The Issue Whether the proposed amendments to Florida Administrative Code Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f), the "open heart rule", constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. On January 18, 1991, HRS published proposed rule changes (the "Proposed Amendments") to Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 17, No. 3 at page 163. These consolidated cases were brought pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, to challenge these Proposed Amendments to the administrative rules for the Certificate of Need program. As a preliminary matter, it is important to understand the background of the rule and the Proposed Amendments. Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), regulates the provision of open heart surgery throughout the eleven HRS service districts in Florida. HRS' stated purpose in promulgating the Proposed Amendments was to "clarify" certain provisions of the existing rule. The original version of the open heart surgery rule was drafted in 1982, and was modeled after the National Guidelines for Health Planning, (hereinafter the "National Guidelines"). At the time the existing rule was adopted, the Florida Certificate of Need Program closely tracked the National Guidelines. Prior to adopting the existing rule, HRS reviewed the relevant literature regarding open heart surgery programs. In addition, a task force was convened to review numerous issues, including certain criticisms received from the health care industry that the National Guidelines were too restrictive. In 1985, the open heart rule was amended in response to evidence demonstrating that the incidence rate of adult open heart surgery had increased. The rule was amended to project need based upon the actual use rate experienced. The amended rule provided that the use rate would be adjusted for every batch of applications based on the most recent twelve month data available. In 1987, the open heart surgery rule was challenged by St. Mary's pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The primary issue in that rule challenge was whether the 350 minimum volume operations standard in the rule was too high. Following a three day hearing which included the presentation of extensive expert testimony, the rule was declared to be a valid exercise of delegated authority. See, St. Mary's Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 87-2729R, 9 F.A.L.R. 6159. (This subject matter is discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 91-92 below.) In 1989, HRS published what it considered to be proposed technical amendments to the open heart surgery rule to resolve certain issues regarding the publication of the fixed need pool and to clarify some other aspects of the rule. No work group was convened for these proposals because HRS did not consider the proposed changes to be substantive. However, a number of challenges were filed to the proposed rule amendments. In April of 1990, HRS decided to withdraw the amendments and seek further input from the health care industry and other affected persons regarding possible changes to the rule. A work group (the "Work Group") was convened on June 18, 1990 to discuss the issues raised in the various challenges to the 1989 proposed rule amendments and to consider other matters raised by the various industry representatives and other concerned parties. Representatives from numerous Florida hospitals, as well as representatives from the Association of Voluntary Hospitals, the Florida League of Hospitals and the Florida Hospital Association participated in the Work Group. The participants included hospitals that have open heart surgery programs and those that do not, including several who had applied or who have an interest in offering those services. The minutes of the Work Group Meeting were transcribed and are contained in the rule promulgation file which was accepted into evidence as HRS Exhibit 5. Elfie Stamm, the HRS planner primarily responsible for the original development and subsequent amendments of the open heart surgery rule was an active participant in the Work Group. She also oversaw the development of Volume 3 of the State Health Plan in 1988 and 1989. This volume deals with certificate of need matters and contains detailed research and analysis of open heart surgery trends and developments. Thus, Ms. Stamm was very familiar with the issues and current research in the area. Based upon the evidence deduced during the Work Group Meeting and a review of the research in the area, HRS decided to promulgate the Proposed Amendments which it considered to be "technical" changes to the rule that were intended to not change the impact on current and prospective providers. HRS specifically decided not to make any changes that would modify the current overall need projections. Prior to publication, the Proposed Amendments were circulated for internal review, approval and signoff, and were sent to the House Health Care Committee and the Senate HRS Committee. The Proposed Amendments were also sent to all the members of the Work Group, who were advised that it would be published on January 18, 1991. As noted above, the Proposed Amendments were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on January 18, 1991. Only one public comment (dated January 24, 1991, and received by HRS on January 28, 1991,) was submitted in response to the January 18, 1991 publication of the Proposed Amendments. That comment suggested clarifying language to Subparagraph 7(a) II of the Proposed Amendments. In response to this letter, HRS caused to be published a Notice of Change in the February 1, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. The January 18, 1991 Notice provided that a public hearing on the Proposed Amendments would be conducted on February 11, 1991 at 10:00 a.m. if requested. No public hearing was requested and, therefore, none was held. St. Mary's has insinuated that the Notice was somehow deficient because the public hearing was scheduled more than 21 days after the notice of rulemaking was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The evidence indicates that such scheduling is customary in order to assure that a request can be made right up until the last possible moment without the necessity of holding two public hearings. Overview of the Proposed Amendments Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f) is a new section entitled "Departmental Intent." This section states that certificates of need for open heart surgery programs will not normally be approved unless the applicant meets the relevant statutory criteria, including the need determination criteria in the rule. This Section also provides that separate certificates of need will be required in order to establish either an adult or pediatric open heart surgery program. As discussed in more detail below, the existing rule does not expressly state that separate CONs must be obtained to implement adult and pediatric programs. The proposed rule amendments do not specifically address the provision of adult and pediatric open heart surgery within the same program. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)2 sets forth several new definitions. Subparagraph 2j establishes for the first time pediatric open heart service areas which are made up of combined HRS districts and are thus much larger than adult open heart service areas. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)3 mandates that pediatric open heart surgery programs must have the same services and procedures as adult programs, including intraaortic balloon assists. Subparagraph 3c requires that pediatric open heart surgery programs shall only be located in hospitals with inpatient cardiac catheterization programs. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)4 contains the travel time standard which applies to adult open heart surgery service accessibility, and the maximum waiting period for open heart surgery team mobilization for adult and pediatric programs. There is no travel time standard for pediatric services in the Proposed Amendments. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)4d requires applicants for adult or pediatric open heart surgery programs to document the manner in which they will provide open heart surgery to all persons in need. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)7 is entitled "Adult Open Heart Surgery Program Need Determination". Subparagraph (a) essentially recodifies and restates existing Rule 10-5.011(f)11 and provides that each and every adult open heart surgery program within a district should be performing 350 adult open heart surgery operations per year prior to there being a calculated net need for a new program in that district. The section does not contain an explanation or delineation of "not normal" circumstances that HRS will consider in the absence of a net numeric need. Currently, Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)11., provides: There shall be no additional open heart surgery programs established unless: The service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric heart cases per year. As discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 89-97 below, from approximately early 1985 through January 22, 1990, HRS interpreted this section to require that the volume of procedures provided by all existing programs in each service district be averaged to determine whether need existed for a new open heart surgery program (the "averaging method"). This averaging method allowed HRS to find numeric need when the average total of procedures per program in the district equaled 350 or more. After this interpretation was rejected in several cases, HRS abandoned the "averaging" approach and has been requiring "each and every" existing program in a district to meet the 350 minimum standard before a new adult program will normally be approved. Subparagraph (b) of Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)7 mandates that only one program shall be approved at a time, and contains the numeric need calculation formula for adult open heart surgery programs. Subparagraph (c) states that, regardless of whether need is shown according to the formula, if an incoming provider will reduce an existing provider's volume below 350, the applicant will not normally be approved. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)8 contains a new method for calculating need for pediatric open heart surgery programs. Pursuant to this proposal, need would be calculated based on the number of resident live births in a pediatric open heart surgery program service area. The proposal would require at least 30,000 resident live births per pediatric program. The economic impact statement (EIS) which accompanied the Proposed Amendments states that, other than administrative and word processing costs, there will be no additional annual or operating costs associated with the implementation of the Proposed Amendments. The EIS contains no statement of the impact upon potential applicants or existing providers due to the changes in either the adult or pediatric portions of the rule. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A SEPARATE CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR AN ADULT OPEN HEART SURGERY PROGRAM AND PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART SURGERY PROGRAM. The existing rule does not expressly require separate certificate of need applications for pediatric and adult open heart surgery programs. However, HRS' policy for at least the last year has been to require hospitals to obtain separate certificates of need for adult open heart surgery programs and pediatric open heart surgery programs. See Findings of Fact 135 below. In other words, the proposed amendment codifies HRS' current interpretation of the existing rule. The Work Group which assisted in the development of the Proposed Amendments examined the issue of whether HRS should require hospitals to obtain separate CONs for adult open heart surgery programs and pediatric open heart surgery programs. In addition, HRS reviewed the available literature, including the National Guidelines and the Guidelines for Pediatric Cardiology Diagnostic and Treatment Centers (hereinafter the "Pediatric Guidelines"). Comments were also solicited from the Children's Medical Services Program Office which regulates certain aspects of pediatric cardiac surgery. Based upon a review of this information, HRS concluded that (1) pediatric and adult open heart surgery programs are generally and properly operated as separately organized programs and (2) pediatric programs are and should be staffed by personnel specially trained to provide pediatric care. There are significant differences between providing open heart surgery to adults and providing open heart surgery to children. Adults generally have acquired heart disease, while children generally have congenital heart problems. The transfer process and approach to open heart surgery differs between adults and children. Pediatric open heart patients are more labile in certain situations than adult open heart surgery patients. People who work with adult open heart surgery patients often lack the ability to work with pediatric open heart surgery patients. In sum, the evidence established that pediatric open heart surgery is a complex service which requires a team dedicated to that service. With the possible exception of one program, all the pediatric open heart surgery programs in Florida are offered in separately organized programs. The incidence rate of pediatric open heart surgery is significantly lower than that for adult open heart surgery. The latest data reflects that from October 1989 to September 1990 there were only 545 pediatric heart surgeries performed in the state of Florida as compared to nearly 21,000 adult open heart surgeries during the same period. Nothing in the Proposed Amendments prohibits an applicant from applying for both adult and pediatric open heart surgery. The rule does have separate requirements, including separate need methodologies, which would normally have to be satisfied as a predicate to the award of either program. St. Mary's voiced a concern that the Economic Impact Statement did not address the additional costs to applicants, (i.e. duplicate application fees) that will result from this provision of the Proposed Amendments which requires separate certificates of need for adult and pediatric programs. As noted above, such costs are already necessary under HRS' interpretation of the existing rules. In any event, St. Mary's has not demonstrated that such additional costs would be other than minimal. WHETHER THE CLASSIFICATION OF OPEN-HEART SURGERY BY THE DIAGNOSTIC RELATED GROUPS LISTED IN SUB-PARAGRAPH 2.g. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS VAGUE, ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. Subparagraph 2.g. of the proposed amendments reads as follows: "Open Heart Surgery Operation". Surgery assisted with a heart-lung by-pass machine that is used to treat conditions such as congenital heart defects, heart and coronary artery diseases, including replacement of heart valves, cardiac vascularization, and cardiac trauma. One open heart surgery operation equals one patient admission to the operating room. Open heart surgery operations are classified under the following diagnostic related groups: DRGs 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 110. Diagnostic related groups or "DRGs", are a health service classification system used by the Medicare System. The existing rule does not include the reference to DRG classifications. Some confusion had been expressed by applicants as to whether certain organ transplant operations which utilized a bypass machine during the operation should be reported as open heart operations or as organ transplantation operations. The amendment was intended to clarify that only when the operation utilizes the bypass machine and falls within one of the enumerated categories should it be considered an open heart surgery operation. The inclusion of the listed DRGs was meant to clarify the existing definition by limiting the DRG categories within which open heart surgery services may be classified. There is no dispute that the primary factor in defining an open heart surgery procedure is the use of a heart-lung machine. Florida Hospital argued that the proposed definition is ambiguous and vague because not all procedures which fit into the listed DRG categories necessarily involve open heart surgery. Florida Hospital's fear that the new language would seem to indicate that each procedure falling into the listed DRGs qualifies as an open heart surgery operation is unfounded. While the provision could have been written in a simpler and clearer manner, the definition adequately conveys the intent that the use of a heart-lung by-pass machine is an essential element to classifying an operation as open-heart surgery. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 2.j. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT ESTABLISHES PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART SERVICE AREAS WHICH ARE LARGER THAN ADULT OPEN HEART SERVICE AREAS WHICH MAY RESULT IN DEPRIVATION OF NEEDED OPEN HEART SURGERY PROGRAMS IN SOME SERVICE AREAS. The Proposed Amendments will regulate pediatric open heart surgery on a regional basis. Five "Services Areas" are created by combining HRS service districts. In establishing these Service Areas, HRS considered the extent to which patients would have geographic access to pediatric open heart surgery services. The Service Areas were organized geographically in a manner intended to result in one pediatric open heart surgery program in each Service Area. Section 20.19(7), Florida Statutes, provides that "[t]he Department shall plan and administer its programs of health, social, and rehabilitative services through service districts and subdistricts ... ." This statute sets forth the geographic composition of each district and subdistrict through which HRS is to administer its programs. Section 20.19(7)(a), Florida Statutes. St. Mary's contends that no statutory authority exists for combining "service districts" to create "service areas." However, no prohibition against combining districts for tertiary services exists in the statute and, indeed, the nature of tertiary services mandates such an approach in some instances. As indicated below, HRS has combined districts for other programs. Section 381.702(20) defines "tertiary health services" and authorizes HRS to establish by rule a list of tertiary health services. Tertiary health care services are complex services which involve high consumption of hospital resources. Due to the low incidence of those medical conditions which require tertiary services, there is a benefit in limiting those services to select facilities in order to maximize volume at those facilities. This approach is known as the regionalization of health care services. HRS has promulgated a list of tertiary health services in Rule 10- 5.002(66) (previously 10-5.002(40), Florida Administrative Code. Subsection 9 of this Rule includes "neonatal and pediatric cardiac and vascular surgery." Thus, pediatric open heart surgery is a tertiary health care service. HRS regulates other tertiary services, including burn units, organ transplants programs, and pediatric cardiac catheterization services, on a regional basis. See e.g., Rules 10-5.043, and 5.044 Florida Administrative Code. Regionalization of tertiary services at a central point has been used by HRS to encourage an appropriate volume level at each center. The evidence established that there is a correlation between volume and outcome in pediatric open heart programs. HRS has concluded that pediatric open heart surgery should be limited to and concentrated in a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost effectiveness of the service. No persuasive evidence was presented to rebut this conclusion. The evidence indicates that pediatric open heart surgery services are currently delivered in Florida on a regional basis. A limited number of hospitals scattered throughout the state are serving the state's population. Of the eight hospitals which are included among the HRS inventory of hospitals providing pediatric open heart surgery services, only 5 perform a significant volume of cases. Each of those five hospitals is either a teaching hospital or a specialty pediatric hospital. The other three hospitals listed on the inventory have large adult open heart surgery programs, but perform a very low volume of pediatric cases. The evidence did not establish that the existing providers are currently unable to meet the need for services in the state. Based upon a review of the existing research and literature, HRS has concluded that a facility should perform approximately 100 pediatric heart surgeries annually in order to retain proficiency. As discussed in Findings of Fact 132 below, the 30,000 annual live births standard will, over time, result in approximately 100-130 pediatric open heart surgery cases per year among the population base from birth to age 21. In Service Area 1, the resident live births in 1988 were 16,142. (Service Area 1 combines HRS Districts 1 and 2.) Thus, the number of live births in this Service Area would have to almost double before a new program could meet this standard. While Petitioners object to this result, no persuasive evidence was presented to establish that HRS has acted arbitrarily in establishing the Service Area. The rule requires a pediatric program in each Service Area. However, only one of the Service Areas established by this Proposed Amendment meets the 30,000 live birth standard. St. Mary's contends that this discrepancy renders the proposed amendment internally inconsistent. However, there are significant countervailing considerations which militate against closing an existing program and justify the continuation of established programs in these areas. These considerations include the need to insure geographic access, the reluctance to disturb existing referral patterns and a reluctance to disturb programs with demonstrated proficiency. The HRS Work Group which assisted in the development of the Proposed Amendments addressed the issue of regulating pediatric open heart surgery services on a regional basis. No persuasive evidence was presented in opposition to this approach. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT REQUIRES SERVICES AND PROCEDURES WHICH ARE NOT NECESSARY TO THE SAFE EFFECTIVE PROVISION OF PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART. The Proposed Amendments will require hospitals seeking to provide pediatric open heart surgery to have the ability to provide certain specified services. The requirements contained in paragraph 3 of the Proposed Amendments are the same as those contained in the existing rule. They are considered by HRS to be minimum standards for the provision of both adult and pediatric open heart surgery. The evidence established that it is desirable to have those services available, even if they are infrequently used. Dr. Byron testified that some of the procedures such as intra-aortic balloon assists, prolonged myocardial bypass and the repair and replacement of heart valves are performed less commonly in children. However, he did agree that these procedures are occasionally necessary and a pediatric program should have the ability to provide those services. Requiring a pediatric open heart program to have the capability to provide those services if necessary is consistent with the goal of regionalization of pediatric open heart surgery. There was no adverse public comment received during development of the Proposed Amendments regarding these requirements and no persuasive testimony or other evidence was offered during the Work Group or the hearing in this cause to establish that these minimum requirements are not appropriate and/or should be deleted. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 3c VI OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, WHICH REQUIRES THAT IN ORDER TO BE AWARDED A PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART PROGRAM THE APPLICANT MUST ALSO HAVE PEDIATRIC CARDIAC CATH, CREATES A "CATCH 22" WHEN READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CARDIAC CATH RULE WHICH REQUIRES AN APPLICANT FOR PEDIATRIC CARDIAC CATH TO OFFER PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART, AND IS THEREFORE INVALID. The Proposed Amendments require that in order to be awarded a certificate of need for a pediatric open heart surgery program, an applicant must have a pediatric cardiac catheterization ("cardiac cath") program. A similar requirement can be implied from the current open heart surgery rule and, indeed, HRS has interpreted the current rule is this manner. The cardiac cath rule requires that an applicant for a pediatric cardiac cath program must have a pediatric open heart surgery program. The Services Areas and the need methodologies in the proposed pediatric portion of the open heart surgery rule and the amended pediatric portion of the cardiac catheterization rule are the same. St. Mary's contention that applicants are placed in a "Catch 22" is rejected. If a facility wants to offer pediatric open heart, it is going to have to simultaneously apply for cardiac cath. There is nothing in this section, or anywhere else in the rule, which prohibits an applicant from applying for pediatric cardiac cath and pediatric open heart contemporaneously. In fact, such a simultaneous application is exactly what HRS is trying to encourage. The two services, pediatric open heart and pediatric cardiac cath, should only be offered in combination with each other. St. Mary's own witness, Dr. Harry Byron, a pediatric cardiologist, agreed that a facility that offers an open heart surgery program in pediatrics should also have pediatric cardiac cath capabilities. Every facility in the state of Florida which provides pediatric cardiac cath also provides pediatric open heart surgery. During the hearing, it was suggested that Hollywood Memorial Hospital is performing pediatric open heart without offering pediatric cardiac cath. However, an examination of the CON issued to Hollywood Memorial reveals that it was awarded both services simultaneously. St. Mary's contends that the Proposed Amendments to the open heart rule are deficient because they cross-reference the cardiac cath rules and there is some question as to the status of the cardiac cath rules. St. Mary's argues that HRS' predecessor cardiac catheterization rule is the current cardiac catheterization rule because proposed amendments to the cardiac cath rule were prevented from becoming final as the result of timely challenges. As best can be determined from the evidence in this case, there is no inconsistency between the Proposed Amendments and the cardiac cath rules. The evidence regarding the status of the cardiac cath rules was inconclusive. Amendments to the cardiac cath rule were published on April 22, 1988, but never became effective because of rule challenges which were eventually settled. When the rule amendments were republished on July 29, 1988 with certain agreed upon changes, timely challenges brought pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, prevented those changes from becoming effective. However, the Final Order in the case challenging the procedural adequacy of the July 29, 1988 amendments upheld a large portion of that proposed rule, including the sections pertinent to this case. See, Florida Medical Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 88-3970R (DOAH Final Order entered June 30, 1989). Thus, it appears that St. Mary's contention is without merit. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 4.a. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONTAIN A TRAVEL TIME STANDARD FOR PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART SURGERY. The Proposed Amendments do not contain a travel time standard for pediatric open heart surgery services. St. Mary's contends that the proposed rule should include a travel time standard for pediatric patients who need emergency procedures. There is no dispute that the longer a pediatric patient has to wait to have open heart surgery, the greater the chance of a negative outcome. Moreover, transporting pediatric patients is often more complicated and dangerous than transporting an adult patient because infants are more labile and closer attention must be paid to their glucose levels, to the environmental temperature and similar matters. In the course of its deliberations concerning the Proposed Amendments, HRS considered whether it should include a travel time standard relating to pediatric open heart surgery. No persuasive evidence was presented to HRS during the rule development process that an appropriate travel time standard could or should be adopted. HRS elected not to provide for a travel time standard out of concern that such standard would have suggested a "need" for programs in geographic areas which would not generate a sufficient case load to allow the program to maintain proficiency. A travel time standard such as that contained in the rule for the provision of adult open heart surgery programs would not be appropriate for the provision of pediatric open heart surgery programs because of the highly tertiary nature of the service. Had HRS used a two-hour travel time standard for pediatrics as it did for adult open heart, a need may have been shown for more programs than the volume of operations could support, resulting in programs with lower volumes than desired from a quality of care standpoint. Some pediatric patients in need of open heart surgery may have to travel as much as six hours by car if the need methodologies and Service Areas in the Proposed Amendments are adopted. In most instances, however, the travel time would be substantially less and most areas of the state will be within two to three hours by car to a pediatric open heart surgery center. Geographical location was one of the factors considered in the establishment of the Service Areas. However, the need to insure an adequate volume of cases for each program was an overriding concern. While it is certainly desirable to minimize travel and distance for pediatric patients as much as possible, these concerns must be counterbalanced against the need to insure that each center performs enough procedures to maintain proficiency. The evidence was insufficient to establish that HRS was arbitrary and/or capricious in dealing with these sometimes conflicting goals. