showed that Florida Hospital has a market share between 60 and 69% for the five zip codes in Florida Hospital's Oviedo Service Area and it showed a market share of between 25% and 59% for the three zip codes in ORHS' Oviedo Service Area that were not included in Florida Hospital's Oviedo Service Area. In each of the seven zip codes in the area outside the Oviedo Service Area, Florida Hospital's market share was higher: in excess of 70%. The analysis led Dr. Melnick to conclude that the market is highly concentrated in favor of Florida Hospital. Using the zip codes in the Oviedo Service (and it appears from the record the seven not in either applicant's Oviedo Service Area that Dr. Melnick had analyzed for background purposes), Dr. Melnick concluded that if the CON is awarded to Florida Hospital "[i]t would make an already concentrated market much more concentrated." (Tr. 524). Florida Hospital's relative market share would rise from 65.8% to 85.7%. Orlando Regional's would drop from 27.4% to 11.5%. The award of the CON to Florida Hospital would, moreover, "seal its already existing market power into the future." (Id.) Conversely, awarding the CON to ORHS led Dr. Melnick to conclude that the market as he defined it would be more competitive; Florida Hospital relative market share would drop to 51% and ORHS' would rise to 44%. What Dr. Melnick's relative market shares would have been had he not used the seven zip codes he selected outside the Oviedo Service Areas of the two applicants does not appear to have been shown by ORHS. Including the seven zip codes outside the Oviedo Service Areas for determining the relative market share that led to Dr. Melnick's conclusions runs counter to his premise that the market should be a local one, that is, an Oviedo market. It is not clear what relevance these seven zip codes had to his analysis since their inclusion runs counter to the underpinnings of his approach to the issue. If the overall Orlando market used by Florida Hospital is considered the market, the conclusion is that, whether a CON for an Oviedo hospital is awarded to ORHS or Florida Hospital, the impact on relative market share is minimal. As for pricing, there has been no significant pricing difference between Florida Hospital and ORHS for Oviedo residents. Furthermore, both Florida Hospital and ORHS contract with managed care companies on a system-wide basis; Florida Hospital, moreover, uses a single master charge structure for all of its Orlando area campuses. It is not likely that the presence of a hospital in Oviedo would enable either Florida Hospital or ORHS to control pricing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order on the basis of the facts found in this order concluding that "not normal" circumstances exist for the construction and operation of a new 60-bed hospital in Oviedo and that Florida Hospital's CON application be approved and ORHS' be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 James M. Barclay, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire Mateer & Harbert, P.A. Post Office Box 2854 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 600 Orlando, Florida 32802 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Boone, Boone, Boone, Hines & Koda, P.A. 1001 Avenida del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Michael P. Sasso, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Suite 310G St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. During times material herein, Petitioner was employed as a Unit Treatment Shift (UTR) Supervisor at South Florida State Hospital, Hollywood, Florida. Her duties included setting up medications; dispensing and administering medications, charting medications and taking patients from the ward for meals. Petitioner also performed related duties such as writing medical reports and keeping the ward areas clean. On October 3, 1980, Petitioner was injured while on duty at South Florida State Hospital. Petitioner suffered a back injury which required two back operations during 1981 and 1982 (laminectomies). Petitioner suffered a previous back injury during 1976, a herniated disc and, as a result thereof, had two disc operations wherein discs were removed. Petitioner remained under the treatment and care of Dr. George Crane until December 6, 1983. Dr. Crane determined that Petitioner had reached maximum medical improvement on August 11, 1983 and confirmed that Petitioner was employable as of approximately March, 1983. That release was confirmed by letter dated October 20, 1983 from Dr. George Crane, M.D. Prior to that time, Petitioner had been determined unable to sit, stand, lift, push or carry objects without severe pain. Also, during the period 1980 when she was injured through the time of her release by Dr. Crane, Petitioner had endured substantial pain requiring that she spend a great deal of her time in bed. She had, on occasion, left groceries in the store due to excruciating pain. (Testimony of Petitioner) Although Dr. Crane considered that Petitioner was employable as early as March of 1983, he suggested during August of 1983 that Petitioner attend a one week's visit to the Pain Center in Miami, Florida. Evidence reveals that while Dr. Crane suggested that Petitioner visit the Pain Center, he did not consider that her condition rendered her unemployable. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Bradford Drake, 1/ a Benefits Coordinator employed by Respondent as a Personnel Technician I, contacted Dr. Crane's office and confirmed his release of Petitioner to return to work. Armed with that confirmation, Mr. Drake contacted Petitioner and advised her of Dr. Crane's release of her to return to work. By letter dated December 7, 1983, Petitioner was advised by Barbara Nickels, Personnel Officer, that "This will serve to officially inform you that you are to return to your UTR Shift Supervisor position, Dade/Collier Ward, on Monday, December 12, 1983 at 8:00 a.m. Failure to report to your position after three days from December 12, 1983 will be considered abandonment of position and resignation from the State of Florida career service at South Florida State Hospital. This action is pursuant to the State of Florida rules and regulations, Section 22A-7.10(2)." (Respondent's Exhibit 4) Additionally, by letter dated December 19, 1983, Petitioner was advised by Robert A. Burton, hospital Administrator, that effective the close of business December 19, 1983, Petitioner was considered to have abandoned her position and resigned from the State of Florida career service at South Florida State Hospital. Petitioner was familiar with Respondent's Employee Handbook including the Employee Standards of Conduct and had received a copy of HRS Pamphlet 60-1 on May 18, 1979. Contained in that pamphlet is an employee policy concerning absences. An employee absent for three consecutive days without authorization may be considered to have abandoned that position and resigned. Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2 and Section 22A-7.10(2), Florida Administrative Code. During January of 1984, Petitioner was under the care and treatment of Dr. Paul Wand, a neurologist. Respondent, through employees of the personnel office, was not familiar with the treatment procedures to Petitioner by Dr. Paul Wand. To allow the Petitioner the benefit of doubt, Mr. Drake arranged for Dr. Crane to see the Petitioner during December of 1983 and Dr. Crane noted no change in the Petitioner's maximum medical improvement and considered her employable at that time. (Testimony of Bradford Drake and report of Petitioner's office visit to Dr. Crane dated December 6, 1983, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) In an instance where an employee, as Petitioner, tenders documentation that she is being treated by another physician, such a physician is called and the treatment is verified by staff and the personnel office of Respondent. In such instances, latitude is given that employee to tender documentation which would be considered in determining whether or not an employee is employable based on the opinion of the "other" physician. However, as noted earlier herein, Petitioner was primarily treated by Dr. Crane.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended: That the Secretary of the Department of Administration enter a Final Order finding that, based on Petitioner's failure to report to her position as UTR Shift Supervisor after three days from December 12, 1983, Petitioner abandoned her position of employment and resigned from the State of Florida career service at South Florida State Hospital. 2/ RECOMMENDED this 11th day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 11th day of December, 1984.
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this final order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Sections 120.68 and 766.311, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the appropriate District Court of Appeal. See Section 766.311, Florida Statutes, and Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association v. Carreras, 598 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Case background and the parties: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing, revoking, or denying certificates of need for health care facilities or services. In that regard the Department has promulgated a rule for computing the need for new or additional community nursing home beds. The methodology of the rule (now Rule 10-5.036, Florida Administrative Code) calculates a specific number of beds anticipated to be needed for a given planning horizon. Once calculated, the Department publishes the calculated need for the district/subdistrict. Additional beds are generally not authorized if their approval would cause the total number of beds approved to exceed the number of beds calculated to be needed under the rule. The Department is not, however, obligated to approve beds so that the total number of beds calculated to be needed are approved, i.e. the Department may, as in this case, approve only a portion of those beds thought to be needed. In this case, the Department published a projected need for 165 additional beds in Orange County, Florida. That bed pool was calculated for the January, 1993 planning horizon and was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on April 13, 1990. The calculated need published in this case has not been challenged and, therefore, was not at issue in these proceedings. At the time need was computed, there were 2,797 licensed beds in Orange County with an additional 505 approved nursing beds. The occupancy rate for the county was just under 93 percent. Following the publication of the need figures, letters of intent and applications were filed by health care providers seeking to obtain approvals for the available nursing beds. Coordinated Care, Inc. filed an application (CON #6287) for approval to develop a new, freestanding 120 bed community nursing home. The project was estimated to require a capital expenditure of $6,000,000 and would provide 24 beds in a subacute care unit. Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc. filed an application (CON #6292) for approval to develop a 60 bed addition to its existing facility known as Palm Garden of Orlando (CON #2991). If approved, the total number of nursing beds for that facility would then be 120 beds. The project cost for the expansion was estimated at $1,648,638. It was proposed that financing and management for the facility would be provided by National HealthCorp., Ltd. Marriott Retirement Communities, Inc. filed an application (CON #6290) for approval of a 39 bed community nursing home facility to be built as a component of a retirement community to be known as Brighton Gardens Nursing Center. The project cost for the Marriott proposal was $2,613,919. The Department's preliminary action in this case was to grant the CONs requested by Marriott and Florida Convalescent and to deny the application filed by Coordinated Care. Health Quest Management Corporation VII (Health Quest) operates an existing 120 bed nursing home in Orange County, Florida. That nursing home is known as Regents Park. Health Quest also operates Regents Woods, an adult congregate living facility, in Orange County. Health Quest opposes the proposed approval of CON #6290 for Marriott. Coordinated Care opposes the proposed approval of CON #6292 for Florida Convalescent and affirmatively alleges it is entitled, as the superior co-batched applicant, to the approval of its application. The petitions filed by Coordinated Care and Health Quest challenging the Department's preliminary action were timely. As to Case no. 90-7563: At the outset of the hearing, the parties stipulated that the following review criteria found in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, were not at issue or were inapplicable to this case: Subsections 381.705(1)(d),(e),(f),(g),(j),(k),(m), and (2)(b) and (c). As to all other relevant criteria, Florida Convalescent and Coordinated Care were comparatively reviewed for CON approval by the Department and are so reviewed in this order. Florida Convalescent is a nursing home company currently operating twelve nursing homes in Florida, including Palm Garden of Orlando (Palm Garden). Palm Garden is a 60 bed facility that was constructed according to a 120 bed prototype. The facility was designed to have three sections: two 60 bed patient wings and a center, nonliving area for the operations of the facility. The kitchen, dining room area, therapy spaces, office spaces and open areas have already been constructed and are currently utilized for the existing 60 bed unit. The approval of the CON here would allow the completion of the final 60 bed wing. Palm Garden is managed by National Healthcorp, Ltd. (National), a nursing home company headquartered in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. National provides financial, developmental, and management services to nursing home companies in nine states. National prepared the CON application in this case on behalf of Florida Convalescent. If approved, National will continue to manage the Palm Garden facility in Orlando. As part of the 60 bed extension, Palm Garden will have specialized programs for Alzheimer's patients, subacute care, and special respite care. The approval of the 60 extension will allow these programs to be expanded and Florida Convalescent has indicated its willingness to accept as a condition of its CON an obligation to provide such special care programs. Currently, the profile of Palm Garden patients can be summarized as follows: 70 percent Medicaid, 25 percent private pay, and 5 percent Medicare. Florida Convalescent has agreed to commit to providing 58 percent of its services to Medicaid patients, and has indicated its willingness to accept as a condition of its CON such a provision. National has agreed to finance 1.6 million dollars of expenses for the Florida Convalescent proposal. The total project cost associated with the proposal is $3,333,119. Coordinated Care is a management company whose principals, Fred A. Lane and Patricia Lane, his wife, operate four nursing home facilities in Volusia County, Florida. If approved, Mr. Lane will administer Coordinated Care's facility in Orange County. It is proposed that the Coordinated Care facility will have 120 beds with a 24 bed subacute unit. The subacute unit will provide care for AIDS patients, ventilator dependent patients, and IV therapy. Additionally, the Coordinated Care proposal offers a program for mentally impaired patients including those with Alzheimer's and will also offer a respite care program. Coordinated Care is willing to accept as conditions on its certificate of need the following commitments: to exceed minimums on direct care staff to patient ratios by 10 percent; to provide service to AIDS patients; to offer 48 percent Medicaid and 15 percent Medicare; and to provide the subacute programs previously described. The Department's District 7, subdistrict Orange County, has a need for additional nursing home beds. The District 7 Local Health Plan cites recommendations regarding new nursing home beds for the District. Those recommendations speak to the needs of the District as a whole and are not ranked by priority of interest. In this case, both applicants, Coordinated Care and Florida Convalescent, will provide nursing services to AIDS patients. The Coordinated Care application recognized the need for a staff education program to provide AIDS training and committed the applicant to provide care for AIDS patients. The Florida Convalescent application did not address AIDS patients specifically because no AIDS patient has sought admission at the existing facility. Florida Convalescent will conduct staff education for AIDS patients, however, and will not deny admission to AIDS patients. Both Coordinated Care and Florida Convalescent will provide, and will commit to provide, specific levels of Medicaid patients. In this context, Florida Convalescent's history (63 percent) and proposed commitment (58 percent) to Medicaid utilization is greater than that offered by Coordinated Care (48 percent). With regard to indigent or charity care, Florida Convalescent currently provides such care at Palm Garden of Orlando. Both Coordinated Care and Florida Convalescent have demonstrated a commitment to high quality nursing home care. Palm Garden of Orlando is a superior rated nursing home and has, additionally, established a high quality service rating among homes managed by National. Similarly, the Lane family homes have experienced superior ratings and are committed to quality care. Both Coordinated Care and Florida Convalescent have demonstrated good track records for employee recruitment, training, and benefits. Additionally, the salary and bonus offers make both providers an attractive employer. Palm Garden of Orlando currently has ties to nursing programs in the Orlando area and is close geographically to Valencia Community College and the University of Central Florida. It is anticipated that Coordinated Care will be able to establish such ties in the Orlando area since it has done so in Volusia County. Both Florida Convalescent and Coordinated Care have demonstrated that their proposals in Orange County meet the State Health Plan preferences. By virtue of it being an existing provider, it is anticipated that Florida Convalescent will lower its administrative costs with the addition of 60 beds since there is recognized an economy of scale at that level. There is no demonstrated problem related to availability, accessibility, extent of utilization, or adequacy of nursing care services in this case. It is likely that resources, including health care manpower, will be available for project accomplishment and operation. Both applicants have demonstrated the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposals. It is anticipated that the addition of 60 beds to the Florida Convalescent facility will have the least impact on the costs of providing health services and will promote cost-effectiveness. It is anticipated that the Florida Convalescent's proposal will best provide services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. The Florida Convalescent expansion is the most efficient and more appropriate alternative for providing nursing home services. The Florida Convalescent expansion will minimize the numbers of patients who were not admitted because of lack of beds at the Palm Garden facility. The Florida Convalescent expansion is consistent with other agencies and is in compliance with the local plans for providing long term care. The application submitted by Florida Convalescent was complete and its consolidated financial statement was consistent with the Department's rules and policies. The consolidated financial statement submitted by Florida Convalescent was prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and is sufficient for all purposes for which such statements are required by the Department. Florida Convalescent has demonstrated it has the financial resources to accomplish the project expansion and that the methods of construction, including equipment costs, are reasonable. On balance, when comparatively reviewed, the application submitted by Florida Convalescent is superior to the proposal submitted by Coordinated Care. As to Case No. 90-7565 Marriott filed an application for a certificate of need, designated by the Department CON # 6290, to construct a 39 bed nursing unit to be built in conjunction with an 133 bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) in Orange County, Florida. The Marriott proposal in this case is based upon a design it has utilized before and is commonly known as a "Brighton Gardens" project. In accordance with Department statutes and rules, a certificate of need (CON) is necessary in order for Marriott to pursue the nursing component of its project. A CON is not required for the ACLF component. The Marriott