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 4.c. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT REQUIRING TEAM MOBILI- ZATION FOR EMERGENCY OPERATIONS WITHIN A MAXIMUM WAITING PERIOD OF TWO HOURS IS CONTRARY TO THE EXCLUSION OF A TRAVEL TIME STANDARD FOR PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART. As indicated above, there is no travel time standard for pediatric open heart surgery in the Proposed Amendments. There is, however, a requirement that a hospital be able to mobilize an open heart surgery team within a maximum time limit of two hours. Proposed Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)4. The purpose of the team mobilization standard is to assure rapid mobilization within the hospital once the baby has arrived at the hospital. This requirement is contained in the existing open heart rule and no adverse public comment was received regarding it. St. Mary's contends that having a two hour team mobilization standard for pediatric open heart surgery but no travel time standard for pediatric patients is inconsistent and reflects a disregard for pediatric accessibility or geographic accessibility. This criticism is rejected. The emergency mobilization standard addresses the applicant facility's ability to render emergency open heart surgery services subsequent to a patient's arrival at the facility. It is an internal requirement. A travel time standard addresses the extent to which the Service Area population has access to services. It is a requirement external to any specific hospital. For the reasons set forth in Findings of Fact 57-60 above, a travel time standard is not appropriate for pediatric open heart programs. However, these reasons do not negate the benefits of an emergency mobilization standard. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 4.d. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE HRS IS WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO DOCUMENT HOW OPEN HEART WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL PERSONS IN NEED. The existing rule mandates that open heart surgery be available to all persons in need regardless of the ability to pay. This provision remains intact in subparagraph 4.d. of the amended rule, but is clarified in part as follows: Applicants for adult or pediatric open heart surgery programs shall document the manner in which they will meet this requirement. HRS currently requires evidence of an applicant's past record with regard to Medicaid and indigent care, as well as statistical projections for the provision of such care upon implementation of its program. In fact, the language added to paragraph 4.d. simply reflects the Department's existing method of reviewing CON applications pursuant to the guidelines of Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, which requires consideration of an applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Section 381.704(4), Florida Statutes (1989) gives HRS the authority to adopt rules necessary to implement Sections 381.701-381.715. Section 381.705, Florida Statutes (1989) requires HRS to review certificate of need applications in context with "(n) The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent," "(h)... the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district", and "(b) the ... accessibility of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant." The Petitioners have not established any inconsistencies between the Proposed Amendments and the statutory standards of review. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, SERVICE QUALITY STANDARDS, IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE THE STANDARDS ARE UNRELATED TO PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART. The standards contained in Subsection 5 are minimum quality of care standards which apply to programs providing pediatric as well as adult open heart surgery. These requirements do not significantly change the existing rule. St. Mary's suggested that the standards were only applicable to an open heart program servicing adults and that pediatric programs should have different standards. No persuasive evidence was provided to establish that any of the requirements are unrelated or unnecessary to pediatric open heart programs. In fact, St. Mary's own witness, Dr. Bryon, testified that he had no objection to the provisions of paragraph 5. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT DOES NOT PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE "NOT NORMAL" CIRCUMSTANCES. Subparagraph 7b of the proposed rule amendments establishes a need determination formula. Application of this formula is governed by minimum volume and utilization standards established under subparts a and c of paragraph 7. Subparagraph 7e of the proposed amendments provides as follows: a. A new adult open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved in the HRS District if any of the following conditions exist: There is an approved adult open heart surgery program in the HRS District; One or more of the operational adult open heart surgery programs in the HRS District that were operational for at least twelve months as of six months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the twelve months ending six months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool; or, One or more of the adult open heart surgery programs in the HRS District that were operational for less than twelve months during the twelve months ending six months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than an average of 29 adult open heart surgery operations per month. * * * (c) Regardless of whether need for a new adult open heart surgery program is shown in subparagraph b. above, a new adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved for an HRS district if the approval would reduce the 12 month total at an existing adult open heart surgery program in the HRS district below 350 open heart surgery operations. (emphasis added) The need determination formula includes a presumption against approval of a new provider if there is already an approved program within a district, or any existing program within a district is operating at less than 350 procedures annually. HRS has recognized that the need determination formula cannot take into account all factors within a district which may affect actual need. Accordingly, the rule implicitly allows consideration of "not normal" circumstances in determining need. If circumstances are "normal", then a failure to satisfy the conditions in paragraph 7 will mean that the application is denied. However, by proving that circumstances are "not normal", a new adult open heart surgery program can be approved despite the failure to satisfy the conditions in paragraph 7. The "not normal" provision is also found in the statement of Departmental Intent, subparagraph 1 of the Proposed Amendments. That provision proclaims that an application will "not normally" be approved unless the applicant meets relevant statutory criteria, including the standards and need determination criteria. HRS perceived its current rule and the Proposed Amendments as providing applicants with the opportunity to demonstrate need for a new adult open heart surgery program by demonstrating numeric need under paragraph 7 or by demonstrating "not normal" circumstances. HRS can and will approve an application in the absence of quantified need where the other statutory review criteria are met and the applicant demonstrates that a need for a new program exists. The current rule provides a similar presumption against approval if there is already an approved program in the district, or if any existing program in the district is operating at less than 350 procedures annually. This rule has been interpreted to allow applicants to demonstrate actual need by demonstrating circumstances that transcend the numeric calculation. For example, an open heart program was recently approved by HRS for Marion County even in the absence of numeric need as determined by the rule. It is impossible to list all of the circumstances where a new program could be approved even in the absence of "numeric need." Examples of not normal circumstances include a showing of inaccessibility, excessive utilization of a particular facility, or an intentional action by an existing provider to keep its utilization below 350 annual procedures. Other factors may include exceptional circumstances as they relate to the review criteria listed in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, evidence of an unusual payor mix, established referral patterns among existing providers, or evidence to suggest that an existing program could not reach the 350 minimum procedure volume because of poor quality of care. In sum, Paragraph 7 of the Proposed Amendments does not preclude an applicant from attempting to demonstrate that its application should be approved in the absence of quantified need. The "not normally" language will enable HRS to consider all the statutory review criteria in its review of applications even in the absence of numeric need under paragraph 7. The Petitioners challenging the "not normal" language in paragraph 7 of the Rule have failed to provide any credible evidence to demonstrate that the "not normal" provisions are arbitrary or capricious or unduly vague. Similar provisions have been upheld in prior cases. See, Humana, Inc., v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 469 So.2d 889, 891, (Fla. 1st DCA, 1985); North Broward Hospital District v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 86-1186R (Final Order issued July 18, 1988.) WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 7.a. IS INVALID FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: Existing programs could block a proposed program by keeping the number of open heart operations performed in a given year below 350. As indicated above, the Proposed Amendments provide that a new adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved in a service district if any of the existing programs in the district performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the 12 months ending 6 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool. The challengers claim that the Proposed Amendments to paragraph 7a are invalid because they allow existing programs to bar approval of new programs by keeping their volume below 350. This issue was considered by HRS in its rule amendment promulgation deliberations. No evidence was presented during those deliberations or at the hearing in this cause that there has been a deliberate attempt by any existing provider to keep the number of operations performed below 350 per year. Indeed, such an attempt is unlikely because it would require physicians to intentionally turn away patients requiring open heart surgery when a facility's numbers reach close to 350 operations on an annual basis. The existing rule has a similar provision. As discussed in more detail below, a Section 120.56 rule challenge was filed in 1987 against this provision in the existing rule alleging the possibility that an existing provider could block a proposed adult open heart surgery program by deliberately keeping its annual adult open heart surgery volume below 350 cases. These charges were rejected as speculative and unsubstantiated. St. Mary's Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative, 9 F.A.L.R. 6159, DOAH Case No. 87- 2729R. The Proposed Amendments would not prohibit the award of a CON if a deliberate pattern or scheme to keep volume low to lockout new providers was demonstrated. Because it protects market share which is anticompetitive and contrary to statute; is unconstitutional in that it denies equal protection and due process, and because it is contrary to agency policy through 1989. Paragraph 7.a. of the Proposed Amendments is based upon a substantially similar provision found in the National Guidelines. The National Guidelines were adopted by the Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare following an extensive consultation and review process in 1978. The National Guidelines are one of the key resource materials used by local and state health planning agencies in developing certificate of need regulations. The state of Florida conforms to the National Guidelines in most areas. According to the National Guidelines, a new open heart program should not ordinarily be approved if an existing program is operating at less than 350 operations annually. Specifically, Section 121.107(3) of the "Rules and Regulations" of the National Guidelines, entitled "Open Heart Surgery" published at Vol. 43, No. 60 of the Federal Register, provides at page 262: There should be no additional open heart units initiated unless each existing unit in the health service area(s) is operating and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 open heart surgery cases per year in adult services or 130 pediatric open heart cases in pediatric services. According to the "Discussion" at Section (b) of the Rules and Regulations for open heart surgery in the National Guidelines: In order to prevent duplication of costly resources which are not fully utilized, the opening of new units should be contingent upon existing units operating, and continuing to operate, at a level of at least 350 procedures per year. (emphasis added) The 350 service volume requirement has been a part of HRS' open heart surgery certificate of need rule since its adoption in 1982. As discussed in more detail below, there is a substantial body of literature which concludes that there is a relationship between volume and outcome in the provision of adult open heart surgery services. The literature contains data which demonstrates that, as a general rule, hospitals which provide higher volumes of adult open heart surgery cases achieve better patient outcomes. Based upon this research, the optimum efficiency standard, both from quality of care and economy of scale perspective, is believed to be approximately 500 procedures per year. The 350 minimum volume standard reflects HRS' desire that each existing and approved facility be operating at 75% of this optimum standard before any additional programs are approved within an HRS District. The 350 standard assumes that each facility can provide an average of seven operations per week, a schedule judged to be feasible in most institutions which provide open heart surgery services. As a matter of health planning policy, HRS adopted the 350-standard in an effort to prevent duplication of costly services which are not fully utilized, both as to facility resources and manpower. This standard is intended to assure both quality of care and efficiency in the operations of adult open heart surgery programs. For several years after the rule was originally adopted in 1982, the rule was interpreted by HRS to require a showing that each existing program was at or above 350 procedures annually before a new program could normally be approved. However, as discussed below, sometime around 1984 or 1985, HRS began "interpreting" the 350 standard to be an average, i.e., the average utilization of all existing programs in a district had to be at or above 350 before a new program would normally be approved. From approximately early 1985 through January 22, 1990, HRS interpreted the existing rule in accordance with the "averaging method". This averaging method allowed HRS to find numeric need when the average total of procedures per program in the district equaled 350 or more. In 1987, a Section 120.56 rule challenge was brought against the then existing open heart rule. In that case, the 350 standard was directly attacked as being too high as a minimum procedure threshold. In the 1987 challenge to the open heart rule, HRS explained the rule utilizing the averaging approach. St. Mary's Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, supra, 9 FALR at 6174. HRS witness Elfie Stamm testified during that hearing in support of the rule as it was being interpreted at that time. Extensive testimony was presented regarding the 350 standard. It is not clear whether any of the parties challenged the averaging approach as part of that case. Ultimately the rule, including the 350 standard was, upheld. The Final Order presumes that the averaging approach would be used and does not specifically address the validity of that approach. None of the Petitioners in this case have provided persuasive evidence that the 350 standard has become obsolete or inappropriate. Indeed, as discussed in more detail below, the evidence indicates that the 350 standard is still the most widely accepted standard. During 1989, several Orders were entered by the Division of Administrative Hearings rejecting HRS' interpretation that the existing rule permitted the averaging method. In Lakeland Regional Medical Center v. HRS, 11 FALR 6463 (DOAH Final Order November 15, 1989), a hearing officer declared the HRS "averaging policy" to be inconsistent with the language of the existing rule and an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it had not been adopted in accordance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. In a subsequent 120.57 proceeding involving the proposed issuance of a CON for a new open heart surgery program, the Recommended Order rejected HRS' averaging policy and concluded that it could not be applied because it was inconsistent with the existing rule. Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. HRS, 12 FALR 785 (Final Order, January 23, 1990). In the Recommended Order in the Hillsborough County case, the hearing officer did not address the relative merits of the averaging policy versus the each and every method. He found that "the incipient policy constitutes an impermissible deviation from the terms of an existing rule and cannot be used in this proceeding. In view of this conclusion, it is unnecessary to determine whether an adequate record foundation exists to support that [averaging approach]." Although HRS had argued in favor of the averaging policy at the hearing in the Hillsborough County case, the Secretary of HRS in his Final Order in that case accepted the "each and every" interpretation declaring that "it is good health planning to allow newly approved providers to become operational and reach the 350 procedure level as soon as possible and before new programs are authorized." Id. at 787. In subsequent final orders on other open heart surgery CON applications, HRS has followed this original interpretation of its existing open heart surgery rule and agreed that, as written, the rule requires that the 350 standard be met by each existing and approved facility before a new program can normally be approved. See, Mease Health Care v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 853 (Final Order dated January 23, 1990); Humana of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Lucerne v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Central Florida Regional Hospital Inc. d/b/a Central Florida Regional Hospital. 12 FALR 823 (Final Order dated January 23, 1990), reversed on other grounds 16 F.L.W. 1515 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Hospital Development and Services Corporation d/b/a Plantation General Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 3462 (Final Order dated July 27, 1990.) In sum, since January, 1990, the Department has abandoned its former policy of averaging utilization on a district-wide basis and applied the Rule literally to require that "each and every" facility perform the required threshold number of procedures before a new program will normally be approved. HRS uses the averaging method to determine need for other programs such as cardiac catheterization, nursing homes, rehabilitation services, psychiatric and substance abuse services, and neonatal intensive care. The challengers contend that it is arbitrary for HRS to use an averaging approach to determine numeric need for some services and not use it for open heart programs. The mere fact that an averaging approach is used for other services does not in and of itself establish that HRS is acting arbitrarily in refusing to follow that approach with open heart surgery programs. The evidence established that HRS treats open heart surgery services differently because the existing research indicates a direct tie between volume and outcome. HRS has not found a similar demonstrated connection between volume and outcome in any of those other services. In fact, in certain of those services, such as psychiatric care, the volume/quality of care correlation may be a negative one. The Proposed Amendments do not change the 350 standard in the existing rule, except in the case where an existing program has been operational for less than a year. Whereas the existing rule would not normally authorize a new program before an existing program is providing 350 procedures per year, the Proposed Amendments relax the standard by allowing a new program to be approved if a program that has been operational for less than one year achieves an average monthly volume of 29 operations. The challengers contend the Proposed Amendments to paragraph 7a are anticompetitive and serve to protect the market shares of existing providers. To the contrary, the more persuasive evidence indicates that the purpose of the 350 standard is not to thwart competition, but, rather, to ensure quality care and efficiency. The Petitioners did not establish that the 350 standard is inappropriate or does not tend to promote quality and efficient care. Without a doubt, HRS' conclusions and the Proposed Amendments reflect a preference for large volume open heart surgery providers and consequently serve to restrict new providers from entering the market. As set forth below, this preference is supported by the existing research in this area. While the correlation between large volume and quality of care is not absolute, the evidence did not demonstrate that HRS has acted arbitrarily in adopting a policy which is aimed at encouraging all open heart programs an opportunity to grow to the 350 level. HRS has adopted a rule designating adult open heart surgery as a tertiary health service. See, Rule 10-5.002(66)8. (previously 5.002(41)8,) Florida Administrative Code. A tertiary health service is defined in Section 381.701(20), as follows: "Tertiary health service" means a health service which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, an cost-effectiveness of such service. To the extent that the 350 standard may work in some instances to favor greater use of existing providers over approval of a new competitor, that result is consistent with the nature of open heart surgery services as a tertiary health service. There is no question that several existing adult open heart surgery programs, including the programs of some of the intervenors in this case who are defending the Proposed Amendments, were approved after numeric need was found using the averaging policy. In many, if not all of those cases, need would not have been found if the "each and every" approach was used. See, Central Florida Regional Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 16 F.L.W. 1515 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The challengers contend that they are being denied equal protection and/or that the "each and every" approach is being used to protect existing providers. As indicated above, the Petitioners have not established that the standards set forth in the National Guidelines are obsolete or inappropriate. The evidence of record in this case was insufficient to conclude that HRS is acting arbitrarily by reenacting standards that are consistent with the National Guidelines. HRS' temporary application of the averaging approach was not consistent with the language of the existing rule or the original interpretation given to the rule by HRS at the time it was adopted. While no evidence was presented that quality of care diminished during the period of time the averaging approach was used, HRS' policy decision to return to standards established in the National Guidelines can not be characterized as arbitrary and capricious. The research contained in the HRS 1988 and 1989 rule promulgation files supports the 350 standard as set forth in Paragraph 7.a. of the Proposed Rule. Most of this research indicates that there is a strong correlative relationship between the volume of open heart surgery performed by a program and the resulting quality of care, both in terms of morbidity and mortality. Specifically, studies performed by Dr. Harold Luft, suggest a relationship between volume of procedures and quality of care. The Luft studies suggest that mortality and morbidity tend to increase as a percentage of total procedures performed when volume is reduced. In contrast, morbidity and mortality tend to decrease as the annual number of procedures is increased. The Challengers have presented no persuasive evidence to rebut these studies. Given the undisputed relationship between the quality and economic efficiency of an open heart surgery program and its volume, HRS reasonably concluded that it is sound health planning policy to normally allow approved providers to achieve and sustain the 350 procedure level before new programs are authorized. The Work Group which assisted in the development of the Proposed Rule Amendments addressed the "each and every" versus "averaging" approach to the 350 standard. Representatives of hospitals which do not offer open heart surgery services were in attendance at the Work Group. No member of the Work Group presented evidence to support the "averaging" approach to the 350 standard nor was any evidence presented to rebut the data contained in the Luft studies. The evidence presented at the hearing in this matter did not establish that the "averaging approach" would in any way improve or contribute to quality assurance. Indeed, it could lead to problems in districts with established high volume open heart surgery providers. For example, if one provider in a service district performs 600 cases and another performs 100 cases, the service district would meet a "350" average standard However, the lower volume provider would be operating at well below the minimum necessary to insure quality of care. In other words, using an averaging approach, need could be found in a district containing an extremely low volume provider, which would probably inhibit the ability of the struggling existing provider to raise its service volume and could be detrimental to the overall quality of care in the district. The National Guidelines and Intersociety Study establish a minimum quality of care threshold at 200 annual procedures per open heart team. The existing rule provides, under the heading "Service Quality" for a "Minimum Service Provision" which requires 200 procedures to be performed annually within 3 years of initiation of service by an open heart program. Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)5.d., Florida Administrative Code. The 200 procedure requirement was intended to ensure that a new program would operate at a minimum quality of care level. The Proposed Amendments delete this requirement. The challengers contend that HRS is inappropriately substituting the 350 procedure requirement contained in the Proposed Amendments as a new quality of care standard to be applied to open heart programs. The 350 standard is not intended by HRS to be a per se indicator of quality of care, nor is it intended to create a presumption that a program operating below 350 annual procedures provides poor quality of care. While the Petitioners claim that the 350 requirement in the National Guidelines was primarily an economic efficiency provision and was not a quality of care issue, the evidence indicates that the 350 standard was developed with both quality of care and efficiency in mind. Efficiency standards are important to allow a program to be doing enough operations to justify the staffing ratios, the inventory of supplies, and the utilization of the rooms themselves. While the challengers believe that the 350 standard is too high, the evidence was insufficient to establish that there is a more reasonable figure let alone that HRS' reliance upon the National Guidelines was arbitrary. Approximately seven districts would have shown need for a new program in 1993 if an averaging approach was used. However, under the "each and every" interpretation, HRS found there to be zero program need. The challengers point out that HRS has no authority to revoke a CON for a hospital operating an open heart surgery program with a low service volume. They contend that, due to referral patterns, quality of care problems, a shift in demographics, or similar reason, a hospital may be unable to generate a volume of 350 procedures which could preclude the addition of a new program even if there is a need in the district. The calculation of numeric need is only one of many criteria which the Department is required to consider under Section 381.705, Florida Statutes when reviewing applications for open heart surgery certificates of need. The Health Facility and Services Department Act sets forth many criteria which the department must consider when making a determination on an application for certificate of need including its need for the proposal, the existing availability of the proposed service of facility, the impact of the proposal on the cost of providing the service, and the quality of care provided by existing providers and proposed by the applicant. These criteria are consistent with the statutory aim as expressed in Title 42 - Public Health, Chapter 1 Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Part 121 - National Guidelines for Health Planning which provides: "Equal access to quality health care at a reasonable cost ... Cost savings may be achieved without sacrificing the quality of or access to care through more efficient utili- zation of existing resources and increased emphases on ambulatory and community services. Moreover, limitations of certain resources, such as open heart units, can lead to improve- ments in the quality of care while at the same time containing costs." Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 60., page 254. It is important to keep in mind that the 350 standard does not prohibit the approval of a new open heart program if an existing program in the district does not meet this standard. The proposed amendments, as well as existing HRS policy, simply provide that an application for a new program will "not normally" be approved. In other words, the burden of showing need for a new program is shifted to the applicant. The challengers contend that acquiring a CON when there is no numeric need calculated in accordance with the rule is next to impossible. Without question, an applicant's burden in such a situation would be substantially more difficult. However, the evidence does not support the contention that such approval is impossible. In conclusion, the 350 standard is a reasonable threshold criterion to presume need under normal circumstances. It is neither anti-competitive nor unconstitutional to require an applicant to allege and demonstrate the existence of not normal circumstances to overcome this presumption. Because no new program can be added when there is an outstanding approved but yet operational program in existence which could take an undue amount of time coming on line thereby preventing the approval of a new program. The challengers claim that requiring approved programs to become operational before a new program will normally be approved is unreasonable because of the length of time it could take for a newly approved program to come on line. HRS is generally aware of the length of time it takes an approved program to become operational. HRS reasonably resolved the balance of competing considerations by deciding that it should not approve a second new program in a district while there is still an approved program that has not yet become operational. HRS has concluded that it is preferable to allow programs to grow to a volume of 350 annual operations to assure quality and efficiency before adding a new program. The challengers have not established that this decision was arbitrary or that it would be in any way beneficial to allow simultaneous development of two or more adult open heart surgery programs within a service district. There are time restrictions on the implementation of a newly approved program and HRS has authority to void a CON when those restrictions are not met. See, Rule 10-5.018(2), Florida Administrative Code. Approved providers may not simply retain their CONs for open heart surgery services indefinitely without implementing them. If for some reason an approved program failed to commence operations within a reasonable time to the point of creating problems of service accessibility, an applicant could raise this issue as a "not normal" circumstance. The provision in the Proposed Amendments which would normally prevent approval of a new program when there is an outstanding approved but not yet operational program in existence is consistent with HRS' interpretation of the existing rule. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 7.b OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE ONLY ONE NEW PROGRAM CAN BE APPROVED AT A TIME. Paragraph 7.b. of the Proposed Amendments provides that even where the numeric need calculation results in a projected need for more than one new adult open heart program, only one new program per service district may be approved in a given batching cycle. The only evidence presented concerning this issue was the testimony of Ms. Stamm, who asserted that the practice of approving one program at a time ensures that only one new provider will compete with established facilities within a service district and that a new program will have an opportunity for rapid start-up growth in order to reach a safe volume level in a short period of time. By limiting approval to only one new program per planning horizon, the volume and quality of care at existing programs is protected and the continued viability of new providers is assisted. The challengers claim that this provision is arbitrary and capricious because it could prevent the approval of a new open heart surgery program even when numeric need, as determined by the Rule, is present. However, as indicated above, the calculation of numeric need is based upon desired, not maximum levels of operation. Thus, even if numeric need is shown in accordance with the Rule, a new program is not automatically required. Petitioners have not established that HRS' balancing of the conflicting concerns on this issue was arbitrary or capricious. The requirement that only one new program be approved at a time is consistent with HRS' interpretation of the existing rule. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 8 IS ANTICOMPETITIVE, UNDULY RESTRICTIVE, ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. Paragraph 8 of the Proposed Amendments sets forth a new quantitative need formula for pediatric open heart surgery services programs. It provides: 8.9. Pediatric Open Heart Surgery Program Need Determination. The need for pediatric open heart surgery programs shall be deter- mined on a regional basis in accordance with the pediatric open heart surgery program service areas as defined in sub-subparagraph 2.1. A new pediatric open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved unless the total of resident live births in the pediatric open heart surgery service area, for the most recent calendar year available from the department's Office of Vital Statistics at least 3 months prior to publication of the fixed need pool, minus the number of existing and approved pediatric open heat surgery programs multiplied by 30,000, is at or exceeds 30,000. The 30,000 live birth standard is based upon and consistent with the standards adopted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Cardiology, for use by health planning agencies and health service organizations to evaluate existing pediatric cardiac centers and to establish the need for the development of new centers. The 30,000 live birth standard is set forth in the "Guidelines for Pediatric Cardiology, Diagnostic and Treatment Centers," published in Volume 62, No. 2, American Academy of Pediatrics (1978) (the "Pediatric Guidelines"). Those guidelines were updated in 1990 and the 30,000 live birth standard was retained in the updated version. The Pediatric Guidelines, like the National Guidelines, is a well-respected and readily available research tool that health planners customarily rely upon in evaluating the need for health care programs. The 30,000 live birth standard is also contained in the HRS Children's Medical Services administrative rules and this methodology is consistent with the minimum service volume standards found in the National Guidelines. Unlike the methodology utilized to project need for adult open heart surgery programs, the methodology proposed to project need for pediatric open heart surgery does not utilize a "use rate." This pediatric need methodology assumes a constant use rate and attributes increased need to population growth. St. Mary's argues that the 30,000 live birth standard should not be utilized because the incidence rate of pediatric open heart surgery (the number of procedures per 30,000 births) may change and the standard does not take into account such changes which could be based on advances in medicine, etc. This criticism is highly speculative and does not provide a basis for rejecting the 30,000 live birth standard. While the use rate for adult open heart surgery has generally increased since the open heart rule was adopted in the early 1980s, there is no evidence that the use rate for pediatric open heart surgery programs has increased. St. Mary's contends that the 30,000 live birth standard only takes into account the pediatric population in the neonatal or newborn time period. However, this contention was not supported by the evidence. The 30,000 live birth standard assumes that in the years prior to attaining 30,000 live births, a service area experienced something less than 30,000 live births each year and will experience approximately 30,000 live births in subsequent years, so that an age pyramid is building. The Florida data indicates that if this standard is applied over 14 years, approximately 75 pediatric open heart surgery cases per year would be generated based upon multiple years of approximately 30,000 volume base. Approximately 100-130 cases can be expected if the age cohort is increased to 21. St. Mary's proposed an alternative methodology based upon comments appearing in an article titled "Trends in Cardiac Surgery" from the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 1980. That article suggested that a 380,000 pediatric population base from age 0-14 can be expected to generate 75 pediatric open heart surgery operations. Utilizing the 1970 United States age mix, which indicates that 27.5 percent of all persons are under the age of 14, St. Mary's suggests that the 380,000 pediatric population should be grossed up to a 1.38 million total population base and this total population figure is an appropriate standard for determining when to add a new pediatric program. Serious questions were raised regarding the validity of St. Mary's proposed standard. For example, it appears that the age mix in Florida is significantly different than the age mix figures used by St. Mary's. In sum, the evidence did not establish that St. Mary's proposed standard was more appropriate to use, let alone that HRS acted arbitrarily in adopting the 30,000 live birth standard. Indeed, the evidence established that the 30,000 live birth standard employed in the Proposed Amendments as a basis to project need for pediatric open heart surgery programs is a reasonable basis upon which to plan for pediatric open heart surgery programs. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT PROHIBITS AN APPLICANT FROM APPLYING FOR BOTH PEDIATRIC AND ADULT OPEN HEART SURGERY AND FOR THAT REASON IS INVALID. Proposed Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)1. states that providers must apply for separate certificates of need for adult and pediatric open heart surgery programs. The existing rule does not expressly state that separate certificates of need are necessary. However, Rule 10-5.008(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires separate letters of intent for each type of service having a separate need methodology, even if the projects are within the same facility. Thus, separate applications are necessary under both the present rule and the proposed amendments because a separate need methodology is stated in both. As discussed above, the Proposed Amendments do not prohibit an applicant from applying for a certificate of need for pediatric open heart surgery services and adult open heart surgery services simultaneously. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SET FORTH A MINIMUM NUMBER OF MIXED PEDIATRIC AND ADULT OPERATIONS WHICH MUST BE PERFORMED IN A MIXED PROGRAM AS A PREDICATE TO THE AWARD OF ANOTHER ADULT PROGRAM. Neither the existing rule nor the Proposed Amendments to the rule specifically address the minimum number of annual operations which must be performed in a "mixed" program before an additional adult program may be added. Thus, any "mixed" adult/pediatric open heart surgery program would have to be performing at least 350 adult procedures before there would be a calculated need for an additional adult open heart program in the district. St. Anthony's argues that this requirement should not apply to "mixed" programs and/or that a lower volume standard should have been adopted for hospitals that operate "mixed" programs. There is considerable confusion as to how to define a "mixed" program. St. Anthony's contends that a "mixed" open heart surgery program is any program that provides open heart surgery services to both adult and pediatric patients. HRS contends that if the programs are separately organized and staffed, the fact that a hospital has both programs is irrelevant to assessing the appropriate volume capacity. HRS considers a "mixed program" as one in which a single team is performing both pediatric and adult open heart surgery. Under this view, a hospital can have both an adult open heart surgery program and a pediatric open heart surgery program without necessarily being considered a "mixed" program. Applying this definition, there is apparently only one program in the state which is a "mixed" program. That program is located at Bayfront/All Children's Hospital. St. Anthony's contends that there are other programs in this state that offer both pediatric and adult open heart surgery. However, the evidence was insufficient to establish that any of these other programs meets the HRS definition of a mixed program. St. Anthony's cites to a provision in the National Guidelines which provides that the minimum number of open heart surgery procedures that should be performed in a "mixed" program is 200, of which 75 should be for children. However, HRS has reasonably concluded that this provision in the National Guidelines was not intended to establish a threshold for the addition of a new adult program. The studies which were the source of this provision did not attempt to address the number of procedures that should be performed in a "mixed" program before a new adult program should be awarded. In view of the extremely small number of "mixed" programs and the lack of clear evidence regarding the optimal number of procedures that should be performed in such programs, HRS has elected to not address "mixed" programs in the existing rule or the Proposed Amendments. For a true "mixed" program, it may not be reasonable or desirable to expect 350 adult surgeries per year. However, the available data is inconclusive and St. Anthony's has not presented persuasive evidence of a more realistic number. Thus, HRS' decision to not adopt a rule of general applicability to address this issue, is not arbitrary or capricious. An applicant in a district with a "mixed" program that is not performing 350 adult procedures per year can apply on a "not normal" basis. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE INVALID BECAUSE HRS HAS FAILED TO PREPARE A DETAILED ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT, AN ESTIMATE OF THE IMPACT ON COMPETITION, OR DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE DATA AND METHODOLOGY USED IN MAKING THE PROPOSED RULES, THE FAILURE OF WHICH IMPAIRED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE AGENCY. Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes, requires the Department to prepare an Economic Impact Statement (EIS) containing the economic impact of the proposed rule on all persons directly affected. HRS assessed the economic impact of its proposed amendments and concluded that there would be no impact because the proposed amendments do not change the projected need for either adult or pediatric programs. As discussed in more detail above, the Proposed Amendments clarify that the 350 target volume must be achieved by each and every existing and approved program before a new program will be approved. The existing rule has been interpreted to require the same thing. While HRS followed an averaging interpretation for a period in the past, that interpretation has been rejected in a series of final orders. Since the averaging interpretation was deemed invalid before these Proposed Amendments, the Proposed Amendments do not change the way need is assessed under the existing rule. Thus, there is no economic impact by reason of the inclusion in the Proposed Amendments of the 350 standard. Likewise, the new methodology for calculating need for pediatric open heart surgery does not change the calculations made under the existing rule. None of the other changes to the existing rule have been shown to have a significant impact on existing providers or applicants. None of the challengers showed that they are able to obtain an economic benefit now that they will be deprived of under the rule as amended nor have they demonstrated any prejudice by reason of HRS' conclusion that the Proposed Amendments would not have an adverse economic impact.
The Issue Petitioner, St. Mary's, and Intervenor, BRCH contend that Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the reasons more specifically set forth in St. Mary's Amended Petition for Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of a Rule. Respondent, HRS, and Intervenors, JFK, PBGMC, and Florida Hospital, contend that Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE Petitioner, St. Mary's, presented the oral testimony of Philip Rond, W. Eugene Nelson-Michael L. Schwartz, and James McElreath. Petitioner submitted 9 exhibits at formal hearing, 8 of which were admitted in evidence. Pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, St. Mary's subsequently had admitted an after- filed deposition of Frank R. Sloan. Intervenor BRCH had admitted in evidence 1 exhibit but called no witnesses. Respondent HRS presented the oral testimony of Elfie Stamm and Reid Jaffe. Respondent HRS had 4 exhibits admitted in evidence. At formal hearing, Intervenors JFK and PBGMC presented the oral testimony of Mark Richardson which was also adopted by HRS as its own. Pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, JFK and PBGMC subsequently had admitted an after- filed deposition of Harold B. Luft which was also adopted by HRS. Official recognition of JFK's Petition in DOAH Case No. 86-4368 was granted. PBGMC had 1 exhibit admitted in evidence at formal hearing. Intervenor Florida Hospital, submitted no exhibits and adopted the testimony of HRS' witnesses. The Hearing Officer received two documents into evidence as Hearing Officer Exhibits, the Prehearing Stipulation between the parties in this proceeding and a copy of Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Official recognition was taken of the Final Order dated July 27, 1987, in St. Francis Careunit v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., DOAH Case No. 84-2918. Subsequent to the filing of the transcript herein, and pursuant to time waivers and stipulations among the parties, St. Mary's and BRCH filed their joint proposed final order; JFK and PBGMC filed their joint proposed final order; and HRS and Florida Hospital filed individual respective proposed final orders. The parties' respective proposed findings of fact are ruled upon in the Appendix to this Final Order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. Additionally HRS' Motion to Strike Portions of the Joint Proposed Findings of Fact of St. Mary's and Intervenor BRCH, and JFK's Motion to Strike are ruled upon within this Final Order and its Appendix.
Findings Of Fact St. Mary's is an existing general acute care hospital in HRS Service District 9, West Palm Beach, Florida. St. Mary's has pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings DOAH Case No. 86-4368 concerning its certificate of need (CON) application for an open heart surgery program at St. Mary's which was preliminarily denied by HRS (CON Action No. 4551). Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, was utilized by HRS in evaluating St. Mary's CON application and was relied upon by HRS in its decision to deny CON Action No. 4551. Pursuant to that HRS review, there is no numerical need for the St. Mary's proposed program, based upon HRS' application of the quantitative need methodology contained in the Rule. St. Mary's is substantially affected by Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, and consequently has standing to seek administrative determination of the validity of said rule through this present cause. BRCH is an existing general acute care hospital in HRS Service District 9, Boca Raton Florida. BRCH has pending before HRS a CON application for an open heart surgery program at BRCH (CON Application No. 5194) which is currently being reviewed by HRS in accordance with Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. BRCH is substantially affected by Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, and consequently has standing to seek administrative determination of the validity of said rule through this present cause. JFK is an existing general acute care hospital in HRS Service District 9, Lake Worth, Florida, which has in place its open heart surgery program. JFK's open heart surgery program opened and closed in 1986. On the date of formal hearing, JFK had scheduled to reopen its open heart surgery program in August, 1987. The program is subject to regulation pursuant to Sections 381.493-499, Florida Statutes, (1985), and regulations promulgated thereunder, including Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. JFK is an Intervenor in opposition to St. Mary's application in DOAH Case No. 86-4368 alleging that due to the service area and medical staff overlaps between St. Mary's and JFK, there will be adverse staffing, economic, availability, and quality impacts upon JFK. PBGMC is an existing general acute care hospital in HRS Service District 9, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, which has in place an open heart surgery program. Its program is likewise subject to regulation pursuant to Sections 381.493-499, Florida Statutes (1985), and regulations promulgated thereunder, including Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. PBGMC is an Intervenor in opposition to St. Mary's application in DOAH Case No. 86- 4368 alleging that due to the service area and medical staff overlaps between St. Mary's and PBGMC, there will be adverse staffing, economic, availability and quality impacts upon PBGMC. Florida Hospital is an existing general acute care hospital in Service District 7, Orlando Florida, which has in place an open heart surgery program. It is subject to regulation pursuant to Sections 381.493-499, Florida Statutes (1985), and regulations promulgated thereunder, including Section 10- 5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. It may be inferred that a determination of invalidity of the Rule wall impact upon Florida Hospital if, as a result thereof CONs are granted for other open heart surgery programs in that District, but there is no direct evidence to that effect. No direct threat of revocation of Florida Hospital's existing CON or of economic or other impact of this rule challenge upon Florida Hospital was demonstrated by Florida Hospital at formal hearing. Respondent, HRS, is responsible for the administration of Sections 381.493-499, Florida Statutes, (the CON statute) and Chapter 10-5, Florida Administrative Code, (the CON rules). The initial development of the Rule was undertaken in 1982 and 1983 in a manner consistent with HRS internal policy. HRS reviewed the relevant literature relating to open heart surgery programs and services. Included among the literature reviewed were the National Guidelines for Health Planning (National Guidelines or Guidelines) and the standards for review of applications for certificates of need (CON) for open heart surgery services proposed by several Health Systems Agencies. At the time those standards were developed, the Health Systems Agencies were responsible for the first level of review in the state certificate of need process. Originally, the companion to the open-heart surgery rule, was Rule 10- 5.011(15), now codified as Rule 10-5.011(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, which rule sets forth criteria for cardiac catheterization lab CON applications. Considerably more emphasis was accorded the development of the companion rule initially, but even expert witnesses for Petitioner's view acknowledge that the rule promulgation process relative to the adoption of the open heart surgery rule was thorough, rational, and essentially non-remarkable in the scope of promulgation of numerous CON rules drafted and implemented for the first time during a period in which HRS was also developing other rules dealing with a broad range of services and facilities to comply with new legislation eliminating Health Systems Agencies and requiring HRS to adopt uniform methodologies to be used in the CON program. Subsequent to its review of the literature, HRS formed a work group to assist in the development of the Rule. HRS prepared a draft of the proposed Ruled which was sent to over fifty experts in the field of cardiology. HRS received extensive comments on the draft rule. The final proposed Rule was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. A public hearing on the proposed Rule was held in December, 1982, during which extensive public comment was received. The public comments were reviewed by and discussed among the HRS' health planning staff and administration. Upon consideration of all the input received, the final draft of the initial rule abandoned a proposal to rely on 1979 utilization data and substituted 1981 data. Additionally, provision was made to allow for consideration within the Rule's need formula of approved, but not yet operational, open heart surgery programs. The Rule was then filed for adoption and went into effect February 14, 1983. Because it was deemed prudent, and because the National Guidelines provided for it, HRS intended, at the time the initial open heart surgery rule was promulgated, to revisit the components of the Rule every 2-3 years. The Rule was next amended in 1986. At that time, in response to public comment, "Uc" of Subparagraph 8 of the Rule, which prescribes the base period to be used in the calculation of a service area use rate, was substantially revised. In its initial form, element "Uc" was based on the 1981 service area actual use rate. As amended, "Uc" measures the actual use rate in the service area for a 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the letter of intent deadline for the batching cycle at issue, or the most recent use rate available to HRS. There have been no other substantial amendments which impinge upon the instant Rule challenge. Among other allegations, Petitioner asserts that because the Rule is silent as to which or however many exceptional circumstances would have to exist in order to justify approval of a CON application for an open heart surgery program in the absence of numerical needs the Rule is arbitrary and capricious. The evidence and applicable case law do not support such a premise. The Rule provides that HRS will consider applications in the context of applicable statutory and rule criteria. See 10-5.011(1)(f)2. The Rule further provides that HRS will "not normally" approve applications for new open heart surgery programs unless the conditions of subparagraphs 8 and 11 of the Rule are met. Also 10-5.011(1)(f)2. The very nature of "not normal" circumstances is that all possible "not normal" circumstances cannot be enumerated within a rule because in the attempt, some exceptionalities would inevitably be excluded. Of the four applications proposing new open heart surgery programs which have been approved in the recent past, three were approved under "not normal" circumstances, that is, where one or both provisions of Subparagraphs 8 and 11 were not met. The applicable state agency action reports (SAARS) which reflect HRS' preliminary position on CON applications, demonstrate that HRS routinely considers all relevant statutory and regulatory criteria in its review of open heart surgery program CON applications. There is no competent substantial evidence to show that HRS' evaluation of applications proposing new open heart surgery programs are prohibited by the Rule from entailing a balanced consideration of the statutory and regulatory criteria relevant to CON review. As a corollary of the foregoing allegation, it is alleged that because the Rule does not specifically address what has come to be known in CON practice as "the in-migration/out-migration" phenomenon, while at least one other CON rule does specifically address this phenomenon, a balanced consideration of all statutory criteria is frustrated, thereby resulting in understating the need for open heart surgery programs in one District/service area while enabling unnecessary, costly duplication of programs within other Districts/service areas. The use rate (discussed infra) purports to capture that in- and out- migration which can be standardized within the 12 month base period. At hearing, it was tenuously demonstrated that an unmeasured in-/out-migration phenomenon may exist within 2 out of 11 HRS Districts, but the degree to which it exists, if at all, is purely speculative. Even if these two Districts clearly possessed extraordinary timeframe, geographical, or transportation uniqueness, these access abnormalities would not justify declaring the Rule invalid. Rather, in the event the use rate for some reason does not measure them, these exceptionalities would be just the sort of "not normal" aberration for which it would be appropriate to resort to balancing of all statutory and rule criteria. Petitioner also contends that because this Rule does not define "service area" as the respective HRS Service District, it leaves each applicant free to designate, virtually at will, its own service area. Apparently, the initial Rule drafters intended that the service area be defined in the open heart surgery Rule as the HRS Service District. In finalizing Section (1)(e)(its companion cardiac catheterization lab rate rule), this definition was indeed included. However, in the open heart surgery rule, it was omitted. No witness recommended or even seriously considered that any service area less than the relevant HRS District should be designated, and the evidence is unrefuted and substantial that District lines have always been uniformly applied by HRS in interpreting the open heart surgery Rule. This interpretation is consistent with the agency's application of similarly silent rules. Petitioner alleges that because there is no Rule requirement or uniform manner for hospitals to report their open heart surgery utilization data to Local Health Councils or to HRS, the Rule is arbitrary and capricious. Authorized HRS