project will be financed by its parent company. That Marriott entity has $400 million in cash or cash equivalents, generates $600 million annually in cash flow, and can easily afford the project addressed by this application. The Marriott proposal substantially meets the preferences and recommendations of the State and Local Health Plans. The Marriott proposal specifies 30 percent of its patient days will be available for Medicaid patients. Marriott is able to provide a high quality of care. The Marriott proposal will establish links with the nursing school community so that recruitments and staffing may be enhanced. Additionally, Marriott will offer continuing education for staff with reasonable salary and benefit opportunities. The costs of construction for the Marriott proposal are reasonable, allocated appropriately between the nursing facility and the ACLF, and meet or exceed all applicable code requirements. Both as to the manner of allocation and costs of allocation, Marriott has disclosed sufficient detail to adequately assess the nursing component of its proposed development. Marriott's proposed project both in the immediate and long-term is financially feasible. The granting of Marriott's proposal will not adversely affect Health Quest's ability to recruit personnel. The granting of Marriott's proposal will not adversely affect Health Quest's rate of occupancy. If Health Quest's occupancy should decrease following the approval of Marriott's request, such result is not attributable to the approval since Health Quest currently has a lower than district average for occupancy and since Health Quest currently charges more than the average amount charged by other nursing facilities. The number of beds requested by Marriott represents approximately 1 percent of the total number of beds currently approved in Orange County. Marriott's application substantially complies with all review criteria set forth in Chapter 381, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order approving the applications filed by Marriott and Florida Convalescent, denying the application of Coordinated Care, and dismissing the petition filed by Health Quest. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 90-7563 and 90-7565 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 6 is accepted; the remainder of the paragraph is not a statement of fact. Paragraphs 7 through 13 are accepted. With the deletion of the word "well" in the last sentence, paragraph 14 is accepted. Paragraph 15 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY MARRIOTT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. With the clarification that at most 120 beds are in dispute, paragraph 4 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 5 it is accepted that Marriott's application is consistent with the state and local health plans; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 6 through 8 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 9, it is rejected as argument or response to a position argued by Health Quest. The weight of the credible evidence showed that Marriott appropriately disclosed its projects and that it will be able to finance the project which is at issue. Paragraphs 10 through 19 are accepted. With the exception of the last sentence which is accepted; paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 21 through 23 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 24 is accepted, the remainder rejected as irrelevant. The first two sentences of paragraph 25 are accepted; the remainder rejected as irrelevant or argument. With the deletion of the words "by far" which are rejected as argument, paragraph 26 is accepted. With the deletion of the words "serious" and "numerous" which are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, paragraph 27 is accepted. Paragraph 28 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. Paragraphs 31 through 33 are rejected as argument, contrary to the weight of the evidence, or irrelevant. It is not found, however, that Health Quest will suffer adversely from the approval of Marriott's application, to the contrary it will not. Paragraph 34 is accepted. Paragraphs 35 and 36 are rejected as argument. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY HEALTH QUEST: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4 (a) is accepted. Paragraphs 4 (b), 4 (c), and 4 (d) are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 7, it is rejected as irrelevant or argument; in this case Marriott has allocated and identified appropriately to establish the support areas needed for the nursing component of its proposal. Those areas have been computed in the cost and fairly and reasonably been considered in the financial feasibility of the project. To the extent addressed in the findings of fact or as accepted elsewhere in this appendix, paragraphs 8 through 36 are accepted, otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. It is specifically found that Marriott appropriately and accurately disclosed and allocated costs of the nursing facility and that those costs fairly depict the expenses reasonably expected to be incurred by this project. As to the suggestion by Health Quest that Marriott's proposal could not survive as a stand alone facility, such suggestion is rejected as irrelevant given the total circumstances and financial disclosures made in this case. Paragraph 37 is accepted. Paragraph 38 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, hearsay, or not supported by the evidence in this case. Paragraphs 39 through 147 are rejected as recitation of testimony, irrelevant, argument, contrary to the weight of credible evidence or not supported by the evidence in this case. Paragraph 148 is accepted. Paragraph 149 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraphs 150 through 169 are rejected as irrelevant, contrary to the weight of the evidence, or not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 170 through 179 are accepted. Paragraph 180 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 181 through 185 are rejected as irrelevant, argument, or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 186 is accepted. Paragraph 187 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 188 is accepted. Paragraphs 189 through 199 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant, or argument. It is found that the allocations of space and costs in this case accurately describe the project and would allow for the financial feasibility of the nursing component. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY COORDINATED CARE: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 4 it is accepted that the mathematical calculations are correct but such are not depositive of this case. Paragraph 5 is accepted. With the deletion of the phrase "Contrasted to the management style of FCC, which does not manage any of its facilities," which is rejected as argument or irrelevant, paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraphs 7 through 21 are accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant. The first two sentences of paragraph 25 are accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence presented, irrelevant, or unsupported by the record. Paragraphs 26 through 31 are accepted. Paragraph 32 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 33 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 34 through 36 are accepted. Paragraph 37 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 38 through 44 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant, or, where accurate as to fact, considered to be not dispositive of the issues of this case. Paragraph 45 is accepted. Paragraph 46 is accepted (assuming numbers have been rounded off). Paragraph 47 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 48 and 49 are accepted. Paragraphs 50 through 64 are rejected as irrelevant, contrary to the weight of the evidence presented or argument. Paragraphs 65 and 66 are accepted. Paragraphs 67 through 72 are rejected as argument, irrelevant, or contrary to the weight of the evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS: Paragraphs 1 through 19 are accepted. Paragraph 20 is rejected as argument. Paragraphs 21 through 24 are accepted. Paragraph 25 and 26 are rejected to the extent that they suggest the Palm Garden facility enjoys a higher quality of care than the Lane family facilities. Both applicants provide a high quality of care and must be ranked equally in this regard. It is expected that the expansion of Palm Garden will assure that facility's continued high care and only to that extent has Palm Garden been considered the better applicant in this batch. Paragraph 27 is accepted to the extent it details the history of Florida Convalescent, otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 28 and 29 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 30 is accepted to the extent that it suggests both Florida Convalescent and Coordinated Care have established good recruitment and training programs, etc. To the extent that Florida Convalescent is already established in the Orlando community it is advantaged; but, it is expected that Coordinated Care will be able to duplicate its efforts and successes (as in Volusia) in the Orange County venue. It is because it has an established program that Florida Convalescent gets the nod in this category. Paragraphs 31 through 38 are accepted. Paragraph 39 is accepted to the extent that it states both applicants have superior programs and quality of care; otherwise, rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraphs 40 through 42 it is found that both applicants meet the preferences addressed in the state health plan and that neither ranks higher in the categories listed in these paragraphs. Paragraphs 43 through 45 are accepted. Paragraph 46 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 47 (all subparts) through 52 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 53 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraphs 54 through 74 are accepted. Paragraphs 75 through 91 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraphs 92 through 109 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Barclay Theodore E. Mack Cobb Cole & Bell 315 South Calhoun Street Suite 500 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Elizabeth McArthur Aurell, Radey, Hinkle & Thomas 101 N. Monroe Street Suite 1000 Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles M. Loeser 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601 Darrell White Gerald B. Sternstein McFARLAIN, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY, P.A. Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Donna Stinson Thomas M. Beason Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P.A. 118 North Gadsden Street Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard Patterson Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Fort Knox Executive Center 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Rule 64B8-9.009(6)(b)1.a., Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant to Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Section 458.331(1)(v), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Board to adopt rules establishing the standards of practice and care for particular physician practice settings. The Board is the agency that adopted Rule 64B8-9.009, Florida Administrative Code, regarding standards of care for office surgery. Petitioner, Victor Ortiz, is a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA), and is licensed by the Board of Nursing pursuant to Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Mr. Ortiz is not a member of the Florida Association of Nurse Anesthetists or the Florida Nurses Association. Mr. Ortiz provides anesthesia care to patients in various settings under the supervision of physicians licensed pursuant to Chapters 458 and 459, Florida Statutes. Among other functions, Mr. Ortiz orders preanesthetic medications; administers regional, spinal, and general anesthesia under protocol and the supervision of a physician; provides life support functions; and monitors patient condition during surgery and in the recovery room. Prior to April 15, 2002, the effective date of Rule 64B8-9.009(6)(b)1.a., Florida Administrative Code (the Rule), Mr. Ortiz administered anesthesia under the supervision of operating physicians for all types of office surgeries, including surgical procedures classified by the Board of Medicine as "level III." Mr. Ortiz provided anesthesia services to patients in level III office surgeries under the supervision of M.D. or D.O. operating physicians four or five days per week on average. The Rule requires that if the anesthesia provider is a CRNA, there must be a licensed M.D. or D.O. anesthesiologist, other than the surgeon, to provide direct supervision of the administration and maintenance of the anesthesia in level III office surgeries. Since the adoption of the Rule, the physicians for whom Mr. Ortiz previously provided anesthesia services will no longer employ him for level III office surgeries because they believe that it is unnecessary and cost-prohibitive to pay Mr. Ortiz to provide the actual anesthesia services and an anesthesiologist to directly supervise him. Consequently, Mr. Ortiz' revenues have been reduced and his office practice has been substantially and adversely affected.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner overpaid Medicaid reimbursements to Respondent for inpatient hospital services due to the lack of medical necessity for such services and, if so, the amount of the overpayment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a 226-bed community hospital in Sanford. It is an acute-care hospital with an emergency department. At all material times, Respondent has been an authorized Medicaid provider. For inpatient services, Respondent receives, under Medicaid, an all-inclusive per diem rate for all goods and services provided during a 24-hour period, less any third-party payments. Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the regulation of the Medicaid program in Florida. Petitioner is required to perform Medicaid audits of providers and to recover any overpayments. Pursuant to this authority, Petitioner conducted an audit of Respondent for the period from January 1, 2001, through March 31, 2002. Pursuant to its procedures, Petitioner duly informed Respondent of the audit, obtained from Respondent relevant medical and hospital records, issued a Provisional Agency Audit Report on January 24, 2006, obtained additional information from Respondent pertinent to the provisional findings, and issued a Final Agency Audit Report on October 19, 2006, which claimed a total overpayment of $286,357.54 based on Medicaid payments made to Respondent on behalf of 35 different recipients. (The report indicates two separate denials for each of four recipients, so 39 total transactions are listed.) The dispute in this case concerns the medical necessity of the inpatient hospitalization of each recipient. The Florida Medicaid Hospital Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook (Handbook) states that the purpose of the Medicaid program is "to provide medically necessary inpatient and outpatient services to recipients in the hospital." Handbook, page 1-1. This case involves paid claims for inpatient, not outpatient, services. The Handbook defines inpatient services as those services "rendered to recipients who are admitted to a hospital and are expected to stay at least 24 hours and occupy a bed, even though a bed is not actually utilized because the recipient is discharged or transferred to another hospital." Handbook, page 1-1. The Handbook provides that the day of admission is covered, but the day of discharge is not covered, unless it is also the day of admission. Handbook, page 2-22. The Handbook defines "grace days" as non-medically necessary days following the day of formal discharge when the recipient continues to occupy a hospital bed until an outside facility or residence can be found. These days are not reimbursable by Medicaid except for children under 21 years of age on "Department of Children and Families hold . . .." Medicaid will pay up to 48 hours of inpatient stay beyond the formal discharge day for these children while an alternative placement is located. The Handbook incorporates the limitation of medical necessity as follows: Medicaid reimburses for services that are determined medically necessary, do not duplicate another provider's service, and are: individualized, specific, consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury under treatment, and not in excess of the patient's needs; not experimental or investigational; reflective of the level of services that can be safely furnished, and for which no equally effective and more conservative or less costly treatment is available statewide; furnished in a manner not primarily intended for the convenience of the recipient, the recipient's caretaker, or the provider. The fact that a provider has prescribed, recommended, or approved medical or allied care, goods, or services does not, in itself, make such care, goods or service medically necessary or a covered service. Note: See Appendix D, Glossary, in the Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, UB-92, for the definition of medically necessary. Handbook, pages 2-1 to 2-2. The Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, UB-92, Appendix D, defines "medically necessary" as follows: Means that the medical or allied care, goods, or services furnished or ordered must: Meet the following conditions: Be necessary to protect life, to prevent significant illness or significant disability, or to alleviate severe pain; Be individualized, specific, and consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury under treatment, and not in excess of the patient's needs; Be consistent with generally accepted professional medical standards as determined by the Medicaid program, and not experimental or investigational; Be reflective of the level of service that can be safely furnished, and for which no equally effective and more conservative or less costly treatment is available; statewide; and Be furnished in a manner that is not primarily intended for the convenience of the recipient, the recipient's caretaker, or the provider. "Medically necessary" or "medical necessity" for inpatient hospital services requires that those services furnished in a hospital on an inpatient basis could not, consistent with the provisions of appropriate medical care, be effectively furnished more economically on an outpatient basis or in an inpatient facility of a different type. The fact that a provider has prescribed, recommended, or approved medical or allied care, goods, or services does not, in itself, make such care, goods or services medically necessary or a medical necessity or a covered service. The Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, UB-92, Appendix D, page D-10. E. A. was admitted on January 6, 2001. Petitioner does not contest the medical necessity of inpatient services to treat E. A.'s acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis from January 6-8. The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of the remaining ten days of E. A.'s hospitalization. (All calculations of duration of hospitalizations omit the day of discharge, pursuant to the above-cited provision from the Handbook. In this case, for instance, E. A. was discharged on January 19.) E. A., a 60-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath and a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema, and hypertension. He had been unable to eat for the preceding four days due to respiratory distress. At the time of his admission, E. A. had been living for a short while with his sister, who was suffering from cancer. His relevant history included a shotgun wound to the left lung 30 years earlier. Respondent states in its proposed recommended order that E. A.'s chest X-rays showed acute infiltrate demonstrating pneumonia, although the discharge summary reveals that chest X-rays fail to reveal this condition, but acknowledged that sputum grain stains revealed a polymicrobial infection. More to the point, the X-ray reports dated January 6 and 8 note: "no focal infiltrate." However, the discharge summary described E. A.'s prognosis as poor because he was in "end-stage lung disease." In the emergency department, after treatment with bronchodilators, E. A.'s oxygen saturation rate was only 87 percent--not 94-100 percent, as mistakenly stated by Petitioner's expert, Dr. Ellen Silkes, an otolaryngologist whose practice is largely limited to outpatients. This low rate of oxygen saturation evidences hypoxia. E. A.'s arterial blood gases bore a pH of 7.28, evidencing, on the facts of this case respiratory acidosis, which results from excessive retained carbon dioxide due to poor lung function. E. A. was