representatives and others testified that data for the most current 12-month period, with a 2 month lag time are the most appropriate data to use. Testimony by St. Mary's experts that the data necessary to derive the rule methodology is not available, was directly refuted by evidence from authorized HRS representatives and others that HRS is able to collect all necessary data even though some councils report at different intervals from each other, and even though some hospitals report in "cases," others in "procedures" and one in "minutes." Because of these procedures of reporting, it may be necessary to make certain mathematical conversions or interpretations in preparing an agency SAAR or in presenting evidentiary proof in a Section 120.57 hearing, but even if one accepts that it is difficult to collect and interpret the necessary data, that concept does not support the conclusion that the Rule itself is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise fatally flawed. Subparagraph 8 of the Rule defines Year X as the year in which the proposed open heart surgery program would initiate service but no more than two years into the future. St. Mary's contentions with regard to this provision are that the triggerpoint cannot be determined and that by allowing applicants in the same batching cycle to elect varying dates of initiating service, similarly batched applicants may select different horizons within the two year outside limit and therefore those two applicants could not be comparatively reviewed. It was shown that in the last batching cycle all applications were reviewed from the same trigger date and that HRS' implementation of the CON rules is guided by legal precedent. HRS' shifting of trigger dates in past batches is accounted for by shifting legal precedents. Therefore, assuming applicants in the same batch may unilaterally select different planning horizons within the traditional two year range permissible under the Rule, that is not sufficient to invalidate the Rule as arbitrary and capricious. The Rule establishes a need formula. Entitlement of applicants to "comparative review" is set forth in other statutory, ruled and case law authority. Applicants in the same batching cycle who elect significantly different horizon dates under the Rule probably ought not to be comparatively reviewed, but that problem is to be addressed within the context of "all statutory and rule criteria" both at the agency level in the case of initial review, and, when necessary, in the case of litigation before the Division of Administrative Hearings, by appropriate motion. The remainder of Petitioner's challenge addresses, in one form or another, the Rule's numerical need formula. The Rule establishes three thresholds which apply to utilization of open heart surgery programs. Subsection 3.d. requires that each program shall be able to provide 500 open heart operations per year." Each program is required to provide a minimum of 200 adult open heart procedures annually within 3 years of the initiation of service, with no additional programs to be approved in a service area until each existing program is operating at a minimum of 350 adult open heart cases. Subparagraphs 8 and 11 are the cornerstones of the numerical need formula provided in the Rule. Specifically, Subparagraph 11 of the Rule provides: There shall be no additional open heart surgery programs established unless; The service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric heart cases per year; and, The conditions specified in Sub- subparagraph 5.d., above, will be met by the proposed program. b. No additional open heart surgery programs shall be approved which would reduce the volume of existing open heart surgery facilities below 350 open heart procedures annually for adults and 130 pediatric heart procedures annually, 75 of which are open heart. The standard found at Subparagraph 11 of the Ruled which provides that there should be no additional open heart surgery units initiated in a service area unless each existing and approved unit is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric open heart cases per year, is based upon a substantially similar standard enunciated in the National Guidelines published in 1978 and in effect at the time the Rule was initially promulgated. The National Guidelines were developed by the Federal Department of Health Education and Welfare (HEW) pursuant to an extensive process of public consultation, including receipt of recommendations and comments for Health Systems Agencies (HSAs), State Health Planning and Development Agencies (SHPDAs) Statewide Health Coordinating Councils, associations representing various health care providers, and the National Council on Health Planning and Development. The federal process of promulgation encompassed over two years of consultation, public notices, public meetings, and related activities. There were strong incentives to SHPDAs to develop local standards consistent with the National Guidelines and the National Guidelines contain a provision which permitted HSAs and SHPDAs pursuant to detailed local analyses, to deviate from the standards contained in the National Guidelines. The Florida Rule deviates from the National Guidelines in that it does not require facilities which offer cardiac catheterization services to also offer open heart surgery service. Florida's rationale supporting the 350 standard in its Rule is that of the National Guidelines which assumes that each facility can provide an average of seven operations a weeks a schedule HEW judged to be feasible in most institutions which provide open heart surgery services. As a matter of health planning policy, HEW established the 350 standard in an effort to prevent duplication of costly services which are not fully utilized, both as to facility resources and manpower. This goal is reiterated in the 1985 Florida State Health Plan. Reasonableness of the 350 case requirement is supported by testimony regarding the purposes behind the hours of operation standards portion of the Rule. See 10-5.011(1)(f)4.b. That subparagraph mandates that open heart surgery programs be available for procedures 8 hours per days 5 days per weeks for a total of 40 available hours of surgery per week, and capable of rapid mobilization of the surgical and medical support team for emergencies 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Since it is estimated that each open heart procedure requires an average of 4 hours of operating room time, including cleanup, and operations go forward 50 weeks per year, then each program can, over time, attain the goal of 500 annual open heart operations which is set in Subsection 3.b. Considering both elective and unscheduled services, HRS arrived at a 75 percent of maximum as a reasonable utilization figure, and Petitioner has in no way refuted the reasonableness of these hours of operation requirements or of HRS' 75 percent figure for reasonable utilization. The 350 threshold figure is primarily intended to ensure an appropriate utilization level of every open heart surgery unit. In fact, the minimum quality standard is set forth in Subparagraph 5 of the Rule as "200" and is supported in reason and logic upon the facts set forth, infra. The 350 figure here is intended to result in greater efficiency which results in economic benefits to the hospital which may ultimately be passed on to patients. I accept Dr. Luft's expert opinion and analysis that the economic benefits of a 350 threshold are derived primarily from clinical economies of scale which result from improved proficiencies in the provision of service rather than solely in the classic economy of scale of a greater division of fixed costs. One clinical economy of scale demonstrated by Dr. Luft is that shorter average lengths of hospital stay result from high volume facilities. The shorter lengths of stay translate into patient or third party payor dollars saved. Admittedly, the 350 standard also secondarily encompasses consideration of the relationship of the volume of open heart surgery services and patient mortality, thus peripherally impinging on the volume of a 200 minimum threshold for quality of care purposes. Except for one study by Dr. Sloan, the evidence consistently supports existence of a negative relationship between volume and outcome, e.g., facilities performing higher volumes of open heart surgery have lower mortality rates. Obvious empirical problems inherent in Dr. Sloan's study impair its credibility. In light of his deposition testimony concerning how his several studies were conducted and how empirical data was converted by him for use in those studies, and due to his superior education, training, and experience, I find more credible Dr. Luft's determination that hospitals which perform low volumes of open heart surgery, particularly with respect to coronary artery bypass graft surgery, have substantially higher mortality rates than hospitals performing higher volumes of such surgery. Moreover, those areas of analysis in which the opinions of these two health care economic experts, Dr. Luft and Dr. Sloan, are consistent with one another and with the other literature and experts in the field whom they each cite as accepted and relied upon by them, strongly suggest that Dr. Sloan's unusual conclusion that low volume hospitals more often fit his unique categorization of "low mortality" should not be relied upon for purposes of formulating, drafting, and promulgating standard rules. The 350 standard does not appear to have impeded either competition or quality of care. There is also no competent substantial evidence to establish that there are too few open heart surgery programs in Florida at this time. At present, no District/Service Area has fewer than two open heart surgery programs, and 8 of the 11 Districts have 3 or more programs. Although many individual programs fall below the 350 thresholds on average, open heart surgery programs in operation in Florida perform close to 350 cases per year apiece. Between 1985 and 1986 the percentage of Florida programs performing 350 or more cases annually climbed from 24 percent to 35 percent. Petitioner never directly attacked the 200 procedure standard for quality, however, some evidence was presented to show that a lesser figure could still uphold quality considerations. This evidence was neither substantial nor credible. In lieu of the 350 utilization threshold, a variety of possible optimal threshold numbers were suggested by Petitioner's expert witnesses, among them 130 (the same utilization figure as for pediatric cases), 150, and 200 (the same figure as presently used to insure adult quality of care). Even if the highest of these suggested figures were selected as a utilization standard, that is, 200 cases per year substituted for the 350 utilization standards a minimum additional 31 open heart surgery programs would be "needed" on a statewide basis. This would nearly double the current number. Assuming there would emerge therefrom a normal distribution of programs around the substituted 200 standard, there could be the result that half the State's programs would then be operating below 200 and half above 200, so that half the programs would operate below the 200 quality of care standard now in effect. Even assuming arguendo that Petitioner's expert, Mr. Schwartz, is correct that 72 percent of current programs meet or exceed the 200 procedure levels and that that 72 percent would remain constant, more than one quarter of the state's programs would be below the 200 quality of care level. This is clearly not a desirable health planning goal. Such a proliferation of straight numbers of programs would doubtless impact adversely on all existing approved providers' utilization, concomitantly forcing up individual consumer costs. The testimony is more credible that the improvement curve "flattens out" anywhere from 333 to 350, but even if one were to accept St. Mary's witnesses position that the improvement curve "bottoms out" (that is, utilization and quality optimums meet) at 200 open heart surgeries, there is evidence that there is still some minimal improvement in outcome (quality) in operations performed in hospitals exceeding the 200 figure. The 350 standard reduces the number of institutions over which a given number of procedures is spread and in general will result in higher volume per hospital, reducing the likelihood that outcomes would be worse than they might be otherwise. To the extent that witnesses support the position that the 350 figure is not reasonably or rationally related to the CON statutes, is arbitrary, or is unduly restrictive of the initiation of new open heart surgery programs, their testimony is unpersuasive in light of the foregoing determinations with regard to the hours of operation standards, the National Guidelines, and the statutory goal to avoid proliferation of such programs at the expense of efficiency, economy, and quality. Subsection 8 of the Rule provides as follows: Need Determination. The need for open heart surgery programs in a service area shall be determined by computing the projected number of open heart surgical procedures in the service area. The following formula shall be used in this determination: Where: N = Number of open heart procedures projected for Year X; U = Actual use rate (number of procedures per hundred thousand population) in the service area for the 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the Letter of Intent deadline for the batching cycle. P = Projected population in the service area in Year X; and, Year X = The year in which the proposed open heart surgery program would initiate service, but not more than two years into the future. Subparagraph 8 of the Rule provides a formula by which numerical need for open heart surgery programs within a service area may be calculated. The use rate therein is based upon the number of procedures per 100,000 population in the District/Service Area for the 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the letter of intent deadline for the applicant. If a District does not have 12 months' experience, the statewide use rate is used. This use rate is based upon the most recent utilization data available to HRS. The data necessary to calculate the use rate is accessible and available to HRS as set out supra. The base period employed in the calculation of the use rate is appropriate for use in the numerical need methodology. It provides the most current picture of utilization of open heart surgery services within each District/Service Area which the agency has been able to devise. The Rule's base period essentially provides what health planners describe as a "realistic" or "rolling" use rate. Such a component permits consideration of facility number increases and volume fluctuations within facilities within the District/Service Area. Increased number of facilities and volume increases and decreases within specific facilities are quickly reflected by such a use rate and may be quickly considered in projecting need for the future. Such reality based use rates are customarily employed by health planners in projecting need for new open heart surgery services. The use rate minimally approaches the differences in population utilization of open heart surgery facilities occurring across age differential groupings. Although there is some evidence that the use rate formula contained in the Rule is not optimal in providing accessibility where there occasionally is clustering of "aged aged" population centers or clustering of heart surgery optimal age groups, the evidence in favor of such a rolling use rate establishes that as a statewide rule component, it is reasonable, not arbitrary, and not capricious. No witness offered a more reasonable substitute base period and the agency is not required to promulgate an optimal one, merely a reasonable one. St. Mary's and BRCH's witnesses suggestion that the Rule is ambiguous for a discernible number need methodology is not substantiated by credible competent evidence, and is generally rejected. Ms. Stamm, testifying for Respondent, had trouble with applying basic arithmetic under stress but not with the methodology. Mr. Schwartz, on behalf of the Rule's opponents, had some difficulty in determining whether the 200 or 350 standard was the appropriate figure for need determination. No other witness experienced Mr. Schwartz' confusion. When called to work Subparagraph 8 calculations, all witnesses were in agreement as to the mechanics of the Rule. No witness, including those who attacked the Rule as facially inconsistent due to the Rule's use of undefined terms of "programs," "procedures," and "cases" and/or those who complained about difficulty of obtaining raw data for the base time period had any difficulty in applying the Rule's numerical need formula, and indeed, Mr. Rond testified that HRS' interpretation of the numerical need formula was the most straightforward interpretation (TR-115) and the way he would logically do it. (TR-98-100) Each witness who was asked to use the Rule's formula in order to determine numerical need, consistently offered the following approach: First Derive Nx, as provided in Subparagraph 8. (Nx is the number of open heart procedures projected for year X). Second: Divide Nx by 350 (from Subparagraph 11) to obtain the gross projected need. Third, subtract from the gross projected needs the numbers of existing and approved programs within the applicable district so as to obtain the net need. The Rule's provision for subtraction of approved as well as for subtraction of operating programs from gross need so as to determine net need was investigated and adopted in the rational approach to rule promulgation. This is an accepted health planning component utilized in numerous CON rules. For these reasons and for all of the foregoing reasons related to the value of retaining 350 utilization and 200 quality thresholds, this provision for subtracting approved facilities from the gross need is found neither arbitrary nor capricious. The evidence presented by St. Mary's and BRCH is insufficient to demonstrate that HRS has not, subject to evolving legal precedent, consistently used the formula's interpretation set forth in Finding of Fact 33, at least as modulated by universally accepted common mathematical principles such as rounding results to the nearest whole number and considering "not normal" circumstances in light of all statutory and rule criteria on a case by case basis. In any case, if the agency misapplies its own Rule, applicants have recourse to a Section 120.57 proceeding and misapplication is not cause to invalidate the rule applied. I also reject as speculative and not credible St. Mary's allegation that a "sinister" conspiracy among existing and authorized providers within a given District may unnaturally reduce a single facility below the 350 threshold in order to thwart new program applications. Mr. Rond and Mr. Schwartz also promoted the premise that this result might occur unintentionally as well. HRS has not interpreted the Rule in such a peculiar manner and has approved new programs in districts where individual existing programs were not performing at the 350 level. I specifically reject as not credible the testimony of the St. Mary's and BRCH's witnesses professing concern that persons applying the Rule may be confused about how to work the formula and whether or not the pediatric population within a service area or the 130 pediatric procedures are to be subtracted at some point. Px is defined in the Rule to mean "the projected population in the service area in Year X." The Rule's language is plain and unambiguous. Nothing in the language of the Rule suggests the "projected population in the service area" is intended to exclude the pediatric population. Petitioner offered evidence that in certain instances HRS has applied Px to include the pediatric population. This, on its face, is an erroneous application of the Rule but without more, will not invalidate the Rule itself. Should HRS fail to implement the Rule according to the plain meaning of its languages an affected party may contest that agency action in a Section 120.57 hearing. In the case of former HRS employees concerned with drafting, promulgating amending and/or applying the Rule over a period of several years, their credibility is impaired by their never attempting to correct the alleged flaws and by their expressed perception of the necessity for a rule challenge as a strategic litigation move in anticipation of St. Mary's contested CON action.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether either Mease Health Care (Mease) or St. Anthony's Hospital (St. Anthony's), or both, meet the statutory and rule criteria for a Certificate of Need (CON) to operate an open heart surgery program, and therefore, whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) should approve either, or both, of their CON Applications.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Mease is a 278 bed, non-profit acute care hospital located in Dunedin, Florida, which is within the Department's Service District V. Its service area is mid-Pinellas through Pasco Counties, with mid-Pinellas to northern Pinellas being its primary service area. It has operated a special procedures room since before July 1, 1977, but that room is not a cardiac catheterization laboratory. The special procedures room has been staffed with persons trained in treating critical care patients, with special knowledge of cardiovascular medication and catheterization equipment. The catheterization team usually consists of a physician, special procedures nurse, and at least two dedicated radiographer technologists. Procedures performed at Mease in the special procedures room include renal arteriograms, pulmonary arteriograms which involve passing a catheter through a right side chamber of the heart into the lungs, as well as cerebral and femoral arteriograms. Pulmonary angiograms, right ventriculography and right atrial injections are all currently performed at Mease, with right catheterization procedures performed in the CCU and special procedures lab. The special procedures room is not used by radiologists or cardiologists at Mease to do any therapeutic or diagnostic studies of the left chambers of the heart, but rather these procedures are performed at Plant or Largo Medical Center in Clearwater. The Mease special procedures room does not have the more sophisticated equipment necessary to perform catheterizations in the left chambers of the heart, and such equipment would be found in a CCL. Mease does not have a CON for inpatient cardiac catheterization, but does have a separate pending application for such program. It has an outpatient cardiac catheterization lab which opened in April, 1989. Mease proposes to do angioplasties on an outpatient basis, which is contrary to the Department's Rule 10-5.011(1)(e)2b, which defines this as an inpatient procedure. Mease Clinic is located adjacent to Mease Hospital/Dunedin, and consists of approximately 90 physicians who have a contractual relation with Mease. Mease Clinic is a major source of referrals for Mease Hospital/Dunedin. St. Anthony's is a 434 bed, not-for-profit acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg, Florida, which is within the Department's Service District V. Its primary service area is southern Pinellas County, south of Ulmerton Road, where 80% of its patients reside. It provides a full range of services, including inpatient cardiac catheterization, with a CCL, coronary care unit, holter monitor service, and echocardiography laboratory. St. Anthony's presently has 5 cardiologists on staff, and will be adding 3 more. It offers a full array of diagnostic services including nuclear cardiography, basic electrocardiography, a magnetic resonance imaging unit. St. Anthony's is also the site of the Rogers Heart Foundation which performs research, education, and clinical diagnostic studies involving cardiovascular diseases. Plant is a 740 bed, general acute care, not-for-profit hospital located on an 11 building campus in Clearwater, Florida, approximately 3 to 4 miles south of Mease. It provides a wide range of services, including open heart surgery, medical/surgical with all subspecialties, obstetrics and psychiatry. It also operates a nursing home, ACLF, ambulatory surgery center, rehabilitation center, and arthritis center. Bayfront is a 518 bed, not-for-profit, full service acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg, Florida, adjacent to Children's. It is connected to Children's by an enclosed passageway, and operates a shared diagnostic, open heart surgery and cardiac catheterization program with Children's. The usual procedure under this shared progam is that adult patients requiring open heart surgery are admitted to Bayfront the day prior to surgery, and then are prepared and transported through the passageway by Bayfront personnel to Children's, where the actual surgery is performed. Normally the patient is kept overnight at Children's following surgery, and is then returned to Bayfront by Bayfront personnel to continue recovery, and eventual discharge. Children's is a 113 bed children's hospital located in St. Petersburg, Florida, approximately two miles from St. Anthony's. It is a full service tertiary facility, which serves as a referral center for children from throughout the State of Florida, and will have 6 operating rooms, 2 CCLs, and 13 ICU beds when construction underway is completed. It has an approved CON for 55 additional beds. Two of its operating rooms are used for open heart surgery. It has an open heart surgery program which has been in operation since the early 1970's, with 3 pediatric cardiologists and 12 to 15 adult cardiologists on staff. The Department is the state agency which is responsible for administering Sections 381.701 through 381.715, Florida Statutes, the "Health Facility and Services Development Act", under which applications for Certificates of Need (CON) are filed, reviewed, and either granted or denied by the Department. Currently, Children's/Bayfront, Plant, and Largo Medical Center, which is located near Ulmerton Road in central Pinellas County, have existing open heart surgery programs. There is an additional approved CON for an open heart surgery program at Bayonet Point Hospital in Pasco County. The 3 existing programs each have more than one operating room dedicated for open heart surgery. For every dedicated open heart surgery suite, approximately 500 open heart surgery cases can be performed per year, and thus, each of these existing programs in District V has the capacity to perform well over 500 cases each year. The Applications On or about September 28, 1988, Mease filed an application with the Department for a CON to implement an open heart surgery program at its hospital in Dunedin, Florida. This application was designated as CON Application Number 5679. The Department reviewed this application, and on October 13, 1988, forwarded an omissions letter to Mease. Mease responded to the omissions letter on November 14, 1988, and on November 15, 1988 the Department deemed its application complete. Thereafter, the Department reviewed and considered all material received from the applicant, and issued its State Agency Action Report (SAAR) on or about January 12, 1989, noticing its intent to deny CON 5679. Mease timely filed a petition for formal hearing to challenge the Department's notice of intent to deny this CON, and Plant timely intervened in opposition to this application. On or about September 28 1988, St. Anthony's filed an application with the Department for a CON to implement an open heart surgery program at its hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida. This application was designated as CON Application Number 5678. The Department reviewed this application, and on October 13, 1988, forwarded an omissions letter to St. Anthony's. St. Anthony's responded to the omissions letter on November 11, 1988, and the Department deemed its application complete. Thereafter, the Department reviewed and considered all materials received from the applicant, and issued its SAAR on or about January 12, 1989, noticing its intent to deny CON 5678. St. Anthony's timely filed a petition for formal hearing to challenge the Department's notice of intent to deny this CON, and both Bayfront and Children's timely intervened in opposition to this application. On or about May 26, 1989, Mease filed certain revisions to its CON application, purportedly by agreement of counsel. However, these revisions were not filed with, or reviewed by, the Department in the preparation of its SAAR. The applicants and intervenors in this proceeding are all located in District V, which is composed of Pinellas and Pasco Counties. There are no subdistricts within District V for purposes of open heart surgery programs, and the Department's numeric need methodology for such programs. The open heart surgery and population growth rates for northern Pinellas and Pasco Counties exceed that of southern Pinellas County, south of Ulmerton Road. However, the total population of south Pinellas exceeds that of northern Pinellas. Utilization rates are also lower in south Pinellas than elsewhere in District V. Stipulations The parties stipulated that: The licensure and accreditation of each hospital in this proceeding is not at issue and does not have to be proven; The equipment proposed by Mease and St. Anthony's is adequate, and the costs projected for that equipment are reasonable, as well as the costs associated with architectural design and construction; St. Anthony's and Mease have the ability to finance the proposed project costs; St. Anthony's, Bayfront and Children's have stipulated to each other's standing in Case Number 89-0727; Plant has stipulated that Mease renders quality care in its existing programs; and The term "case" means "admissions" or "discharges", and there can be multiple procedures performed in each case. State Health Plan Objective 4.2 of the State Health Plan applicable to this application is to "maintain an average of 350 open heart surgery procedures per program in each district through 1990." (Emphasis Supplied.) The goal set forth in the State Plan relative to open heart surgery programs is to ensure the appropriate availability of such services at reasonable costs. These applications are not consistent with Objective 4.2. If these application were to be approved, there would be 6 (3 existing and 3 approved) programs in the District. The number of procedures projected for 1990 is 1271, and if this is divided by 6 programs, the result is an average of only 212 procedures per program. If only one of these two application were to be approved, and the number of procedures projected for 1990 were to be divided by 5 instead of 6, the result of 254 would still fall below the 350 standard. Approval of either of these applications will also significantly and adversely impact the ability of the already approved program in the District, located at Bayonet Point Hospital in Pasco County, to achieve an acceptable level of service. In the State Health Plan narrative, it is recognized that "quality of patient care is a primary concern in open heart surgery programs due to the potential consequences to the patient of poorly trained and/or skilled staff." In order to ensure quality, and in recognition of the relationship between the volume of open heart surgery procedures and quality, the State Plan references the Department's requirement, set forth by rule, that a minimum of 200 adult procedures be performed within 3 years of initiation of an open heart program. The narrative also notes that a broad range of services must be provided to fulfill the requirements of an open heart surgery program. Both of these applications are partially consistent with these narrative statements in the State Health Plan since they have a record of providing quality care, and offering a complete range of services within departments at these hospitals, where a broad range of diagnostic techniques and expertise are available. However, it was not established that a minimum of 200 adult open heart surgical procedures would be performed at either Mease or St. Anthony's within three years of initiation of this program. Local Health Plan The applicable portions of the District V Health Plan recommend that in a comparative review of open heart surgery applications, preference should be given to those hospitals with a documented record as a major referral center for open heart surgery, and which serve the entire community regardless of ability to pay, using the proportion of Medicaid patient days of the planning area total as a measure. The Local Plan also recommends that future expansion of open heart surgical programs occur so as to serve population areas which will generate a minimum of 350 open heart operations annually. Finally, the Local Plan states that applicants should be able to justify the projected minimum number of 200 procedures stated in the Department's rule within three years of the beginning of service, there should be a numeric need shown in accordance with the Department's numeric need methodology for open heart surgery, existing programs should be performing the number of procedures required in the Department's methodology, and priority should be given to applicants in areas which do not have existing or approved programs. District V is not divided into subdistricts for purposes of determining the need for additional open heart surgery programs. Neither of the applicants in this case are major referral centers, and neither provides a significant volume of services to Medicaid or chronically underserved groups, as discussed further below, although they have provided services to those who are unable to pay. According to the Department's numeric need methodology, there is no need for any additional open heart surgery programs in District V. There are existing open heart programs in both north and south Pinellas County, the primary service areas of each of these applicants. The Department's Numeric Need Methodology and the "350 Standard" Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)8, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the Department's methodology for calculating the numeric need for additional open heart surgery programs. It provides a formula by which the number of open heart procedures for the horizon year, in this case 1990, are to be estimated. (See Finding of Fact 19 for an explanation of the interchangeable use of the terms "procedures" and "cases".) Pursuant to the formula, there are projected to be 1271 open heart surgery procedures performed in 1990 in District V. This number of projected procedures is then divided by 350 procedures in order to determine the number of programs which will be needed. See Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)11b. Using this methodology, the Department has identified the need for 3.6 (rounded to 4) programs in the District in the horizon year. Since there are currently 3 existing (Plant, Bayfront/Children's and Largo Medical Center) and 1 approved program (Bayonet Point Hospital) in District V, the Department has concluded that there is no projected numeric need for either of these additional programs in 1990. The Department will not normally approve a CON for a new open heart surgery program unless a numeric need is projected under its methodology. In performing the calculations under its numeric need methodology, the Department correctly determined that the actual use rate in District V was 110.35 procedures per 100,000 population. This actual use rate properly does not adjust for outmigration of residents of District V to facilities outside the District. It has been the consistent policy of the Department in determining actual use rates to consider only the total number of procedures performed at facilities within the District since the numeric need methodology calculates the need for additional programs within the same District. As long as there are sufficient resources to serve the volume of patients needing service in a given District, it does not matter where those patients reside. Patients choose to go to another District for open heart services for many reasons other than a lack of resources within their own District, such as physician preference. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that all patients who outmigrate for one reason or another will return to their own District for services if an additional program is approved. For this reason, as well as the double counting of the same patients which would result if they were counted in determining the actual use rate in both the District in which they reside, and in the District to which they outmigrated for service, the Department's interpreptation and policy is reasonable. For purposes of applying the Department's numeric need methodology rule, the words "cases", "procedures", and "admissions" are used interchangeably. This is the result of the historical development of the rule, which preceded the development and implementation of DRG's precisely defining "procedures". Thus, while the rule states that need for open heart surgery programs shall be determined by computing the projected number of open heart surgical "procedures", the Department has consistently interpreted this rule to mean the number of "cases", and used the number of "cases" in performing the calculations under the methodology. Hospitals reporting data to local health councils generally report the number of cases or discharges, and most health planners similarly use the number of patients or discharges when calculating the need for a new program. Through the testimony of Michael L. Schwartz, an expert in health care planning, Mease erroneously attempted to inflate the need projected under the rule by using "procedures" instead of "cases" in its calculations. It applied the multiplier of 1.77 or 1.44 to reported "cases", since this represents an estimate of the number of procedures per case, and thus incorrectly projected a need for an additional program. The Mease methodology is in error because it is inconsistent with the Department's reasonable, historical interpretation and application of this rule, as well as the manner by which data is reported under the rule to local health councils. Recognizing that the numeric need methodology does not project the need for any additional programs, the applicants herein both seek to justify the approval of their applications under a "not normal" rationale, which relies primarily upon outmigration of patients from District V to Hillsborough County in District VI. In fact, outmigration is the only "not normal" circumstance raised in the Mease application. Therefore, arguments at hearing that the existence of the Mease Clinic should also constitute a "not normal" circumstance are rejected. The data demonstrates insignificant outmigration from Pinellas County. From July 1987 through June 1988, only 32 patients (5.9%) outmigrated from north Pinellas where Mease is located and only 36 (6.8%) outmigrated from south Pinellas where St. Anthony's is located. The main outmigration was from Pasco County in which approximately 85.5% of Pasco residents receiving open heart surgery (488 of 571) outmigrated from District V. However, there is now a CON approved program in Pasco County which will be located at Bayonet Point Hospital which will be available to serve Pasco residents who have been outmigrating to District VI. There is a direct relationship between the volume of open heart surgery procedures performed at a facility and the quality of care provided at such facility, with lower mortality rates generally at hospitals with higher volumes than those with low volumes. Therefore, in addition to its numeric need calculation, the Department has also developed a "350 Standard" to address patient safety and quality of care concerns by ensuring that each existing and approved open heart surgery program achieves a volume sufficient to assure quality and efficiency prior to approval of a new program. Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)11aI, Florida Administrative Code, prohibits the establishment of new open heart surgery programs unless: . . . the service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart cases per year. . . Bayfront/Children's urges an interpretation and application of the 350 Standard in a manner which would require each existing and approved program to actually operate at the level of 350 cases per year. Since approved programs are not yet operational, and therefore cannot operate at the 350 level, they argue that the intent of this Standard, as set forth in the above-cited rule, is to preclude the approval of any additional programs while there are approved programs, or existing programs which are not meeting the 350 Standard. To the contrary, the Department and the applicants urge that the 350 Standard be applied by averaging the actual number of cases at existing programs, and the number of cases which are reasonably projected to be performed at approved programs. Under this interpretation, as long as the average between cases which are performed at existing, and which are reasonably projected to be performed at approved programs exceeds 350, then the further approval of an additional program is not prohibited. Having considered the testimony and evidence presented by the parties, and in particular the testimony of Sharon Gordon-Girven, who was accepted as an expert in health planning, which is found to be more credible, consistent, and reasonable on this point than the testimony of Michael C. Carroll, who was accepted as an expert in health planning and hospital administration, it is found that the Department's interpretation and application of the 350 Standard is reasonable and consistent with the terms of Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)11aI. The Department has consistently applied this 350 Standard since this rule's adoption by averaging caseloads at existing programs and reasonably projected caseloads for approved programs. To interpret this Standard as urged by Bayfront/Children's would impose a moratorium on new open heart surgery programs while there is an already approved, but not operational, program in a District, or while a newly operational program has not yet attained the 350 Standard. There is no basis for this prohibitory interpretation which would not only reduce competition, but would also be inconsistent with sound health planning and the State Health Plan Objective 4.2, as discussed above. Quality of Care Both Mease and St. Anthony's are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Facilities and have a record of providing quality care in their existing programs. On average, hospitals performing greater than 200 open heart procedures per year have superior surgical outcomes than hospitals doing less than 200 procedures. Mortality rates are significantly lower at hospitals performing more than 200 procedures annually than at those performing less. It was established that there is a direct relationship between volume of open heart surgical procedures and quality of care at facilities with open heart surgery programs. Therefore, the existence of more open heart programs than are needed in an area may result in some existing programs not achieving sufficient volume to assure patient safety and quality of care. Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)5d, Florida Administrative Code, was adopted by the Department in order to set forth the minimum volume deemed necessary to assure quality of care, and provides, in part: There shall be a minimum of 200 adult open heart procedures performed annually, within 3 years after initiation of service, in any institution in which open heart surgery is performed for adults. Although the applicants urge that they will be able to meet this threshold level within three years, they failed to establish by competent substantial evidence that they would actually attract the patients necessary to perform either the number of open heart procedures projected in their applications, or this minimum number of 200 procedures required by the Department to assure quality of care in its third year of operation, given the current pattern of physician referrals in the area, their market share in relation to those of existing programs, and actual utilization levels for the existing District V programs. Without the assurance of sufficient volume to meet the 200 procedure threshold established by the Department by rule, the validity of which is not at issue in this case, the applicants have failed to show that they will be able to achieve and maintain a patient volume in their proposed program which will assure quality of care in their proposed open heart surgery program. St. Anthony's sought to question the quality of care provided at the Bayfront/Children's program by citing an 8% mortality rate in 1987-88, and a 5.5% rate in 1988-89, while 3% is the national standard. However, mortality rates are only one indicator of quality, and a significant number of these cases at Bayfront/Children's involved complex open heart surgery on patients whose mean age was significantly higher than would be expected in a normal case mix, which presents a greater risk potential than less complex surgery on a younger case mix. In any event, this issue was not clearly raised in St. Anthony's application. Further, the evidence that was received, including testimony of physicians on staff at St. Anthony's and Children's/Bayfront, establishes that the quality of care at the Children's program is excellent, and that scheduling problems relating to availability of operating rooms are being resolved. It was not shown that there is any adverse impact on quality from having to move patients between Bayfront and Children's for open heart surgery. The fact that Mease does not have a CON for an inpatient cardiac catheterization program adversely affects the potential quality of care of any open heart surgery program at its facility since the medically preferred practice when performing such surgery is to have inpatient cardiac catheterization available. Open heart surgery programs do not, and should not, operate without this inpatient cardiac catheterization capability. Availability and Access While the addition of these two new programs would obviously increase the availability of services in the District, open heart surgery services are already reasonably available in District V. St. Anthony's is only two miles from the Bayfront/Children's program in St. Petersburg, and Mease is located in Dunedin, approximately 3 to 4 miles north of Plant in Clearwater. The two hour travel time standard is already being met in District V, and geographic accessibility will not be appreciably or significantly increased by these proposals. There is excess capacity in existing and approved open heart surgery programs in District V during most of the year, including at the Bayfront/Children's and Plant programs. Therefore, there is ready access to, and availability of open heart surgery services to patients in the District. The applicants did not establish that approval of their applications would enhance access to open heart surgery services for the medically indigent. Despite the assertion in these applications that each program would be available to the underserved, there is no definite commitment to serve charity care patients as a percentage of total patient days or of total revenue. Bayfront and Children's exceed St. Anthony's in their commitment to indigent, charity care. As a percentage of total patient days in 1987, Medicaid patients represented 2.3% of St. Anthony's, and 2.1% of Mease's total patient days, while for Children's, Medicaid patients in 1987 represented 34.2%, and for Bayfront, they represented 8.9% of total patient days. While unstable patients who have to be transferred from one hospital to another face increased risks, it was not shown that transfers from Mease to Plant, or from St. Anthony's to the Bayfront/Children's program have actually jeopardized the safety of patients or resulted in a reduction in the quality of care received by patients. Transfer delays are exacerbated by seasonal increases in population in District V, but there continues to be a reasonable likelihood that patient transfers can be accommodated, even during seasonal population increases, without adverse impacts to patient care. However, a large majority of open heart surgery cases are non-emergency that can be scheduled for surgery after diagnosis without any compromise in patient care. Emergency patients can be given priority, and there are sufficient available beds to accommodate emergency patients, regardless of seasonal delays, and such seasonal delays do not establish that there is a lack of available beds in District V which would require the approval of either of these applications. Alternatives Considered The applicants did not fully explore alternatives, including less costly alternatives, to a new program at their facility, such as a joint or shared program with an existing provider. This would have been particularly relevant to these applications since District V already has a quality joint program at Bayfront/Children's which is operating successfully in the community. A less costly alternative to approval of either, or both, of these applications would be greater utilization of existing programs, especially where excess capacity exists, such as at the Bayfront/Children's and Plant programs, and in view of there being an already approved program in District V at Bayonet Point. Personnel Availability and Costs There has been a long-term shortage of nurses, particularly in intensive care and open heart surgery, and this shortage is present in District V not merely for nursing staff, but also for technical support staff, and is particularly acute in operating room and critical care personnel. It is not always possible to fill open heart surgery or critical care nursing positions with trained personnel. At hearing, St. Anthony's proposed a joint training program with St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa for open heart personnel. However, this was not explicitly raised in the St. Anthony application, and therefore, it cannot be considered. The applicants will compete with existing providers in attracting open heart surgery nursing and technical staff. The implementation of these new programs would have an adverse impact on the ability of existing and approved programs to attract and retain trained open heart surgery nursing and technical staff, and can reasonably be expected to increase personnel costs for these providers. The salaries and benefits identified in these applications are generally reasonable and complete. However, Mease's estimate of the number of additional nursing positions, or FTE, which would be required throughout the hospital to accommodate the workload resulting from an open heart surgery program is incomplete and inadequate, and St. Anthony's failed to fully consider the need for additional personnel for its proposed open heart step-down unit, angioplasty recovery, open heart "stat" lab, and resperator machine operators. Financial Feasibility In their applications, Mease has projected 200 open heart surgery cases, and St. Anthony's has projected 150 open heart surgery cases, in their first year of operation; Mease has projected 240 cases and St. Anthony's projected 200 cases in their second year; St. Anthony's projected 250 cases in their third year of operation, but Mease did not include a third year projection. However, it is specifically found that these projections are not reasonable, based upon the testimony and evidence received, as well as the results of the Department's numeric need methodology calculations, performed pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)8, the validity of which is not at issue in these proceedings. A basic assumption used by Mease in the preparation of its pro forma is flawed. The utilization projections which drive the necessary calculations in the pro forma are based upon a percentage of patients who have cardiac catheterizations who subsequently have to have open heart surgery. That percentage is 25%, but is based upon experience in which the facility at which these patients received this treatment had both inpatient cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery programs. Mease does not have inpatient cardiac catheterization, and therefore, there is a reasonable likelihood that the percentage of cardiac catheterization patients who would choose to be transferred from another facility, such as Plant, to Mease for open heart surgery would be substantially less than 25%, thereby reducing Mease's projected utilization. For example, it was shown that 75% of patients who receive inpatient cardiac catheterization remain at the same hospital for open heart surgery, if that becomes necessary and if that hospital has both programs. The pro forma which has been filed by St. Anthony's includes revenues that St. Anthony's is already receiving for treatment of patients who are subsequently transferred to Bayfront/Children's for open heart surgery. This amounts to approximately $11,000 per admission which St. Anthony's is already receiving and which, therefore, should not have been shown on its pro forma of revenues to be expected from a new open heart surgery program. The inclusion of this amount results in inflating St. Anthony's revenue projections. Additionally, St. Anthony's has incorrectly estimated its Medicare utilization at 65%, while it should have been estimated at 80% of patient mix. This error also has the effect of inflating expected revenues, and placing unjustified greater significance than there should be on its proposed fixed price discount, which is discussed later, and which applies only to non-Medicare, non-Medicaid, non-charity cases. For the July 1990, planning horizon in District V, the Department's numeric need methodology projects that there will be 1271 open heart surgery procedures. With referral patterns in place and existing providers with operational and well regarded programs, it is unlikely that either applicant would have an automatic, equal share of the District's pool of open heart patients, or even that they would perform the number of procedures projected in their pro forma for their first and second years of operation. In fact, the 3 existing providers in District V performed 1215 procedures (355 at Children's, 416 at Plant, and 444 at Largo Medical Center) between July 1987 and June 1988, leaving fewer than 56 procedures projected through the Department's numeric need methodology for the one already approved program and these applicants, if they were to be approved. It defies logic and reason to argue that the applicants will achieve their projected caseloads, given the existing levels of service at existing programs in District V, the fact there is an additional program that has already been approved, and the fact that the Department's numeric need methodology projects 1271 procedures in 1990. Since the applicants base their assessment of financial feasibility upon their unsubstantiated, inflated projections, and since the applicants have not established the reasonableness of these projections, the long-term financial feasibility of these proposed new programs has not been shown. Further, the applicants have also failed to establish that they can reasonably be expected to achieve the level of 200 procedures in their third year, and therefore, they have also failed to show that they can achieve that minimum level which the Department, by rule, requires to ensure quality of care. In other respects, the assumptions used by the applicants in their pro forma are reasonable, including their inflation factor for income, bad debt, expenses, and depreciation. Effect on Competition and Costs It cannot be determined whether there will be a significant difference between the charges proposed by each of these applicants and the actual charges at existing providers. Actual charges are dependent on case mix, Medicare percentage, payor mix and illness severity. Meaningful charge comparisons can only be made for hospitals in the same Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB) peer grouping based on case mix, Medicare percentage and location, and the parties in this case are in various groupings. This finding is based on the testimony of Margo Kelly, who was accepted as an expert in health care planning and finance, and Larry Ward, an expert in hospital finance and financial feasibility, and applies to both overall hospital charges and charges for specific services. There are simply too many variables to make any meaningful comparison of charges between hospitals which are in different HCCB peer groupings. A unique aspect of the St. Anthony's application is that it has proposed a fixed fee of $32,000, adjusted 6% annually for inflation, for open heart surgery for the first 3 years of the program, if approved. However, this factor is not as significant as it may appear from St. Anthony's pro forma since St. Anthony's has erroneously underestimated its Medicare mix at 65% instead of 80%, based upon actual Medicare percentages at existing programs, and thus, the mix of patients to whom this fixed fee would apply was overestimated by 15%. The fixed fee program is applicable to such a limited number of patients that the program is insignificant as a factor upon which approval of this application should be based. Additionally, based on the testimony of Sharon Gordon-Girven, it is found that while a fixed fee may be an attractive aspect of a CON application, it is not a "not normal" circumstance which can be used to approve an application notwithstanding a showing of no numeric need. It has not been shown whether there would be an appreciable positive impact on costs in the health care community if either, or both, of these applications were approved. When health care services are duplicated and associated costs are spread over the same number of patients, charges for those patients tend to increase. The evidence showns there is virtually no price competition for open heart surgery services. Mease has underprojected charges for its open heart surgery program by estimating an average length of stay of only 10 days instead of 13, which is the average at other area hospitals, and also by failing to include cardiac catherization charges, which should be included for those patients on whom both a catheterization and open heart surgerical procedure are performed in the same episode of care. As previously discussed, there would be greater competition among existing and approved programs in District V for trained open heart surgery and critical care nurses, which are in short supply, and it can reasonably be expected that greater competition for trained personnel who are in short supply will eventually result in higher salaries and health care costs. Impact on Existing and Approved Programs As discussed above, approval of these applications will adversely affect the ability of existing providers to attract and retain trained open heart surgery and critical care RNs due to the already existing shortage of personnel to fill these positions, and the fact that one already approved program would become operational prior to either of these programs, if they were to be approved. The proposed primary service area for Mease overlaps with the primary service area of Plant, and the primary service area of St. Anthony's overlaps with the primary service area of the Bayfront/Children's program. Therefore, these facilities are competing for the same open heart surgery patients. Patients referred to Plant by Mease physicians for open heart surgery account for approximately 30% of Plant's current total caseload, and if these patients are lost, the financial impact on Plant would be approximately $4.5 to $5 million in lost revenues. The same surgical group that does 90% of the surgeries at Plant is expected to do open heart surgeries at Mease, if the Mease CON is approved. The viability of the Bayfront/Children's program might be endangered, financially and programatically, if the St. Anthony's application is approved. From July 1987, through June 1988, 39% of the adult open heart surgical procedures performed at Bayfront/Children's were referred from St. Anthony's cathing cardiologists. A substantial number of these patients can be expected to be lost if the St. Anthony's program is approved, and this can reasonably be expected to significantly decrease utilization of the Bayfront/Children's program, with resulting loss in revenues. Bayfront reasonably estimates a resulting loss of $400,000 in its net income. It was also shown that Bayfront is already incurring a net loss in income from its open heart surgery program, which would only be exacerbated by the loss of a substantial number of patients to St. Anthony's. Comparision of Applicants While St. Anthony's does have an existing inpatient cardiac catheterization program, Mease does not. The Mease outpatient cardiac cath lab only opened in April, 1989, and therefore, its experience to date with outpatient cardiac catheterization is minimal. Mease proposes to do angioplasties in its outpatient cardiac cath lab, which is specifically prohibited by Departmental Rule 10-5.011(1)(e)2b, and is an unacceptable medical practice. Thus, while St. Anthony's patients would be able to receive complete and continuous care at its facility, Mease patients would still have to be transferred to another hospital for inpatient cardiac caths and angioplasties. There is already an approved open heart surgery program in the northern part of District V which will be located at Bayonet Point, and this new program will address the outmigration circumstance which has been occuring from Pasco County to Hillsborough County, upon which Mease has based its "not normal" argument in support of its application. Although population growth is greater in northern Pinellas than in south Pinellas, the total population of south Pinellas remains larger, and thus, there remains a larger population base for open heart surgery in south Pinellas than in north Pinellas. There is only one open heart surgery program in south Pinellas (Bayfront/Children's) while there are two existing programs in north Pinellas (Largo and Plant). Mease has only 5 operating rooms, while St. Anthony's has 12, and total beds at St. Anthony's exceed beds at Mease by 434 to 278. Of the two applications at issue on this proceeding, St. Anthony's is the superior application for an additional open heart surgery program in District V, if one were to be approved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order which denies the application of Mease for CON 5679, and of St. Anthony's for CON 5678. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Mease: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 1. Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. 5-6. Adopted in Finding 1. 7-8. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected in Finding 31, and otherwise as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected in Findings 34, 35 and otherwise as immaterial. Adopted in Finding 24. Rejected in Findings 31, 46. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 15-16. Rejected in Finding 43, and otherwise as immaterial. 17-18. Adopted in Finding 1, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 7, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Findings 11, 49. rejected as immaterial and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Finding 40. 24-33. Rejected in Finding 38, and otherwise as immaterial and not based on competent substantial evidence. 34-35. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 36. Adopted in Findings 49, 50. 37-38. Rejected in Findings 21, 26. 39-43. Rejected in Finding 17, and otherwise as irrelevant and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 38. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 46-48. Rejected in Finding 32, and otherwise as irrelevant. 49. Rejected in Finding 30. 50-51. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings 45, 47. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 46. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding 40. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Findings 7, 30 and otherwise as speculative. 59-62. Adopted in Finding 11, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. 63-64. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 30. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 51. Adopted in Findings 15, 17. Rejected in Finding 44, and otherwise as immaterial. Rejected in Finding 31. 74-80. Adopted and Rejected, in part, in Findings 12, 19. 81-85. Adopted and Rejected, in part, in Finding 20 and otherwise Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Finding 50, and otherwise as irrelevant. 88-89. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected in Findings 7, 30, and otherwise as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected in Findings 7, 30, and otherwise as unnecessary. Rejected in Findings 27, 49. Rejected in Findings 1, 29, and otherwise as immaterial. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 24, but otherwise Rejected in Findings 1, 29. Rejected in Findings 38, 41. 99-100. Rejected in Finding 46, and otherwise as immaterial. Rejected in Finding 43. Rejected in Finding 45. Rejected in Finding 46. 104-105 Rejected in Findings 37, 38, 41. 106-107 Rejected in Findings 34-36. Rejected in Finding 38. Adopted, in part, in Finding 12. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact filed by St. Anthony's: Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings 12, 24. Adopted in Finding 12. 4-6. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Findings 8, 9. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in Findings 20, 44. 10-13. Adopted in Finding 2, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 14-15. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 31. Adopted in Finding 7. 18-20. Adopted in Finding 40, but otherwise Rejected as 21-22. Adopted in Findings 7, 20. Adopted in Finding 2. Rejected in Finding 11. Rejected in Finding 11, and otherwise as immaterial. 26-27. Adopted and Rejected, in part, in Finding 11, and otherwise Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in Findings 4, 5. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 40. Rejected in Finding 20. Rejected in Finding 18, and otherwise as irrelevant. 34-36. Rejected in Findings 11, 20 and otherwise as irrelevant. 37-42. Rejected in Findings 28, 30, 31 and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. 43-47. Rejected in Finding 28. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 17. Adopted in Findings 18, 20. Rejected in Finding 18. Rejected in Findings 18, 20. Adopted in Finding 40. Adopted in Finding 20. Rejected in Findings 13, 14, 16. Rejected in Findings 16, 27, 30, 31. Rejected as immaterial, unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 11, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected in Findings 14, 30. Rejected in Findings 17, 18, 20. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected in Findings 27, 37, 40, 41. Rejected in Findings 11, 20 and otherwise as irrelevant and immaterial. 64-66. Rejected in Finding 17, and otherwise as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. 67-68. Adopted in Finding 24, but Rejected in Finding 27. Rejected in Finding 41. Adopted in Finding 36. 71-80. Adopted in Finding 44, but Rejected in Findings 43, 45 and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. 81-85. Adopted in Finding 36, but Rejected in Findings 34, 35. 86. Adopted in Finding 7, but otherwise Rejected as unclear. 87-90. Rejected in Findings 17, 47-49, 51. Rejected in Findings 27, 51. Rejected in Findings 34, 35, 48. Adopted in Findings 1, 52. 94-99. Adopted in Finding 52, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact filed by the Department: Adopted in Findings 12, 24. Adopted in Findings 8, 9. 3-6. Adopted in Finding 2. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Rejected in Finding 31, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. 9-10. Adopted in Finding 5, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 31. 12-15. Adopted in Finding 4, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 28. Rejected in Finding 43. 18-19. Adopted in Finding 28. Adopted in Findings 7, 20, 52, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 19. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 3, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings 7, 30. Adopted in Finding 45. Adopted in Finding 50. Adopted in Finding 20, but otherwise Rejected as unnessary. Adopted in Findings 13, 30, 35. Adopted in Finding 40. Adopted in Finding 17. Adopted in Finding 18. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 21, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 17. Adopted in Finding 18. 37-38. Adopted in Finding 20. 39. Adopted in Findings 34, 35. 40-41. Adopted in Finding 30. 42. Adopted in Findings 45, 47-51. 43-44. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Plant: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 16, 17. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Findings 7, 30. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 17. 11-12. Adopted in Finding 19. 13-14. Adotped in Findings 19, 20. 15-16. Adopted in Finding 1, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 17. Rejected as unnecessary. 18-19. Adopted in Findings 7, 30. Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Findings 35, 47, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings 25, 27 but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 34. Adopted in Findings 37, 38. 25-26. Adopted in Finding 46, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 27. Rejected in Finding 42. 28-30. Adopted in Findings 45, 50. Ruling on Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Bayfront/Children's: Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 5. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 31, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in Finding 4. Rejected as immaterial and cumulative. Adopted in Findings 4, 49. 10-13. Adopted in Finding 4, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 14-17. Adopted in Finding 28, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 18-19. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 20-28. Adopted in Findings 39, 44, but otherwise Rejected in Finding 43 and as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 7, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in Findings 11, 49, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings 7, 30, 40. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 17. Adopted in Finding 18. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in Finding 21, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 17. Adopted in Findings 49, 51. 39-40. Adopted in Finding 18. 41-44. Adopted in Finding 20, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 30, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 18, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings 34, 35, 47, 48. Adopted in Finding 51. 49-51. Adopted in Findings 30, 31. Adopted in Findings 34, 35, 47, 48. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Rejected as cumulative. COPIES FURNISHED: W. David Watkins, Esquire P. O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Ivan Wood, Esquire 1221 Lamar, Suite 1400 Four Houston Center Houston, TX 77010-3015 John H. Parker, Esquire 1200 Carnegie Building 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, GA 30303 Guyte McCord, Esquire P. O. Box 82 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Cynthia Tunnicliff, Esquire P. O. Drawer 190 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire P. O. Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Darrell White, Esquire P. O. Box 2174 Tallahassee, FL 32316-2174 S. Power, Agency Clerk 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue Whether proposed rule amendments to Rule 59C- 1.033(7)(c) and (7)(d), Florida Administrative Code, published in the Notice of Change on June 15, 2001, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Whether the proposed rule is invalid due to the absence of a provision specifying when the amendments will apply to the review of certificate of need applications to establish open heart surgery programs.
Findings Of Fact The Agency is responsible for administering the Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. The goals of the Act are containment of health care costs, improvement of access to health care, and improvement in the quality of health care delivered in Florida. AHCA initiated the rulemaking process by proposing amendments to existing Rule 59C-1.033, Florida Administrative Code, the rule for determining the need for adult open heart surgery (OHS)1 services, which currently provides, in part, that: Adult Open Heart Surgery Program Need Determination. a new adult open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved in the district if any of the following conditions exist: There is an approved adult open heart surgery program in the district. One or more of the operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for at least 12 months as of 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool; or One or more of the adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for less than 12 months during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than an average of 29 adult open heart surgery operations per month. Provided that the provisions of paragraphs (7)(a) and (7)(c) do not apply, the agency shall determine the net need for one additional adult open heart surgery program in the district based on the following formula: NN =((Uc x Px)/350)) -- OP>=0.5 Where: NN = The need for one additional adult open heart surgery program in the district projected for the applicable planning horizon. The additional adult open heart surgery program may be approved when NN is 0.5 or greater. Uc = Actual use rate, which is the number of adult open heart surgery operations performed in the district during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool, divided by the population age 15 years and over. For applications submitted between January 1 and June 30, the population estimate used in calculating Uc shall be for January of the preceding year; for applications submitted between July 1 and December 31, the population estimate used in calculating Uc shall be for July of the preceding year. The population estimates shall be the most recent population estimates of the Executive Office of the Governor that are available to the department 3 weeks prior to publication of the fixed need pool. Px = Projected population age 15 and over in the district for the applicable planning horizon. The population projections shall be the most recent population projections of the Executive Office of the Governor that are available to the department 3 weeks prior to publication of the fixed need pool. OP = the number of operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district. Regardless of whether need for a new adult open heart surgery program is shown in paragraph (b) above, a new adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved for a district if the approval would reduce the 12 month total at an existing adult open heart surgery program in the district below 350 open heart surgery operations. In determining whether this condition applies, the agency will calculate (Uc x Px)/(OP+1). If the result is less than 350 no additional open heart surgery program shall normally be approved. Based on the issues raised by the Petitioner, Bethesda, and the factual evidence presented on these issues, AHCA must demonstrate that its proposed amendments to the existing OHS rule are valid exercises of delegated legislative authority or, more specifically, that it (a) followed the statutory requirements for rule-making, particularly for changing a proposed rule; (b) considered the statutory issues necessary for the development of uniform need methodologies; (c) acted reasonably to eliminate potential problems in earlier drafts of the proposed rule; (d) used appropriate proxy data to project the demand for the service proposed; (e) appropriately included county considerations for a tertiary service with a two-hour travel time standard; and (f) was not required to include a provision advising when CON applications would be subject to the new provisions. Rule challenges and rule development process The existing rule was challenged by IRMH on June 27, 2000, in DOAH Case No. 00-2692RX. Martin Memorial intervened in that case, also to challenge the rule. Like IRMH, Martin Memorial was an applicant for a certificate of need (CON), the state license required to establish certain health care services, including OHS programs, in Florida. Both are located in AHCA health planning District 9, as is the Petitioner in this case, Bethesda. AHCA entered into a settlement agreement with IRMH and Martin Memorial on September 11, 2000, which was presented when the final hearing commenced on September 12, 2000. Prior to the rule challenge settlement agreement, staff at AHCA had been discussing, over a period of time, possible amendments to the OHS rule to expand access and enhance competition. Issues raised by AHCA staff included the continued appropriateness of OHS as a designated tertiary service and the anti-competitive effect of the 350 minimum volume of OHS cases required of existing providers prior to approval of a new provider in the same district. The staff was considering whether the rule was too restrictive and outdated given the advancements in technology and the quality of OHS programs. The relationship of volume to outcomes was considered as various studies and CON applications were received and reviewed, as was the increasing use of angioplasty also known as percutaneous coronary angioplasty, referred to as PTCA or simply, angioplasty, as the preferred treatment for patients having heart attacks. Angioplasty can only be performed in hospitals with backup open heart services. During an angioplasty procedure, a catheter or tube is inserted to open a clogged artery using a balloon-like device, sometimes with a stent left in the artery to keep it open. Discussions of these issues took place at AHCA over a period of years, during the administrations of the two previous Agency heads, Douglas Cook and Reuben King-Shaw. In August 2000, AHCA published notice of a rule development workshop to consider possible changes to the OHS rule. Because it could not get the parties to settle DOAH Case No. 00-2692RX at the time, rather than proceed with the workshop while defending the existing rule, AHCA cancelled the workshop. As a result of the September 11, 2000, settlement agreement, on October 6, 2000, AHCA published a proposed rule amendment and notice of a workshop, scheduled for October 24, 2000. That version of a proposed rule would have changed Subsection (7)(a) of the OHS Rule to allow approval of "additional programs" rather than being limited to approval of one new program at a time in a district. The October proposal would have also eliminated OHS from the list of tertiary health services in Rule 59C-1.002(41). Tertiary health services are defined, in general, in Subsection 408.032(17), Florida Statutes, as follows: "Tertiary health service" means a health service which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost-effectiveness of such service. Examples of such services include, but are not limited to, organ transplantation, specialty burn units, neonatal intensive care units, comprehensive rehabilitation, and medical or surgical services which are experimental or developmental in nature to the extent that the provision of such services is not yet contemplated within the commonly accepted course of diagnosis or treatment for the condition addressed by a given service. The agency shall establish by rule a list of all tertiary health services. With this statutory authority, AHCA adopted Rule 59C- 1.002(41), Florida Administrative Code, to provide a more specific and complete list of tertiary services: The types of tertiary services to be regulated under the Certificate of Need Program in addition to those listed in Florida Statutes include: Heart transplantation; Kidney transplantation; Liver transplantation; Bone marrow transplantation; Lung transplantation; Pancreas and islet cells transplantation; Heart/lung transplantation; Adult open heart surgery; Neonatal and pediatric cardiac and vascular surgery; and Pediatric oncology and hematology. As an additional assurance that tertiary services are subject to CON regulation, the tertiary category is specifically listed in the projects subject to review in Subsection 408.036, Florida Statutes. The October 2000 version included a proposal to increase the divisor from 350 to 500 in the formula in Subsection (7)(b), to represent the average size of existing OHS programs, but to decrease from 350 to 250, the minimum number required of an existing provider prior to approval of a new program in Subsection (7)(a)2. The definition of OHS would have been amended to add an additional diagnostic group, DRG 109, to delete DRG 110 and to eliminate the requirement for the use of the heart-lung by-pass machine during the surgery. Most controversial in the October version was a separate county- specific need methodology for counties which have hospitals but not OHS programs, in which residents are projected to have 1,200 annual discharges with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. On October 24, 2000, AHCA held a workshop on the proposed amendments. At the workshop, AHCA Consultant, John Davis, outlined the proposed changes. As a practical matter, eight Florida counties are not eligible to provide OHS because they have no hospitals. When Mr. Davis applied the county-specific need methodology, as if it were in effect for the planning horizon of January 2003, six Florida counties demonstrated a need for OHS: Hernando, Martin, Highlands, Okaloosa, Indian River, and St. Johns. Two of these, Martin and Indian River are in AHCA District 9. AHCA has already approved an OHS program for Martin County, at Martin Memorial. Mr. Davis also presented a simplified methodology for reaching the same result. In support of the proposed rule, AHCA received data, although not adjusted by the severity of cases, showing better outcomes in hospitals performing from 250 to 350 OHS, as compared to larger providers. Although the majority of heart attack patients are treated with medications, called thrombolytics, for some it is inappropriate and less effective than prompt, meaning within the so-called "golden hour," interventional therapies. In these instances, angioplasty is considered the most effective treatment in reducing the loss of heart muscle and lowering mortality. Opposing the proposed rule at the October workshop, Christopher Nuland, on behalf of the FSTCS, testified that OHS is still a highly complex procedure, that it requires scarce resources, equipment and personnel, and should, therefore, be available in only a limited number of facilities. In general, however, the opponents complained more about process rather than the substance of the proposal. Having petitioned on October 13, 2000, for a draw-out proceeding instead of the workshop, those Petitioners noted that AHCA had obligated itself to predetermined rule amendments based on the settlement agreement, regardless of information developed in the workshop. The draw- out Petitioners were the Florida Hospital Association, Association of Community Hospitals and Health Systems of Florida, Inc., Delray, Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Punta Gorda HMA, Charlotte Regional Medical Center, JFK, HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point; Tampa General and the FSTCS. While agreeing that OHS is complex and costly, supporters of the proposed rule, particularly the declassification of OHS as a tertiary service, noted that many cardiologists are now trained to do invasive procedures. In support of fewer restrictions on the expansion of OHS programs in Florida, other witnesses at the October workshop discussed delays and difficulties in arranging transfers to OHS providers, possible complications from deregulated diagnostic cardiac catheterizations at non-OHS provider hospitals, and hardships of travel on patients and their families, especially older ones. On December 22, 2000, AHCA published another proposal, which retained most of the October provisions, continuing the elimination of OHS from the list of tertiary services, the addition of DRG 109, the deletion of DRG 110, the elimination of the requirement for the use of a heart-lung by-pass machine, and the authorization for approval of more than one additional OHS program at a time in the same district. The minimum number of OHS performed by existing providers prior to approval of a new one continued from the October 2000 version, to be decreased from 350 to 250, and the divisor in the numerical need formula continued to be increased from 350 to 500. As in the October version, the requirement that existing providers be able to maintain an annual volume of 350 OHS cases after approval of a new program was stricken. The separate need methodology for counties without an OHS program was simplified, as proposed by Mr. Davis, and was as follows: Regardless of whether need for additional a new adult open heart surgery programs is shown in paragraph (b) above, need for one a new adult open heart surgery program is demonstrated for a county that meets the following criteria: None of the hospitals in the county has an existing or approved open heart surgery program; Residents of the county are projected to generate at least 1200 annual hospital discharges with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease, as defined by ICD-9- CM codes 410.0 through 414.9. The projected number of county residents who will be discharged with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease will be determined as follows: PIHD = (CIHD/CoCPOP X CoPPOP) Where: PIHD = the projected 12-month total of discharges with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease for residents of the county age 15 and over; CIHD = the most recent 12-month total of discharges with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease for residents of the county age 15 and over, as available in the agency's hospital discharge data base; CoCPOP = the current estimated population age 15 and over for the county, included as a component of CPOP in subparagraph 7(b)2; CoPPOP = the planning horizon estimated population age 15 and over for the county, included as a component of PPOP in subparagraph 7(b)2; If the result is 1200 or more, need for one adult open heart surgery program is demonstrated for the county will not normally be approved for a district if the approval would reduce the 12 month total at an existing adult open heart surgery program in the district below 350 open heart surgery operations. In determining whether this condition applies, the agency will calculate (Uc X Px)/(OP + 1). If the result is less than 350 no additional open heart surgery program shall normally be approved. County-specific need identified under paragraph (c) is a need occurring because of the special circumstances in that county, and exists independent of, and in addition to, any district need identified under the provisions of paragraph (b). A program approved pursuant to need identified in paragraph (c) will be included in the subsequent identification of approved and operational programs in the district, as specified in paragraph (a). On January 17, 2001, a public hearing was held to consider the December amendments. Opponents complained that the proposals resulted from a private settlement agreement rather than a public rule development workshop as required by law. They noted that declassification of OHS as a tertiary service is contrary to the recommendations of AHCA's CON advisory study group and the report of the Florida Commission on Excellence in Health Care, co-chaired by AHCA Secretary Reuben King-Shaw, created by the Florida Legislature as a part of the Patient Protection Act of 2000. The risk of inadvertently allowing some OHS procedures to become outpatient services was also raised, because of the statute that specifically states that tertiary services are CON-regulated. The reduction from 350 to 250 in the annual volume required at existing programs prior to approval of new ones was criticized for potentially increasing costs due to shortages in qualified staff, including surgical nurses, perfusionists, recovery and intensive care unit nurses, who are needed to staff the programs. The potential for approval of more than one program at a time, under normal circumstances, was viewed as an effort to respond to the needs of two geographically large districts out of the total of eleven health planning districts in Florida. That, in itself, one witness argued demonstrated that more than one approval at a time should be, as it currently is, a not- normal circumstance. The combination of the district-wide and county- specific need methodologies was criticized as double counting. The district formula which relied on the projected number of OHS, overlapped with the county formula, which used projected ischemic heart disease discharges, to the extent that the same patient hospitalization could result in first, the diagnosis, and then the OHS procedure. Approximately, eighteen percent of diagnosed ischemic heart disease patients in Florida go on to have OHS. The county-specific methodology was also characterized as inappropriate health planning based on geo- political boundaries rather than any realistic access barriers. Although 500, the average size of existing programs was the proposed divisor in the formula, and 250 was the threshold number existing providers, the proposal included the deletion of any provision assuring that existing programs maintain some minimum annual volume, which is 350 in subsection 7(e) of the current rule. AHCA representatives testified that the proposal to delete a minimum adverse impact was inadvertent. The combined effect of a district-wide need methodology, an independent but overlapping county need methodology, and the absence of an adverse impact provision, created concern whether approvals based on county need determinations could reduce volumes at providers in adjacent counties to unsafe levels. Some health