started on Albuterol and Atrovent by nebulizer at four-hour intervals, as well as a corticosteroid intravenously every six hours to relieve the swelling in the lungs. He received oxygen by nasal cannula. On January 10, the physician's notes state that E. A. still suffered from "severe COPD" secondary to smoking with bronchospasms. According to the notes, the first day that E. A. showed any improvement was January 12. On January 14 and 16, E. A. was still retaining excessive carbon dioxide and remained hypoxic, but showed some improvement by January 16 in terms of arterial blood gases. The physician's note for January 17 states that E. A. could be discharged as soon as arrangements for home health care were completed. E. A.'s hospitalization was medically necessary from January 6-17. His hospitalization after January 17 was not medically necessary. Petitioner improperly denied January 9-16, given that the day of discharge is excluded. Thus, for E. A., Petitioner should have denied two days, not all ten days. A. A. was admitted on June 19, 2001. Petitioner does not contest the medical necessity of inpatient services to treat A. A.'s gastrointestinal bleeding from June 19-20. The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of the remaining 12 days of A. A.'s hospitalization. (Some of Petitioner's calculations are incorrect. For instance, in this case, Petitioner does not deny July 2-5, even though, undoubtedly, its position as to the lack of medical necessity as to the earlier dates would mandate the same position as to the later dates. This recommended order does not disturb Petitioner's implicit acceptance of the medical necessity of any dates, even when it appears to be in error.) A. A., a 51-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with abdominal pain, diarrhea, and black tarry stools. His recent history included bloody vomit and a diagnosis, a few months earlier, of a pulmonary embolism. A. A. had discontinued taking Coumadin, a blood thinner, due to nosebleeds. A. A. had been diagnosed with AIDS in 1998 and had lost 30 pounds in one month. At admission, A. A.'s hemoglobin and hematocrit levels were critically low at 5.1 and 15.5, respectively, and remained critically low the following day when, after A. A. received transfusions of two units of packed red blood cells, his hemoglobin and hematocrit levels were only 6.8 and 20.0, respectively. Dr. Silkes denied the hospitalization after June 20 because an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy revealed, on June 19, no acute bleeding, and a bleeding scan the following day was negative. However, according to the physician's notes, A. A. was continuing to experience diarrhea on June 20, even though he was starting to feel better. The course of treatment of A. A. was complicated by his recent history of pulmonary embolism and his inability to report an accurate history. By June 21, A. A.'s severe anemia had been corrected, but he was diagnosed with candida, an opportunistic fungal infection common in AIDS patients. This diagnosis would explain the vomiting of blood. Generally, the treatment dilemma posed by A. A. was that efforts to increase his clotting time to stop the bleeding raised the risk of pulmonary embolism. The physicians debated whether to install a Greenfield filter to stop the passage of a blood clot. The filter is introduced under X-ray control through the femoral vein into the inferior vena cava, where it is anchored, so that it allows the passage of blood, but not the passage of a blood clot. But the Greenfield filter is contraindicated in the presence of A. A.'s fever of 101 degrees and elevated white blood counts. Physicians introduced Coumadin to minimize the risk of clots, but A. A.'s low platelet count required the discontinuation of Coumadin on June 30. A. A.'s International Normalization Ratio (INR) was 4.2, which is well above the range of 2.0-3.0 and thus indicative of the fact that A. A.'s blood was taking too long to clot. The standard of care in 2001 precluded safe outpatient management of a complicated patient such as A. A., given his twin risks of pulmonary embolism and bleeding, either of which could result in his death. A. A.'s Coumadin could not safely have been adjusted on an outpatient basis. The physicians restarted the Coumadin on June 24 and doubled its dosage the following day. As they were working on adjusting the blood thinner, though, A. A. continued to suffer nightly fevers of 103 degrees, and the physicians needed to monitor him closely for the next week for this reason too. On June 28, A. A. reported that he was feeling better, but the physicians needed to monitor him for a recent reduction in his Coumadin dosage. A. A. was reported as "alert and comfortable" on July 2. A. A.'s hospitalization was medically necessary from June 19 through at least July 2. Petitioner improperly denied all ten days of this hospitalization. T. B. was admitted on May 15, 2001. Petitioner does not contest the medical necessity of inpatient services to treat T. B.'s esophageal cancer and tuberculosis from May 15-17 and The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of the ten days that Dr. Silkes denied of the remaining 14 days of T. B.'s hospitalization. (It is unclear why Petitioner denied only ten days when Dr. Silkes denied May 18-20 and May 22-June 1--a total of 14 days, or 13 days exclusive of the day of discharge. But, as noted above, in cases such as this, the recommended order will consider only whether up to ten days within this period are allowable as medically necessary.) T. B., a 47-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with difficulty swallowing. He had visited a physician in February 2001 with the same complaint, and the physician had recommended an upper gastrointestinal series. Due to financial constraints, T. B. did not undergo this procedure until late April, when he was found to have a high-grade obstruction consistent with a tumor. T. B.'s recent history included the loss of 25 pounds. An endoscopy with biopsy performed on May 16 revealed a high-grade carcinoma of the esophagus. The physician planned to commence preoperative chemotherapy and radiation therapy to shrink the lesion, but, based on sputum collected on May 18, it was discovered that T. B. had mycobacterium tuberculosis. Physicians had suspected the tuberculosis from the time of admission when they placed T. B. in a negative airflow isolation room. Treatment of the tuberculosis necessarily preceded the preoperative chemotherapy recommended for T. B.'s carcinoma. The sputum sample revealed rare acid-fast bacilli, for which the standard of care in 2001 typically required two to three weeks of treatment before isolation precautions could be discontinued. T. B. remained in isolation at least through May 31. In addition, T. B. suffered significant pain from the carcinoma. By May 23, he was on patient-controlled analgesia in the form of a morphine pump, which is not available outside of an acute-care hospital. T. B.'s hospitalization was medically necessary from May 15 through at least June 1. Petitioner improperly denied all ten days of this hospitalization that it denied. R. B. was admitted on December 3, 2001. Petitioner does not contest the medical necessity of inpatient services to treat R. B.'s respiratory failure from December 3, 2001, to January 2, 2002, and January 8, 2002. Based on Petitioner's prehearing stipulation, the dispute concerns only seven days' hospitalization. R. B., a 59-year-old female, presented to the emergency department with acute respiratory distress and respiratory failure. She was immediately intubated. Her family insisted upon aggressive treatment of, among other things, her bilateral pneumonia caused by a virulent staph infection. R. B. required a tracheotomy on December 20 due to the difficulty in weaning her from the ventilator. She required the placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube on January 1. The discharge summary describes R. B. as "very frail and fragile" and her hospitalization as "very prolonged and complicated." On December 23, when R. B. was finally weaned from the ventilator, her family agreed to a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) code for her. The dispute arises from an incident on January 3 when R. B. fell when trying to get out of bed. Her mental status deteriorated, probably due to malignant disease. Physicians ruled out sepsis in the bloodstream, but X-rays revealed multiple nodules in the lung and liver. On January 8, a CT- guided lung biopsy of one of the nodules confirmed malignant disease. Two days later, the physician stated that a consultation with hospice was indicated. Upon the agreement of the family, R. B. was discharged to her home under hospice care on January 12. Dr. Silkes is substantially correct in her opinion. The diagnostic work after January 2 only supported the poor prognosis that had become obvious to R. B.'s family ten days earlier and certainly was not palliative in nature. R. B.'s hospitalization after January 2, 2002, was not medically necessary--except for January 8, which Dr. Silkes initially conceded, and an additional two days, which Petitioner conceded in its prehearing stipulation. Petitioner properly denied seven days of this hospitalization. J. B. was admitted on January 5, 2002. Petitioner does not contest a 23-hour observation on January 5, but this would generate a reimbursement considerably smaller than that sought by Respondent for inpatient services for that day, so Petitioner has essentially denied the entire hospitalization, which consists of 16 days. J. B., a 59-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath and atrial fibrillation with fast ventricular rate. He had been diabetic for 25 years. He had been laid off from construction work in August 2001, and had arthritic knees which prevented his return to work. Since losing his job, J. B. had been feeling poorly and had lost 20 pounds. J. B.'s pulse at the time of his arrival was 165, and it dropped to 105 within his first six hours at the hospital. J. B.'s relevant history included congestive heart failure, edema of the extremities, and nocturnal dyspnea. A chest X-ray on the day of admission revealed a dense mass in the left lobe. Physicians started a calcium channel blocker to regulate J. B.'s rapid heart beat and a diuretic to eliminate his excess fluids and swelling. J. B. was feeling much better by January 7, as the physicians had controlled his rapid