planners predicted that, as a consequence of adopting the December draft, like the October version, a number of new OHS programs could be coming into service at one time, seriously draining already scarce resources. One witness, citing an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, testified that higher volume OHS providers, those over 500 cases, do have better outcomes, and that the relationship persists for angioplasties, including those performed on patients having heart attacks. Florida has 63 or 64 OHS programs. Of those, 25 to 30 percent have annual OHS volumes below 350 surgeries a year. The demand for OHS is increasing slowly and leveling off. AHCA was warned, at the January public hearing by, among others, Eric Peterson, Professor of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center (by videotaped presentation); and Brian Hummel, M.D., a Cardiothoracic Surgeon in Fort Myers, President of the Florida Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons, that simultaneously easing too many provisions of the OHS rule was a risk to the quality of the programs and the safety of patients. Among other specific comments made at the January public hearing related to the December proposal were the following: This change would authorize a county- specific methodology to support approving a program on the theory that that county needs better access to open heart surgery program. Yet there is no inquiry under the proposed provision into how accessible adjacent programs are or, indeed, how low the volumes of adjacent programs are. Most blatantly, the county provision requires double counting and double need projections. (AHCA Ex. 7, p. 14, by Elizabeth McArthur). The proposed rule creates an exemption for counties that are currently without open heart surgery programs. One can only surmise that the purpose of this exemption is to improve access, and certainly improving access is an appropriate goal and it is possible that there are few situations around the state where access to open heart surgery is a concern, but the proposed rule is completely inadequate and a thoroughly inappropriate way to identify which situations those are . . . (AHCA Ex. 7, p. 26, by Carol Gormley). With the county exemption provision, the Agency has stumbled on an entirely new method for estimating need. In fact, the only good thing about this provision is that it demonstrates that the Agency actually can look at some alternative ways to estimate need, and the use of data about incidence of ischemic heart disease might be one of those. Certainly it should be explored if there is ever a valid planning process that addresses open heart surgery. However, the proposed rules cobble together the county- based epidemiology with the district-wide demand based formula, and I believe that this method is not applicable for evaluating access to care. It is not applicable because the provision only considers the population's rate of ischemic heart disease and does not even attempt to assess the extent to which county residents with ischemic disease are, in fact, already receiving open heart surgery. Therefore, a determination that county residents generate at least 1,200 ischemic heart disease discharges annually does nothing to indicate whether or not they experience any barriers to obtaining that needed service. * * * Another problem with county exemption permission [sic: provision] is that the addition of this assessment, quote "regardless of the results of the district need formula," end quote, constitute double counting of a need in districts where counties without programs are located. (AHCA Ex. 7, p. 27-30, by Carol Gormley). * * * As further evidence of the benefits of limiting open heart surgery to a few high volume programs, the Society would like to place into record the following articles. The first one you've heard on several occasions is the Dudley article, "Selective referral to high volume hospitals." The second, from Farley and Osminkowski, is, "Volume-outcome relationships and in- hospital mortality: Effective changes in volume over time," from Medicare in January of 1992. There's another article from Grumbach, et al., "Regionalization of cardiac surgery in the United States and Canada," again from JAMA. Another article from Hannon, et al., "Coronary artery bypass surgery: The relationship between in-hospital mortality rate and surgical volume after controlling for clinical risk factors," Medical Care. Hughes, et al., "The effects of surgeon volume and hospital volume on quality care in hospitals," again from Medical Care; finally, Riley and Nubriz, "Outcomes of surgeries among Medicare aged: Surgical volume and mortality." Each of these scholarly articles comes to the same inevitable conclusion: outcomes improve as the volume of cardiac surgeries in any given program and hospital increases, therefore increasing the number of hospitals in which these services are provided inevitably will lead to an increase in morbidity. (AHCA Ex. 7, p. 83-84, by Christopher Nuland). * * * On or before the January public hearing, AHCA also received the following written comments: Martin Memorial supports the exception provision for Counties that do not have an open heart surgery program and have a substantial number of residents experiencing cardiovascular disease. This provision ensures an even dispersion of programs, and that adequately sized communities are not denied open heart surgery. (Martin Memorial Ex. 6, Letter of 10/24/2000, from Richard M. Harman, Chief Executive Officer, Martin Memorial, to Elizabeth Dudek) * * * Adding new open heart surgery programs to counties that currently lack programs will increase geographic access to coronary angioplasty services as well as open heart surgery. Primary angioplasty is now the treatment of choice for a significant percentage of patients presenting in the emergency department with acute myocardial infarction (patients who would otherwise be treated with thrombolytic drugs to dissolve blood clots in occluded coronary arteries). Thus, the provision of the proposed regulations that addresses the need for open heart surgery at a county level will also increase access to life-saving invasive cardiology services. The effect of the proposed rule changes is to slightly broaden the circumstances in which the Agency would see presumed need for new programs. Initially, the increase in the number of programs presumed to be needed would be only five. These potential new approvals would be in counties which currently have no programs. This is consistent with the reasoning that supports removing open heart surgery from the list of tertiary procedures. All else equal, distributing new programs to counties where they already exist is reasonable in light of the goal of improving geographic accessibility of advanced cardiology services. As with the other draft proposed rule changes, there is no certainty that any programs will be approved on the basis of the county-specific need formula in (7)(c). These proposed programs would still have to meet the statutory and rule criteria. As discussed above, a number applications for programs have been ultimately denied even when presumed need was shown by the need formula. We recommend adoption of this additional formula for demonstrating need. (IRMH Ex. 1, p. 25, Comments of Ronald Luke, J.D., Ph.D., 10/24/2000) In what could be interpreted as an admission that the process resulting in the development of the earlier drafts was flawed, Jeff Gregg, Chief of the AHCA CON Bureau, concluded the January public hearing by saying, . . . in terms of the analysis that the Agency did about the proposed rule, I would simply have to tell you that CON staff was not involved in that analysis, and that's CON staff including myself. So I cannot elaborate on what went into it. But having said that, I do want to assure you that CON staff will be involved in further analysis and we will do our best to consider all the points that have been made and present them as clearly and concisely as we can in assisting the Agency to formulate its response to this hearing. (AHCA Ex. 7, p. 86). The December draft was also challenged by a number of Petitioners in DOAH Case No. 01-0372RP, filed on January 26, 2001, and ten other consolidated cases. In response to the criticism that the adverse impact provision should not have been deleted and because that omission was unintended, AHCA published another proposed amendment to the OHS rule, on May 4, 2001, reinstating a minimum adverse impact volume, this time set at 250 OHS operations, down from 350 in the existing rule. On May 31, 2001, AHCA and the other parties to DOAH Case No. 01-0372RP and the consolidated cases entered into another settlement agreement, which provided: that in an effort to avoid further administrative proceedings, without conceding the correctness of any position taken by any party, and in response to materials received in to the record on or before the public hearing, the Agency for Health Care Administration agrees to publish and support . . . The Notice of Change . . . (Bethesda Ex. 34, p. 2-3). In upholding that agreement, AHCA superseded or revised all prior drafts and published a notice of change on June 15, 2001. In this final version, AHCA limited normal approval of a new OHS program to one at a time, used 500 as the numeric need formula divisor, increased the required prior-to-approval OHS minimum volume at mature existing providers from 250 in the October version to 300 (down from 350 in the existing rule) and for non- mature programs from a monthly average of 21 in the October draft to 25 (down from 29 in the existing rule), retained the classification of OHS as a tertiary service, and altered the separate, independent county need methodology to make it a county preference. The June 15th version, containing Subsections 7(c) and 7(d), which are challenged in this case is as follows: Adult Open Heart Surgery Program Need Determination. An additional open heart surgery programs shall not normally be approved in the district if any of the following conditions exist: There is an approved adult open heart surgery program in the district; One or more of the operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for at least 12 months as of 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than 300 adult open heart surgery operations during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool; One or more of the adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for less than 12 months during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than an average of 25 adult open heart surgery operations per month. * * * Provided that the provisions of paragraphs (7)(a) do not apply, the agency shall determine the net need for an additional adult open heart surgery programs in the district based on the following formula: NN=[(POH/500)-OP]> 0.5 where: NN = the need for an additional adult open heart surgery programs in the district projected for the applicable planning horizon. The additional adult open heart surgery program may be approved when NN is 0.5 or greater. POH = the projected number of adult open heart surgery operations that will be performed in the district in the 12-month period beginning with the planning horizon. To determine POH, the agency will calculate COH/CPOP x PPOP, where: COH = the current number of adult open heart surgery operations, defined as the number of adult open heart surgery operations performed in the district during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool. CPOP = the current district population age 15 years and over. PPOP = the projected district population age 15 years and over. For applications submitted between January 1 and June 30, the population estimate used for CPOP shall be for January of the preceding year; for applications submitted between July 1 and December 31, the population estimate used for CPOP shall be for July of the preceding year. The population estimates used for COP and PPOP shall be the most recent population estimates of the Executive Office of the Governor that are available to the agency 3 weeks prior to publication of the fixed need pool. OP = the number of operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district. In the event there is a demonstrated numeric need for an additional adult open heart surgery program pursuant to paragraph (7)(b), preference shall be given to any applicant from a county that meets the following criteria: None of the hospitals in the county has an existing or approved open heart surgery program; and Residents of the county are projected to generate at least 1200 annual hospital discharges with a principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease, as defined by ICD-9- CM codes 410.0 In the event no numeric need for an additional adult open heart surgery program is shown in paragraphs (7)(a) or (7)(b) above, the need for enhanced access to health care for the residents of a service district is demonstrated for an applicant in a county that meets the criteria of paragraph (7)(c)1. and 2. above. An additional adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved for the district if the approval would reduce the 12 month total at an existing adult open heart surgery program in the district below 300 open heart surgery operations. Bethesda objects to Subsections 7(c) and 7(d) as invalid. It challenges the rule promulgation process as a sham, having resulted from settlement negotiations rather than from statutorily mandated considerations and processes. That charge was, in effect, conceded by AHCA, as related to the October draft. That version carried over into the December draft, essentially unchanged, but did gain support at the October workshop. The October and December versions are not at issue in this proceeding. The proposed rule amendments at issue in this proceeding must have been supported by information provided to AHCA before or during the January public hearing. The proposal at issue differs substantially from the terms of the September settlement agreement, but is precisely what was attached to the May 31, 2001, settlement agreement. For example, the settlement agreement of September 11, 2000, included a proposal to reduce the prior minimum volume of cases at existing OHS providers from 350 to 250, but in May and June, that number was set at 300. AHCA, in the September settlement agreement, was to eliminate any limitation on the number of additional programs approved at a time, but the May and June version retains the one-at-a-time provision of the existing rule. AHCA agreed to determine county numeric need independent of and in addition to district numeric need, in September, but that provision is, in the May 31st and June 15th version, a preference. In September 2000, AHCA agreed to delete adult OHS from the list of tertiary services in Rule 59C-1.002(41), but it is a tertiary service in the May and June version. Bethesda is correct that the records of the October workshop and January public hearing contained criticisms of the county need methodology but no specific proposal to modify it into a preference. The first draft of that concept is the May 31, 2001, settlement agreement. (See Findings of Fact 26 and 27). Statutory rule-making issues Subsection 408.034(3), Florida Statutes, provides that: The Agency shall establish, by rule uniform, need methodologies for health care services and health facilities. In developing uniform need methodologies, the agency shall, at a minimum, consider the demographic characteristics of the population, the health status of the population, service use patterns, standards and trends, geographic accessibility, and market economics. As required by statute, AHCA considered the demographics and health status of the population and examined, as a part of the rule adopting process, age-specific calculations of ischemic heart disease. AHCA relied on statistical evidence of the relationship of ischemic heart disease and OHS. In 1999, for example, there were 33,027 OHS in Florida, and 25,257 of those patients had a primary diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. Consideration of service use patterns, and standards and trends related to OHS led AHCA to increase the divisor in the numeric need formula to maintain the average size of 500 surgeries for existing providers. The availability of more reliable data than that collected when the existing rule was promulgated allowed AHCA to propose reliance on residential use rates. The trend towards the use of angioplasty, as a preferred treatment for heart attack patients, and the need for timely geographical access to care are major factors for AHCA's proposal to consider a county services within the normal need analysis or as a not normal indication of a need for enhanced access when a county has a critical mass of heart disease patients. Geographical accessibility is also addressed in the travel time standard in the existing rule, which the proposal would not change. AHCA received testimony on the issue of market economics and health status, related to care for indigent and minority patients in not-for-profit, county-funded hospitals, and related to reimbursement formulas. The record demonstrates that AHCA was provided with evidence on the effect of scare resources on the costs of operating OHS programs. County-specific need methodology in earlier drafts as compared to the county preference in 7(c) and the need for enhanced access in 7(d) Bethesda alleges that the county preference in the June version is essentially another need methodology, like the county-specific need methodology in the earlier versions of the proposed rule. Bethesda also contends that a preference for a hospital because it is in a county which does not have an open heart program over a reasonably accessible facility in an adjoining county in the same district is irrational health planning which could lead to a maldistribution of programs. The county-specific need methodology was first included in the September settlement agreement, and the preference in 7(c) and need for access in 7(d), originated after the January 17, 2001, public hearing. During the public hearing, counsel for the Florida Hospital Association complained that the county-specific need methodology precluded any inquiry into accessibility and volumes at adjoining programs. Another representative of the Florida Hospital Association surmised that the goal of the county exemption was improved access but explained that it was an inappropriate means to identify access concerns. For example, while Hernando County would qualify for need with the separate methodology, most of its residents, 97 percent receive OHS services at a hospital in another district which is only 13 miles from the population center. (See Finding of Fact 26). The preference under normal circumstances in Subsection 7(c) and finding of need for enhanced access in Subsection 7(d), must be supported by evidence that county boundaries, in general, do create valid access issues. On or before the January workshop, information provided to AHCA indicated that some special inquiry into access issues related to CON applications for programs in counties without OHS programs is warranted. See Finding of Fact 27). AHCA found correctly that counties matter for several reasons. First is the fact that emergency services are funded and organized by counties, in general, and operated by municipal and county agencies. Approximately 60 percent of heart attack patient discharges in Florida are admitted through emergency rooms. Emergency heart attack patients who live in counties with OHS programs are twice as likely to be taken to a hospital with OHS as those who live in counties without an OHS provider. Second, whether a patient is taken to an OHS provider affects the care received. The probability of having an angioplasty performed is almost 50 percent greater for residents of counties with OHS programs as compared to those in counties without an OHS program. Third, some health care reimbursement plans and health care districts are operated within counties, limiting financial access to out-of-county hospitals. AHCA has always considered whether or not a county has an OHS program as a part of access issues. The issue of greater access to OHS was the basis for AHCA's initial consideration of the possibility of easing the OHS rule. With the May and June draft, it has codified and specified when that policy will apply. AHCA's deputy secretary noted that geographic access in the absence of numeric need was the basis for approvals of OHS CONs for Marion County, and for hospitals located in Naples and Brandon. In each instance, the applicants argued a need for enhanced access. AHCA has experience in applying preferences as a part of balancing and weighing criteria from statutes, rules and local health plans, particularly to distinguish among multiple applicants. In the totality of the review process, other factors which Bethesda's expert testified should be considered, including financial, racial and other potential access barriers, are not precluded. Preferences related to specific locations within health planning areas are included in CON rules governing the need for nursing home beds and hospices. Bethesda noted that these are not tertiary services, suggesting that a county location preference is inappropriate for tertiary services, but similar preferences for OHS exist in some of the local health plans. In AHCA District 1, the CON allocation factors for OHS and cardiac catheterization services include a preference for applicants proposing to locate in a county which does not have an existing OHS program. In District 4, the preference favors an applicant located in a concentrated population area in which existing programs have the highest area use rates. District 5 is similar to District 4, supporting OHS projects in areas of concentrated population with the highest use rates. The District 8, like District 1, preference goes to the applicant located in a county without an OHS program. There is no evidence that the existing preferences have been difficult to apply within the context of other CON criteria for the review of OHS applications. In effect, the proposed amendments establish an uniform state-wide county preference which is more concrete in terms of the requirements for a potential patient base. Bethesda has questioned the rationale for standards which are, in effect, different in Subsection 7(c) as compared to Subsection 7(d). The lower requirement, according to Bethesda, 1200 ischemic heart diagnoses, in 7(d), applies when there is no numeric need. But, the 500 divisor and 300 minimum at existing providers, when combined with 1200 ischemic heart diagnoses is a heavier burden to meet in 7(c), although under normal circumstances. Bethesda did not adequately explain reasons for this objection to the proposed rule. In addition, it is not inconsistent logically for AHCA to require applicants to demonstrate lower numeric need in situations in which AHCA has determined that these will be, in general, a greater need for enhanced access. Bethesda also raised a concern for the eventual maldistribution of programs as a result of the county preference. In 1999, Palm Beach county residents received 2700 OHS, or an average of 900 cases for each of the three programs. The total for District 9 was 3800 cases in 1999. When 500 St. Lucie County resident cases, in which Lawnwood is an OHS provider, are combined with 2700 Palm Beach resident cases, that leaves only 650 resident cases from Okeechobee, Indian River and Martin Counties. If programs are approved in all three, then the total will be inadequate for each to reach 300 cases, while, presumably, the demand in Palm Beach could be increasing disproportionately and not be met adequately. Disproportionate need, the appropriate dispersion of programs, and the benefits of enhanced competition are among the factors which AHCA can consider along with county need when choosing among competing applicants. 1200 ischemic heart disease discharges The proposed amendments require a projection that residents will reach a threshold of 1200 cases of ischemic heart disease discharges as a condition for the entitlement to the numeric need preference or to demonstrate a not normal need for enhanced access. In general, ischemic heart disease, which is also known as coronary heart disease, is characterized by blocked arteries which, in turn, limit blood to heart muscles causing first the onset of angina from acute coronary syndrome, progressing on to acute myocardial infarction, or a heart attack. The use of heart disease as a proxy for OHS utilization is consistent with AHCA's use of live births in pediatric open heart surgery and pediatric cardiac catheterization rules, deaths in the hospice rule, and related diagnoses in organ transplantation rules rather than actual utilization. It was supported by information received during or before the January workshop (See Finding of Fact 26 and 27). Bethesda's criticism of the use of a proxy per se is also not well-founded because any single statistical approach could be misleading. For example, historic use rates can understate future use with a growing service or an artificially imposed access limit. Using heart disease data in a preference or a need for enhanced access as opposed to a need formula or conclusive finding allows more flexibility in determining need in conjunction with other significant factors. One of Bethesda's expert health planners was also critical of the use of 1200 ischemic heart disease diagnoses as inadequate for projecting OHS cases, and for not equating to approximately 300 annual OHS cases, the minimum required of existing providers in Subsection 7(a) and the minimum adverse impact allowed in Subsection 7(e). Based on actual historical Florida data, 1200 ischemic heart disease diagnoses on average resulted in 207 OHS in 1997, 203 in 1998, and 203 in 1999. Ischemic heart disease has approximately an 18 to 20 percent conversion rate to OHS, and results in a total of 76 to 80 percent of all OHS cases. OHS cases from other diagnoses added statistically another 54 OHS in 1997, 59 in 1998, and 61 in 1999, to those from ischemic heart disease, giving, in each year a total less than 300. Bethesda presented evidence of wide variations in the ischemic heart disease to OHS conversion ratios from county-to- county. For example, only 14 percent of Bradford County ischemic heart diseases converted to OHS, and only 11 percent of the 700 cases in Columbia County converted to OHS. In Columbia County, the average state conversion rate of 20 percent yields 140 cases but, in reality, there were only 78 OHS cases from Columbia County in 1999. Bethesda's expert concluded that conversion ratio discrepancies resulting in the approval of a program that cannot achieve 300 OHS, as required in Subsection 7(a)2. and 7 (e), of the proposed rule, could bar the approval of new programs when needed in the district and would not be of minimum required quality. Bethesda also proved that the accuracy of projected OHS cases can also be affected by patterns of patient migration for health care, particularly if in- and out-migration do not offset each other. In counties with OHS programs, the average out-migration for acute care is 10.7 percent, varying widely from 3.8 percent in Alachua County to 70 percent in Seminole County. In counties without an OHS provider, average out- migration for acute care is 44 percent, but ranges from 17.6 percent in Indian River County to 98 percent in Baker County. An average of 18 percent of the residents of Florida counties with OHS programs have their surgeries performed elsewhere. Like out-migration, in-migration for acute care, for ischemic heart disease care, and for OHS varies from county to county in Florida. Counties without OHS programs have acute care in-migration from lows of 5.3 percent for Flagler County up to highs of 40 percent for Columbia County. In counties with OHS, in-migration for acute care is as low as 8 percent for Brevard and Polk, and as high as 60 percent for Alachua County. Similarly, in-migration, as determined by ischemic heart disease discharges averages 19.4 percent in counties without OHS programs and approximately 25 percent in those with OHS. In-migration for OHS, averages 35.7 percent for the state, but that is derived from a range from 9.2 percent in Pinellas County to 74 percent in Alachua and Leon Counties. Bethesda demonstrated, patterns of migration for health care vary throughout Florida, but there are trends due to the presence of OHS programs. Average net in-migration to counties with OHS is 29 percent, and is positive in sixteen of the twenty-four counties with OHS programs. All of these differences can be considered within the regulatory scheme proposed by AHCA. The issue of whether 1200 residential ischemic heart disease diagnoses is, in fact, the critical mass of prospective OHS patients needed or is deceptive due to migration patterns, due to access to alternative providers or any other review criteria listed in rule or statutes can be considered on a case-by-case basis with the proposed amendments. Bethesda's specific concern is that Indian River with well over 1200 ischemic heart disease discharges could be approved even though that represented only 255 OHS cases, and that if Indian River is approved under the county preference provision, then Bethesda would not be approved under normal circumstances until Indian River achieved and was projected to maintain 300 OHS cases a year. That Bethesda may be delayed in meeting the requirements for normal need is likely, but that appears to be a function of its location as compared to existing providers as much as it is the result of the county preference. Bethesda is not precluded, however, under either the existing or proposed rules from demonstrating not normal circumstances in District 9 for the issuance of an OHS CON to Bethesda. Bethesda's assumption that 300 is the minimum volume required for adequate quality is not supported by studies from various professional societies. The American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons set minimums of 200 to 250 annual hospital cases as the volumes necessary to maintain the skills