heart beat. On that day, J. B. underwent a stress test, which was negative. However, a CT scan performed on January 8 and reported the following day revealed a left hilum mass that proved to be advanced carcinoma. The physicians decided that J. B. needed a bronchoscopy to biopsy the lung mass and a thoracentesis, in which a needle is inserted between the ribs to extract fluid for the purpose of determining the fluid's source. However, J. B.'s atrial fibrillation complicated their plans. On January 8, J. B. remained in atrial fibrillation, and the physicians were considering starting him on Coumadin because patients with atrial fibrillation are at high risk of clotting due to the poor expulsion of blood into the ventricle. Introduction of this blood-thinning agent before other invasive procedures requires first that the physicians stabilize the patient. This dilemma delayed the introduction of the blood- thinning agent and prevented treating J. B. as an outpatient. Once stabilized on Coumadin, J. B. underwent the two diagnostic procedures on January 11. They revealed that he was suffering from stage IV squamous cell carcinoma, according to a physician's report dictated on January 14 and transcribed the following day. The physician ordered additional CT scans to determine the extent of the metastatic disease before deciding on a course of treatment. A whole body bone scan was performed on January 15 and was essentially negative. However, the carcinoma had metastasized to the left hilum and, by report dated January 15, a physician noted that J. B. would not benefit from surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation, although palliative radiation could offer him some relief. An IV port for chemotherapy (not radiation) was placed on January 16--not January 6, as noted by Dr. Silkes in her report. Coumadin had been discontinued in advance of the procedure and resumed on the day of the procedure, but required adjustment for the next several days, as J. B.'s INR was too low, indicative of excessive clotting. Although the administration of the chemotherapy through the IV port could have been done on an outpatient basis, J. B. was comfortable at all times after January 15, and with no effective treatment possible, his hospitalization remained medically necessary until the physicians were able to adjust his Coumadin so that his INR reached the normal range. J. B.'s hospitalization was medically necessary from January 5 through January 22, on which date he was discharged. Petitioner improperly denied the 16 days of inpatient services. N. C. was admitted on February 8, 2002. Petitioner does not contest the medical necessity of inpatient services to treat N. C.'s intracranial hemorrhage from February 8-10. The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of the remaining 21 days of N. C.'s hospitalization. N. C., a 40-year-old female, presented to the emergency department with a complaint of passing out and no significant medical history. N. C. was a single mother of a developmentally disabled child. Her father resided in a nursing home and suffered from dementia, so her siblings were her decisionmakers concerning care. At admission, N. C. was already in a vegetative state, suffering from a massive intracranial hemorrhage. Her blood pressure was 213/107. She was immediately intubated and given Mannitol to reduce intracranial pressure and Dilantin to prevent seizures. On February 8, a neurologist evaluated N. C. and found her a poor candidate for surgery to evacuate the intracranial hematoma due to the likelihood of extensive consequent neurological deficits. The neurologist discussed the possibilities and the "extremely poor" prognosis with the siblings, who decided not to pursue surgery and instead allow N. C. to be "managed medically." The physicians asked the siblings to consider a DNR code for N. C. N. C. made no meaningful progress in the following days. Respondent was unable to contact her siblings until February 19, and they asked for two days within which to make the decision whether to place N. C. on a DNR code. On February 22, they decided to place N. C. on a DNR code and withdraw the ventilator. Three days later, the physician discussed with the siblings the possibility of placement in a nursing home. Three days after this discussion, the siblings agreed on inpatient hospice care for N. C. On March 4, IV fluids and medications and the nasogastric feeding tube were withdrawn, and N. C. was transferred to a nursing home under hospice care. N. C.'s hospitalization was medically necessary through February 22 because a nursing home cannot accept a patient on a ventilator, N. C.'s course following the stroke could reasonably be observed for a couple of weeks to determine if improvement--however unlikely--might take place, and the siblings reasonably required this long to make this difficult decision. From February 23 through discharge, the inpatient services provided N. C. were no longer medically necessary, so Petitioner properly denied nine days of the 21 days that it denied for this recipient. N. Ch. was admitted on May 23, 2001. Petitioner does not contest the medical necessity of inpatient services to treat N. Ch.'s cellulitus and osteomyelitis from May 23 to June 24. The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of the remaining 46 days of N. Ch.'s hospitalization. N. Ch., a 38-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with wounds to both legs and loss of feeling in both feet and a history of fractures to both tibias 20 years ago followed by osteomyelitis four years ago. Despite considerable hospital treatment to both legs, consisting of antibiotics, hyperbaric oxygen, debridement, and skin grafts, drainage of the wounds persisted. Four grainy wounds on both legs penetrated to the bone, and N. Ch. had suffered some bony damage from the persistence of these infected wounds. A physician performed a surgical debridement of the wounds on May 26, and a vacuum- assisted closure device was applied to the wound on the following day. This device produces negative air pressure to stimulate a chemical change in the tissues to enhance the migration of new blood vessels and granulation tissue over the area of the wound. The pump was changed often. On June 22, N. Ch. underwent a second debridement and a pump was reapplied to the wounds on June 24. The issue in this case involves the use of hyperbaric oxygen treatment on an inpatient basis. On June 7, a physician reasonably recommended 20, 90-minute hyperbaric oxygen treatments. The treatments, which accelerate wound healing, began the next day. Dr. Silkes correctly finds no medical necessity after N. Ch. became stable after the second debridement. Although he later suffered some fever, apparently from his reaction to an antibiotic, and gastroesophagael reflux, as well as some adverse reactions to IV and peripherally inserted central catheter lines, N. Ch. could have been managed as an outpatient after June 24. Nothing suggests that the vacuum-`assisted closure device requires hospitalization, and hyperbaric oxygen treatment clearly does not require hospitalization. Respondent contends that inpatient services remained medically necessary after June 24 because Medicaid would not pay for hyperbaric oxygen treatment on an outpatient basis. Medical necessity is driven by medical, not legal, considerations. If the sole reason for hospitalization is to obtain a medically necessary good or service that Respondent has restricted to the inpatient setting, then the provider community improperly circumvents Petitioner's restriction. If there is no other reason to continue to hospitalize a recipient, such as N. Ch., the decision to do so in order to obtain for him a concededly medically necessary service--that does not otherwise require hospitalization--is unwarranted. Petitioner properly denied the 46 days of inpatient services for N. Ch. after June 24. J. C. was admitted on February 24, 2002. Petitioner does not contest the medical necessity of inpatient services to treat J. C.'s coronary artery disease and lymphoma on February 24 and March 3-8. In its proposed recommended order, Respondent does not contest Petitioner's denial of the "last two days," which apparently are March 9-10. The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of the remaining six days of hospitalization from February 25 through March 2. J. C., a 61-year-old female, presented to the emergency department with worsening chest pain over the past two weeks and a history of coronary artery disease. She also had an undiagnosed mass on her neck. She had previously failed outpatient treatment and was admitted to the hospital. Two weeks earlier, J. C. was to have had an outpatient biopsy of the neck mass, but the anesthesiologist declined to administer anesthesia until her unstable angina was addressed. J. C. went to her primary care physician, who referred her to a cardiologist, but, prior to seeing him, J. C. went to the emergency department. On February 25, the physician's notes indicate that J. C. was stable and without chest pain. The cardiologist performed a cardiac catheterization on February 26 and found 100 percent blockage of the left anterior descending artery, 80 percent blockage of the proximal circumflex, and other narrowings that were not amenable to angioplasty and stenting, so he recommended coronary artery bypass grafting. Heart surgery could not proceed until physicians learned the nature of the neck mass. A biopsy was performed on February 28, which revealed B-cell malignant lymphoma. The oncologist preferred to commence chemotherapy after the bypass operation, so this was performed on March 3. J. C. was extubated on March 4, but developed acute respiratory distress on March 5 and required a transfusion the following day. However, Dr. Silkes is correct in finding the hospitalization from February 25 through March 2 medically unnecessary. The procedures performed during this period could have been done on an outpatient basis. The record does not support Respondent's argument that her unstable angina required inpatient management. Petitioner properly denied these six days of inpatient services. R. LaB. was admitted on April 2, 2001. The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of the last day of inpatient service on April 12. This is the first case considered in this recommended order handled by Dr. Alan Yesner, an internist whose practice is more evenly divided between inpatients and outpatients than is Dr. Silkes' practice. R. LaB., a 47-year-old female, presented to the emergency department with abdominal pain of two days' duration and a history of COPD, hypertension, and diabetes. She was rushed to abdominal surgery to reduce an incarcerated hernia. The surgery was long. R. LaB. suffered respiratory failure and required intubation. Dr. Yesner is correct in opining that R. LaB.'s hospitalization after April 11 was not medical necessary. She was stable and on appropriate medication, so Petitioner properly denied one day of inpatient service for R. LaB. J. L. was admitted on June 12, 2001. The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of the seven days of inpatient services. J. L., a 47-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with complaints of a gradual increase of abdominal girth and was found to have blood in his stool. Lab work indicated an elevated INR, elevated bilirubin, and bacteria in his urine. The physician concluded that J. L. suffered from primary biliary cirrhosis, for which he had been treated since at least 1998. J. L. admitted that he had become noncompliant with his medication after a divorce. A CT scan revealed a probable stone obstructing the right ureter, causing urine to back up and flood the right kidney. A successful laser lithotripsy was performed on June 17 with the complete fragmentation of the stone and the installation of a stent, which would facilitate drainage, to be removed a few days later. J. L. tolerated the procedure well, and on the next day he reported feeling better without any pain in his flank. Dr. Yesner notes the "late schedule" of the lithotripsy, but Respondent did not have a lithotripter in 2001 and had to schedule it for use at the hospital. The hospitalization was medically necessary through June 17 due to the pain, advanced kidney disease, and potential kidney problems presented by the blockage, prior to its surgical fragmentation. Petitioner should have denied two days, not seven days. C. M. was admitted on April 2, 2001. Petitioner does not contest the medical necessity of admission for 23-hour observation only on April 2 for end-stage sarcoidosis, pneumonia, and gastrointestinal bleeding. The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of the remaining 31 days of C. M.'s hospitalization, which concluded with her death. C. M., a 55-year-old female, presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath and weakness. She is a Jehovah's Witness, so she declines blood transfusions on religious grounds. By April 4, C. M.'s blood gases, although not within normal ranges, were out of critical ranges. C. M. suffered respiratory failure and required intubation on April 16. Her hemoglobin gradually dropped after this, but treatment was limited to iron and vitamins due to the refusal of the patient to accept a blood transfusion. This treatment was unsuccessful. The family supported C. M.'s decision not to accept a blood transfusion, but insisted on full, aggressive treatment, including CPR. C. M. went into cardiac arrest on May 3 and CPR failed to revive her. Dr. Silkes states that Respondent should have arranged for hospice care during the first day of hospitalization. C. M. was not then on a ventilator, so a hospice would not have objected to taking C. M. on that ground, but her respiration was critically impaired for the first three days of her hospitalization and her prognosis was not such as to render hospital care medically unnecessary. It was medically necessary to stabilize C. M.'s respiration during these first three days, but her hemoglobin issues could have been addressed by home health care for the next 11 days. The medical necessity of inpatient services resumes, though, after C. M.'s respiratory failure of April 16 and continues to the end of her hospitalization. The first three days of inpatient services were medically necessary, the next 11 days of inpatient services were not medically necessary, and the last 17 days of inpatient services were medically necessary, so Petitioner should have denied 11 days, not 31 days. M. M. was admitted on March 3, 2001. Petitioner does not contest the medical necessity of inpatient services to treat acute asthmatic bronchitis with a history of coronary artery bypass graft, asthma, sarcoidosis of the lung, and diabetes from March 3-12, which Petitioner later extended to March 13. The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of the remaining three days of M. M.'s hospitalization, which Respondent's expert frankly conceded was difficult to justify. As Dr. Yesner noted, M. M. was stabilized on oral medication by March 11, and he allowed a couple of additional days to monitor her. M. M. experienced hypoglycemia on March 16, but this is a condition that, according to Dr. Yesner, is not unusual with the Prednisone that M. M. was taking, and hypoglycemia is typically managed on an outpatient basis. Petitioner properly denied the last three days of M. M.'s hospitalization. J. P. S. was admitted on January 4, 2001. Petitioner does not contest the medical necessity of inpatient services to treat J. P. S.'s obstruction of the common bile duct. The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of the last three days of his hospitalization. J. P. S., a 54-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with severe jaundice and a history of diabetes, congestive heart failure, and triple coronary artery bypass graft performed in 1997, although he displayed no significant cardiac abnormalities during this hospitalization. During the initial examination, J. P. S. went into respiratory arrest and required intubation. The gastroenterologist found J. P. S. ready for discharge, from a gastroenterological perspective, on January 13. but J. P. S. immediately developed COPD symptoms, including shortness of breath and edema. According to the physician notes, J. P. S. was sufficiently stable for discharge on January 15, but a note for the next day says to hold the discharge pending cardiac evaluation. Respondent discharged J. P. S. three days later, after physicians could monitor the level of Digoxin to ensure that J. P. S. was safe for discharge. P. S.'s entire hospitalization was medically necessary. Petitioner improperly denied the last three days of inpatient services. J. P. was admitted on December 8, 2001. Petitioner does not contest the medical necessity of services to treat J. P.'s fever from December 8-12. The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of the remaining 14 days of J. P.'s hospitalization. J. P., a 27-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with high-grade fevers and severe headaches and a history of AIDS. Dr. Silkes approved the treatment of the fever until it ended on December 12. The fever was likely caused by J. P.'s toxoplasmosis of the central nervous system. This is an opportunistic condition not unusual in immunocompromised patients. Candida fungal infection likely caused J. P.'s complaints of pain on swallowing, as this too is an opportunistic condition. Additionally, a blood culture revealed a staph infection. Through December 18, J. P. was continuing to experience fevers of up to 101 degrees. At the same time, it was necessary to address the toxoplasmosis before it extended to other organs. This required the sequential administration of IV antibiotics and careful, continual monitoring of the patient for his clinical response to treatment. On December 20, J. P. underwent a bone marrow biopsy to rule out the extension of toxoplasmosis in the bone marrow or the presence of tuberculosis. This test was negative, which was a precondition for discharge. The pathology report was "received" on December 21, but not "printed" until December 27. However, J. P. did not complete his IV administration of Doxycycline until December 23, when the medical necessity for his inpatient services ended. Petitioner should have denied three days, not 14 days. W. P. was admitted on June 18, 2001. Dr. Silkes would allow only a 23-hour observation on the day of admission for the treatment of lung cancer and tuberculosis. The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of 13 days of his hospitalization from June 18 through July 1 (even though he was not discharged until July 13). W. P., a 59-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with severe coughing up of blood and a recent loss of 40 pounds. A chest X-ray at admission revealed a large mass in the upper left lobe of the lungs. Lab work suggestive of anemia correlated with a malignancy as its source. Sputum to test for acid fast bacillus was taken, and a consult was immediately arranged with a pulmonary specialist to consider a bronchoscopy and to take a biopsy. A CT scan of the chest on June 18 revealed abnormal soft tissue density filling the right upper lobe, two tumors, and numerous nodes. The bronchoscopy on June 19 revealed 80 percent obstruction of the right main bronchus secondary to an endobronchial lesion and 100 percent obstruction of the right upper lobe. A biopsy of the right mainstem bronchus revealed a squamous cell carcinoma. A physician noted in his consultation report that W. P. was to complete his metastatic survey on the day of the report--June 22--after which they would discuss palliative treatment. The report states that the patient understands that he will unlikely live more than six months. Subsequently, acid fast bacillus, which had originally not been detected, was found, so W. P. was placed in isolation on June 26. He had been experiencing elevated white blood counts and fevers. He was placed on antituberculosis treatment, which, as noted above, typically takes two or three weeks until the patient can be removed from isolation. July 10 was W. P.'s first day without fever. On this date, Respondent sent his records to the Health Department to facilitate a transfer to a tuberculosis hospital. He was discharged on July 13. W. P.'s entire hospitalization was medically necessary. Petitioner should not have denied any of the 13 days that it denied. M. Pr. was admitted on December 18, 2001. Petitioner does not contest the medical necessity of inpatient services to treat M. Pr.'s coronary artery disease from December 18-27. The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of the remaining seven days of M. Pr.'s hospitalization. M. Pr., a 58-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with a recent cardiovascular accident while out of state. A cardiac catheterization revealed severe triple vessel coronary artery disease. On December 19, M. Pr. underwent a four-vessel bypass. Post-operatively, however, M. Pr. fell while on the commode. The dispute in this case arises due to the unavailability of rehabilitation facilities that would take M. Pr. after his fall. He was suitable for discharge on December 28, but no facility could be found to receive him. These are "grace days," as noted in the Handbook and are available, on a limited basis, for persons under 21 years of age, but, by negative implication, are unavailable for adults. Thus, medical necessity dictated that Respondent discharge M. Pr. on December 27, so the inpatient services are not reimbursable after December 28, given that the day of discharge is not allowable. Dr. Silkes' determination was correct in this case. Petitioner properly denied seven days' inpatient services for M. Pr. A. R. was admitted on December 30, 2001. Petitioner has denied the entire 14 days of A. R.'s hospitalization, although Dr. Silkes approved one day's inpatient services, on the day of admission, for the treatment of ovarian cancer. A. R., a 63-year-old female, presented to the emergency department with vomiting on the day of admission, progressive abdominal distension, anorexia, weight loss over the past month, and a 15-year history of bronchial asthma. A CT scan of A. R.'s thorax at the time of admission revealed a large collection of fluid in the abdominal cavity. At this time, a physician removed 4.5 liters of fluid from the cavity, and A. R., not surprisingly, began to feel much better. A report on January 3--delayed probably due to the holidays-- indicated the presence of scattered malignant cells in the withdrawn fluid compatible with carcinoma. Metastatic ovarian cancer was subsequently confirmed. A. R.'s case was complicated by the withdrawal of this large volume of fluids, which required continual monitoring of her electrolytes, and the sudden exacerbation of her dementia on January 2, which would impede outpatient services, as well as the initiation of chemotherapy. The dementia, which had been progressive for the past six months, was likely a reaction to the carcinoma. By January 11, a physician recommended hospice placement given A. R.'s incurable tumor. A. R.'s daughter agreed on this day to hospice placement. This is the day that medical necessity for inpatient services ended. Petitioners should have denied three days, not 14 days. The remaining days were medically necessary. E. S. was admitted on May 4, 2001. Petitioner does not contest the medical necessity of inpatient services to treat E. S.'s pancreatitis and multisystem failure from May 4-23. The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of the remaining 24 days of her hospitalization, which ended with her death. E. S., a 64-year-old female, presented to the emergency department with nausea and abdominal pain and a history of hypertension and abuse of alcohol and tobacco. She was found to have elevated pancreatic enzymes. On May 8, E. S. underwent a laparoscopic removal of her gallbladder, which she tolerated well, but soon afterwards suffered respiratory failure. E. S. was then placed on a ventilator. Problems with malnourishment and then kidney failure precluded a successful weaning her off the ventilator. On May 23, the family agreed to a DNR code. May 23 marks the last day that Dr. Silkes found that E. S.'s hospitalization was medically necessary. Care after this date was entirely supportive and not medically necessary; however, no hospice or skilled nursing facility would take E. S. because she could not be weaned off the ventilator. The unavailability of an alternative, less costly setting does not automatically render the inpatient care of a recipient medically necessary. The circumstances dictate whether inpatient services to such a patient are medically necessary. Here, it is impossible to find that services after May 23 were medically necessary. Dr. Silkes was correct in her opinion. Petitioner properly denied all 24 days of inpatient services for E. S. D. S. was admitted on March 24, 2001. Petitioner does not contest the medical necessity of inpatient services to treat D. S.'s osteomyelitis of the right foot from March 24-25 and March 30-April 10. (Originally, Dr. Silkes allowed only March 24-25 and March 30-April 6, but, on February 7, 2007, she revised her opinion to allow the additional four days to April 10.) In its prehearing statement, Petitioner conceded that only three of the original ten denied days remained at issue, as it was agreeing that an additional seven days were medically necessary. The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of the remaining three days, although it is not clear what three days Petitioner is contesting. D. S., a 57-year-old female, presented at the emergency department with a "hole in the right foot" and a history of diabetes. She dropped a can of juice on her foot on January 1, and the foot had become progressively infected since that time. On the day of admission, she underwent surgery for the removal of fourth and fifth metatarsal bones and toes of the right foot. She did not heal properly and required followup surgery on April 7 to trim some of the necrotic flap, as the physicians considered the possibility of a below-knee amputation. On April 13, the surgeon probed the wound, found no hidden pockets, and discharged D. S. Regardless what three days that Petitioner continues to find were not medically necessary, the entire hospitalization was medically necessary. J. W. was admitted on August 20, 2001. Petitioner does not contest the medical necessity of inpatient services to treat J. W.'s multiple organ failure from August 20 to September 14. The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of the remaining two days of J. W.'s hospitalization, at which time he died. J. W., a 48-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with a two or three-day history of progressive congestive heart failure with pulmonary edema, atypical chest pain, and increasing abdominal girth. His history included nonischemic cardiomyopathy with minimal coronary artery disease, chronic alcohol abuse, pulmonary hypertension, chronic atrial fibrillation requiring anticoagulation therapy, hepatitis B and C, chronic renal insufficiency, and chronic congestive heart failure with multiple hospitalizations. On admission, his INR was 6.6, indicative of very slow clotting. Despite the care of numerous consultants, J. W. suffered increased respiratory failure on September 5, at which time he was intubated. He received a Greenfield filter on September 7 to prevent further pulmonary clots. Starting September 10, and continuing everyday thereafter, J. W. required dialysis due to renal failure. J. W. was on total parenteral feeding as of September 14. The family, whose availability had been a problem, agreed to a DNR code on September 17. Respondent claims in its proposed recommended order that a DNR code is a precondition to hospice care, but no competent evidence establishes this fact. Dr. Silkes and Petitioner properly denied the last two days because they were not medically necessary. M. W. was admitted on June 10, 2001. Petitioner does not contest the medical necessity of inpatient services to treat M. W.'s ventricular fibrillation and complications from June 10- The parties' dispute concerns the medical necessity of the remaining seven days of M. W.'s hospitalization. M. W., a 31-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with cardiopulmonary arrest after his wife found him slumped on the sofa, seizing. On arrival, he was found to be in ventricular fibrillation, and he was intubated. Physicians restored a normal rhythm, but M. W. suffered a seizure in the emergency department, so he was given large doses of Dilantin. M. W. had suffered brain damage from cerebral anoxia. M. W. was extubated on June 13, and his breathing remained stable. He remained in normal sinus rhythm. M. W. began to receive Librium on June 13 to sedate him. The cardiologist proposed a cardiac catheterization, but M. W. refused. An EKG on June 15 found a conduction defect in M. W.'s heart that was suggestive of Wolff Parkinson White syndrome. The cardiologist then determined, on June 16, that M. W. required an electrophysiology study to rule out Wolff Parkinson White syndrome. In 2001, Respondent lacked the equipment to perform this study, for which M. W. remained too confused to participate on June 18 anyhow. Physicians continued to monitor M. W.'s cardiac rhythm, and, when a bed opened at Florida Hospital, Orlando, which had the necessary equipment, Respondent promptly transferred M. W. on June 22. During the transfer, the cardiac monitor continued to check M. W.'s rhythm due to the risk of another cardiac incident until the underlying cardiac abnormality was assessed and treated. Petitioner improperly denied the final seven days of M. W.'s hospitalization. M. W. had suffered a serious cardiac event. Physicians had not yet ruled out all possible reasons for the event and needed to address a promising possibility of Wolff Parkinson White syndrome, so M. W. remained at risk for another event. He was confused from the brain damage. All of these factors militate in favor of finding that the remaining seven days of inpatient services were medically necessary. E. A. $1666.62 R. B. $5703.18 N. C. $7332.66 N. Ch. $38,332.26 J. C. $4888.44 R. LaB. $833.31 J. L. $1666.62 C. M. $9166.41 M. M. $2499.93 The total overpayment is $104,309.97, which breaks down as follows: J. P. $2444.22 M. Pr. $5703.18 A. R. $2444.22 E. S. $19,999.44 J. S. $1629.48
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding overpayments totaling $104,309.97 during the audit period and requiring that Respondent repay this amount, imposing an administrative fine of $1000, requiring Respondent to prepare a corrective action plan, and reserving jurisdiction to remand the case to the Division of Administrative Hearing for a determination of Petitioner's entitlement to statutory costs, if any. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig H. Smith, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Dr. Andrew C. Agwunobi, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard M. Ellis, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32304-0551 William Blocker, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Daniel Lake, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Tracy Cooper, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