of the staff. The American College of Surgeons, in 1996, published their opinion that 100 to 125 cases per hospital is sufficient for quality, while at least 200 cases a year are needed for the economic efficiency of a program. AHCA has never used the required and protected volumes as the volume which must also be projected for a new programs. In the current OHS rule, the volume required is 350 a year for existing programs but that has not been required of applicants. In the recent approval of an OHS CON for Brandon Regional Hospital, the applicant projected reaching 287 cases in the third year of operation. County preference, tertiary classification and travel time Bethesda argued that the tertiary classification, suggesting a regional approach, is inconsistent with having a county access provision. Bethesda correctly noted that the county provision first appeared in a draft which included the elimination of OHS from the list of tertiary services. But AHCA proposes to establish the county preference and to maintain OHS on the list of tertiary services under Rule 59C-1.002(41), and to maintain the two-hour drive time standard in Rule 59C- 1.033(4)(a). Substantial information, mostly from medical doctors and studies linking morbidity to low volume, supports the view that OHS continues to be a complex service. Obviously, those services in the tertiary classification range in complexity and availability from OHS at the lower level to organ transplantation at the upper level. The tertiary classification is justified to assure AHCA's continued closer scrutiny of OHS CON applications. It is also consistent with the increase in the need formula divisor to 500, which together serve as restrains on the approval of additional programs. AHCA reasonably concluded, based on case law and precedents with local health plan that it is not inconsistent to apply county preferences to OHS while it is classified a tertiary service. The two-hour travel time standard, is as follows: Adult open heart surgery shall be available within a maximum automobile travel time of 2 hours under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of the district's population. The counties most likely qualify for the preference, based on meeting or exceeding 1200 residential ischemic heart disease diagnoses, are Citrus, Martin, Hernando, St. Johns, Highlands, Indian River, and Okaloosa. The population centers in each of these counties are well within two hours of an existing provider. Citrus County, in which there is an approved but not yet operational OHS program, is about an hour's drive from Marion County. Hernando is approximately 25 minutes from the Pasco County provider. The population center of St. Johns County is approximately 40 minutes away from Duval County OHS providers. Okaloosa County is approximately a one-hour drive away from Escambia County OHS providers. In District 9, Indian River is approximately a 30- minute drive from the Lawnwood OHS program. Martin Memorial, is an approved provider, is approximately 20 miles or 35 minutes from Lawnwood and 30 miles or 40 minutes from Palm Beach Gardens, another existing OHS provider. In the next three to five years, it is foreseeable that Okeechobee County in northwestern District 9 could qualify for the county preference. Adjacent to Okeechobee, Highlands County's population can drive either an hour and thirty minutes to a Charlotte County OHS program or an hour and twenty minutes to a Polk County facility. The evidence related to travel times, according to one of Bethesda's experts, demonstrates that the county preference is not needed to assure access which is already provided for each and every likely qualifying county. But the population centers in the entire state of Florida are all within the two- hour travel standard, and there has been no suggestion that Florida cease approval of new OHS programs. Bethesda's contention that no need exists for enhanced access if the travel time standard is met, and its claim that the rule is internally inconsistent with a county preference and two-hour drive time are rejected. Two hours is, as the rule clearly states, a "maximum" not a bar, and has never been interpreted by AHCA as a bar, to more proximate locations. Any other interpretation is an impossibility considering the numerous counties across the state with multiple programs, including Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Orange, Volusia, Duval, and Escambia, among others. AHCA can appropriately and consistently establish reasonable guidelines for choosing among applicants to enhance access within the maximum travel standard. There is no language in the proposed rule indicating when it will take effect. Although the issue was raised in Bethesda's petition, it failed to provide evidence or legal arguments at hearing or subsequently to support its objection to the omission. AHCA's deputy secretary testified that the agency reviews applications using need methodology rules in effect when the applications are filed. Before new rules are applied, applicants are given the opportunity to reapply to address new provisions in a rule.
Findings Of Fact St. Anthony's is a 434 bed nonprofit acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg, Florida. On September 15, 1987, St. Anthony's filed an application for a CON to establish and implement an open heart surgery program in its facility. The Department filed a notice of intent to deny the application in January, 1988, and thereafter, St. Anthony's filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing to contest the denial. Intervenors, All Children's and Bayfront sought and were granted leave to intervene in the proceeding. By Pre-hearing Stipulation, the parties have agreed to the following Findings of Fact: Each of the parties has a record of providing good quality of care. The licensure and accreditation of each party is not at issue and need not be proven. The equipment proposed by St. Anthony's in its application is adequate and the costs projected for that equipment are reasonable. The staffing levels and related salaries as proposed by St. Anthony's in its application are appropriate and reasonable. The architectural plans and related costs for St. Anthony's proposed project are appropriate and reasonable. The total project costs proposed by St. Anthony's in its application are appropriate and reasonable. St. Anthony's has the ability to finance the project costs. Projected revenues and expenses set out in the pro forma financial projections by St. Anthony's are reasonable. St. Anthony's presently provides a full range of acute, general, medical, and surgical services, and surgical subspecialties including neuro- surgery, maxillofacia surgery, thoracic surgery, and peripheral vascular surgery. It also offers broad psychiatric, substance abuse, and obstetrical services and a full time emergency room capability. It also provides cardiology services including cardiac catheterization. It has a historic commitment to cardiology services, establishing a cardiac catheterization lab in 1961, a coronary care unit in 1968, and a holter monitor service in 1973. In 1975, it established the community's first echocardiography laboratory, and as early as 1965, seriously considered establishing an open heart surgery program at the facility. This program was not, however, developed at the time. St. Anthony's continued its involvement in the area of cardiography and its program covers a full array of diagnostic services including echocardiography, nuclear cardiography, and basic electrocardiography, and possesses a magnetic resonance imaging unit which can be used in the diagnosis of heart problems. Additionally, it has a well equipped vascular laboratory and peripheral vascular disease program as well as a cardiac rehabilitation program and a wellness center that is aimed at early identification and prevention. St. Anthony's is also the site of the Rogers Heart Foundation, a nonprofit, privately funded foundation established in the late 1950's to perform research, education, and clinical diagnostic studies in the field of cardiovascular diseases. As a result of the activities of the foundation, St. Anthony's is well known by physicians in the area as a center for cardiac training and expertise, and until recently, was a participant with Emory University in that institution's cardiac fellowship training program. St. Anthony's has a long tradition in the service area for providing indigent services and is one of the major providers of charity and indigent care in Pinellas County. This care is provided through direct free care to patients as well as discounted charges and the write-off of bad debts. It also provides services through Medicaid and through write-off of Medicare deductible and coinsurance portions of patients' charges. All Children's Hospital is a 113 bed children's hospital located in St. Petersburg approximately two miles from St. Anthony's. It is a full service tertiary facility which serves as a referral center for children from throughout the State of Florida and currently has an approved CON for an additional 55 beds. Following construction, which is due to begin in February, 1989, All Children's will have 6 operating rooms, 2 cardiac catheterization labs, and 5 additional surgical intensive care unit beds for a total of 13 ICU beds. At the present time it has 2 operating rooms used for open heart surgery and 2 cardiac catheterization labs. The hospital has a strong affiliation with the University of South Florida College of Medicine in Tampa. All Children's open heart program began several years after the hospital opened its first cardiac catheterization lab for children in the early 1970's. This came about when several cardiologists whose patients were primarily adult, and who were unable to utilize the facilities at the Rogers Heart Foundation because of its closed status, asked to make use of All Children's cardiac catheterization unite. Since this was consistent with All Children's efforts to increase the quality of its program through higher volume, All Children's began making its services available to adults admitted to Bayfront Hospital, a neighboring facility, with cardiac catheterization done by the patient's cardiologist in the All Children's facility. All Children's currently has 3 pediatric cardiologists and approximately 12 to 15 adult cardiologists on staff. The primary cardiac surgical team consists of Drs. Daicoff and Botero. At the present time, approximately 34% of the adult and pediatric patients treated at All Children's are Medicaid patients. Uncompensated indigent care provided at All Children's ranged from 16.52% in 1986 to 18.03% in 1987 and Medicaid patient days ranged from 30.4% in 1986 to 34.2% in 1987. Bayfront's uncompensated care was 22.15% in 1986 and 23.93% in 1987 while Medicaid patient days for that facility were 7.6% in 1986 and 8.9% in 1987. St. Anthony's devoted 1.2% of its total patient days in 1986 to Medicaid patients and 2.3% of it's total patient days in 1987. Bayfront is a 518 bed not-for-profit, full service acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg adjacent to All Children's. It was founded prior to 1968 as Mound Park Hospital, owned by the City of St. Petersburg, but in 1968, separated from city ownership and became known as Bay front Medical Center. Its mission is to provide care to all citizens in St. Petersburg and the surrounding area regardless of their ability to pay, and it offers a full range of services with the pediatric component provided by its neighbor, All Children's. It has 450 physicians on medical staff. Bayfront serves as a teaching hospital working in conjunction with the University of South Florida Medical School and providing a residency program in Pinellas County covering the entire spectrum of health care training at the facility. Bayfront runs a comprehensive cancer service approved by the American College of Surgeons and its obstetrical and gynecological women's service accounts for approximately 4,500 births per year. With All Children's, it participates in a prenatology program for high risk mothers and infants as part of a regional care program. Bayfront provides helicopter emergency coverage for its trauma center which averages 50,000 emergency room visits per year. The trauma service, staffed on a 24 hour a day basis by a full complement of surgeons, includes open heart surgery capability available for trauma related heart surgery needs. All Children's and Bayfront are connected to each other by an enclosed passageway. Taken together, the primary service area of the three hospital parties to this action is the southern half of Pinellas County up to approximately Ulmerton Road. Because of their geographical proximity to each other and their diverse but complementary populations, All Children's and Bayfront have developed working programs on a shared service basis in an effort to hold down the cost of health care in the community and to avoid unnecessary duplication of service. The Department has recognized and continues to recognize the shared nature of the All Children's/Bayfront open heart surgery program and the Boards of Directors of both institutions, as early as 1975, agreed to share open heart surgery services. The shared program for cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery are now known as the "Cardiac Center of Excellence". Under the "Center" concept, diagnostic services are shared. All Children's Hospital's previously described cardiac catheterization laboratory and its non-invasive diagnostic study equipment is complemented by Bayfront's cardiac catheterization laboratory and its non-invasive diagnostic services including EKG, 2-D echo color flow doppler, magnetic resonance imaging, holter monitoring, and stress testing. Not only are diagnostic services shared by the two facilities but therapeutic services are shared as well. All Children's provides 2 open heart surgery operating suites, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, laser angioplasty, and intensive care units for children and adult post operative patients. Bayfront provides laser angioplasty and its cardiac catheterization laboratory has the capability to do emergency angioplasty procedures. Once these have been accomplished, Bayfront has a coronary care unit, a surgical unit for post operative patients, and a progressive care unit for its adult patients progressing toward discharge. Transportation services are also shared as are rehabilitation services. All Children's mobile intensive care unit is available to provide ground transportation for adults and children and it has entered into appropriate cardiac transportation protocols with outlying hospitals. Bayfront provides helicopter transportation for children and adults to its trauma center and, too, has appropriate cardiac transportation protocols similar to those entered into by All Children's. This joint program, which has grown to provide up to date, sophisticated, high quality cardiac care to both adults and children, minimizes operating costs and capital investment. An entire range of cardiac services is available with highly trained physicians and professional staff and state of the art equipment and facilities to both adult and pediatric patients. When an adult patient requires open heart surgery at the "Center", he is admitted to Bayfront the day prior to surgery where preliminary preparation is accomplished. On the day of surgery, the patient is prepared and Bayfront personnel transport the patient through the underground connection to All Children's where the actual surgery takes place. Subsequent to the surgery, the patient will normally be kept over night at All Children's in a surgical ICU whereupon, barring complications, he is then transferred by Bay front personnel back to Bay front to continue recovery in a cardiac surgical ICU. The remainder of the recovery period, usually lasting about one week for an uncomplicated case, is accomplished at Bayfront, and upon completion of recovery, the patient is discharged from that hospital, returning there for out patient treatment in Bayfront's cardiac rehabilitation program. In an emergency situation, when an adult patient is presented directly to All Children's for angioplasty, All Children arranges with Bayfront to admit the patient there within 24 hours. For non-Medicare patients, each facility bills the appropriate insurance carrier or patient for the charges for services rendered by each hospital. The Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement mechanisms by which All Children's and Bayfront are paid for providing open heart surgery differ substantially from the norm. The Health Care Finance Administration, which administers thee Medicare program recognizes the Bayfront/All Children's shared open heart surgery program for adults and has structured its reimbursement mechanism in an appropriate manner to accommodate that shared status. The normal method of fixed DRG payments is not followed. Because of accreditation requirements, the process becomes somewhat complicated in that the patient must be discharged from one facility and admitted to the other for surgery and vice-versa for recovery. However, representatives of both facilities claim, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that this procedure does not impose any burden on the patient or his family nor does it affect the quality of care. In fact, under the program, both facilities have been able to maintain an excellent quality of care. The physicians who practice there and who testified for St. Anthony's, indicated some scheduling problems relating to the availability of operating rooms at a time desired by the surgeon, but these problems have not affected quality of care and are being resolved through more acute scheduling and the addition of the 2 new surgical suites at All Children's. Between the two facilities, there are 15 cardiologists on both staffs who refer open heart patients for surgery. There are also 3 cardiovascular surgeons on staff at the two facilities, all of whom are members of the same physician group which exclusively performs open heart surgery under the shared program and which provides backup for all angioplasties in the "Center" program. One of these, Dr. Daicoff, indicated that although he would prefer the development of a single state of the art heart institute to serve the future needs of southern Pinellas County, he and his group would provide angioplasty backup as well as do surgery at St. Anthony's if the capability were approved and if he could be convinced that the St. Anthony's program would achieve the same level of high quality currently enjoyed by Bayfront and All Children's. Recognizing that the likelihood of a centralized heart institute is remote, Dr. Daicoff favors the approval of St. Anthony's program. Open heart surgery is currently being performed at two other hospitals in HRS District V, (Pinellas and Pasco Counties). These are the Largo Medical Center and Morton F. Plant Hospital, both of which are located close to the Ulmerton Road dividing line in the center of Pinellas County. These two facilities provide the majority of open heart surgery in the northern portion of Pinellas County and in Pasco County. Nonetheless, an open heart program at Bayonet Point Hospital in Pasco County was approved in December, 1987, not because of numerical need for the project, but because the applicant also sought approval for cardiac catheterization services. In that case, a need was shown for cardiac catheterization services in Pasco County, and a lab at Bayonet Point was approved. Because of the Department rule requiring open heart surgery backup within 30 minutes of a cardiac catheterization lab, no such backup otherwise being available for the Bayonet Point facility, its program was approved as well. The service area for open heart surgery for the three hospital parties to this proceeding is the St. Petersburg, Florida area. At the present time there are no major referrals to All Children's for open heart surgery from outside this area to the adult program operated in conjunction with Bayfront. The adult program at All Children's/Bayfront is centered around southern Pinellas County, an area in which the rate of growth is somewhat constant and not significant. The majority of growth in the county is located in the north end. For the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988, 268 adult open heart surgery procedures were performed at All Children's. During the same period, 160 children's cases were performed. During 1984, 257 adult and 48 pediatric open heart surgeries were performed at All Children's; during 1985, 215 adult and 75 pediatric; during 1986, 258 adult and 46 pediatric; and during 1987, 268 adult and 72 pediatric. If all theatres at All Children's were operated on a capacity basis, as many as 520 open heart procedures could be accomplished. This would require performing 2 surgeries per day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks per year. At the present time, nowhere near this load is being carried. St. Anthony's contends this would not be realistic. However, additional capacity exists at All Children's to accommodate increased open heart surgery if required. The proper time frame for determining the "actual use rate" referenced in the Department's rule for determining need assessment for new open heart surgery services is July, 1986 through June, 1987. During that period, 299 procedures, including pediatric, were performed at All Children's with 432 total procedures being performed at Largo and 392 at Morton F. Plant. This constitutes a total of 1,123 open heart procedures within the District. St. Anthony's contends that open heart surgery procedures by themselves, however, are net the only factor for consideration. Cardiac catheterization is no longer merely a diagnostic procedure but constitutes a place for acute intervention. Cardiac catheterization practice has increased radically and has carried with it an increase in open heart surgeries. St. Anthony's cannot fully implement a cardiac catheterization program by adding angioplasty without the concomitant open heart surgery capability required for the full operation of angioplasty and its related programs. Without an open heart capability at St. Anthony's, it's ability to provide a full array of non- open heart cardiac catheterization services is constrained. It urges that from a medical standpoint, it would be beneficial to the patient to have acute intervention and angioplasty available at that hospital rather than , as is presently the case, disrupting cardiac care and courting the danger of additional coronary problems, the risk of which is increased when a patient must be transported to another hospital for the angioplasty and acute intervention procedures. St. Anthony's asserts that it will lose its reputation, built up over a period of 40 years, for a continuum of quality care if it is not permitted to provide the required surgical background for acute intervention and angioplasty. This is, however, only speculation not supported by any evidence of record. Rule 10-5.011(f), F.A.C. contains a methodology for determining numerical need for new programs and utilization guidelines for existing and approved programs which the Department uses when assessing the need for new open heart surgery services. Under the terms of the rule, the Department is to consider applications in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria and will not normally approve applications for new open heart surgery programs in a service area unless the conditions of subparagraphs 8 and 11 are met. Subparagraph 8 provides a formula for computing the projected number of open heart surgical procedures in the service area for the year in which the proposed open heart surgery program would initiate service. This is to be not more than two years into the future. This number, projected for the target year, is determined by multiplying the actual use rate, (the number of procedures per 100,000 population) in the service area for the twelve month period beginning fourteen months prior to the letter of intent deadline for the batching cycle, by the projected population in the service area in the year service is to be initiated. As was stated above, the proper time frame for determining actual use was July, 1986 through June, 1987, and during that period, a total of 1,123 procedures, including pediatric procedures, were performed at the three existing facilities in District V. Midway through the fiscal year cited above, the total population in District V was 1,082,797, resulting in an actual use rate of 103.7 procedures per 100,000 population. The population projection for the planning horizon is 1,135,819 persons as July 1, 1989, and when the actual use rate of 103.7 per 100,000 is applied, it is anticipated that 1,178 will be performed by July, 1989, the first projected year for the St. Anthony's program, if approved. Once one has arrived at the projected number of procedures in the target year by applying the methodology contained in paragraph 8 of the rule, one turns to the provisions of subparagraph 11 of the rule which provides for no additional open heart surgery programs unless: ... the service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric heart cases per year; Subparagraph 11b provides: No additional open heart surgery programs shall be approved which will reduce the volume of existing open heart surgery facilities below 350 open heart procedures annually for adults and 130 pediatric heart procedures annually, 75 of which are open heart. In the state agency action report, the Department, in computing need for additional open heart programs, utilized a figure of 1,065 procedures in determining actual use rate which excluded surgeries performed upon children within the district at All Children's. At the hearing, the Department's representative, Mr. Jaffe, agreed that it would be more appropriate to utilize the entire number of procedures, including pediatric, (1,123), in order to develop a more accurate use rate. That is the figure which was used in the analysis in this Recommended Order. From a review of the provisions of subparagraph 11 of the rule, the 350 procedure standard is to be applied once estimated procedures during the target year are established. Since subparagraph 11a(I) provides for service volume of existing and approved programs, utilization of that figure results in a need for 3.4 programs based on the 1989 estimated procedures. Since 3 programs currently exist, (All Children's/Bayfront, Largo, and Morton F. Plant), and Bayonet Point's program has been approved, this results in a .6 open heart surgery program surplus. Even if Bayonet Point's program is not considered, then a need exists for only .4 programs which, when rounded down, is not sufficient to approve an additional program. Turning to the utilization provisions of subparagraph 11, it has been the Department's policy to determine utilization of existing programs for the time period over which the use rate is computed, here, July, 1986 through June, 1987. During that period, only 241 adult open heart procedures were performed at Bayfront/All Children's, and in the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988, the combined program accounted for 268 adult procedures. These numbers are not inconsistent with those used by St. Anthony's when adjustments are made to account for that portion of the total surgery figure which pertains to pediatric patients. They are also below the cutoff figure of 350 adult procedures for all existing or approved facilities in the District. St. Anthony's expert witness, Dr. Kolb, advanced an alternative theory that the "actual use rate" in the methodology established by rule should be adjusted to account for the out-migration of residents of District V to facilities outside the District for open heart surgery. She contended that the actual use rate had to account for all open heart surgeries performed on District residents regardless of where that surgery took place. If that theory were to be applied, then the total number of surgeries for the relevant time frame would have to increased from 1,123 to 1,883, and if that figure is incorporated in the rule computation, utilizing the 350 procedure unit of division, the calculation would show a 2.6 new program need if Bayfront Point were not taken into consideration. If it were, then the need, according to the expert, would be 1.6. Utilizing the Department's policy of rounding up or down as appropriate, even taking into account Bayonet Point, there would be a need for 2 new programs. However, St. Anthony's position is not well taken here. There is nothing in the Department's rule which by any reasonable interpretation can include an adjustment for out-migration. The Department has consistently applied its own rule to include only procedures performed at facilities in the district to determine actual use rate and this interpretation is both reasonable and justified. By statute, the Department is required to apply a uniform methodology. The data base available from all of the various districts within the state is not conducive to an application of an adjustment since double counting and the lack of uniformity appear inherent in any non-specified adjustment attempt. Another flaw in the expert's theory is that out-migrating patients would be recaptured by the development of additional programs within the district. This is not a justified assumption in that the out-migration occurs even though there is currently an underutilized capability within the district and it becomes obvious that many out-migrators go elsewhere for reasons totally unrelated to the availability of quality care within the district. Further, there is a substantial question as to the reliability of the data relied upon by St. Anthony's expert in her calculation of an assumed out-migration percentage. The expert relied upon Med Par data which reports on Medicare patients constituting 55 to 60 percent of the District V population. The expert's assumption that the same percentage of non-Medicare patients would out-migrate as Medicare patients do, is erroneous because experience has established that Medicare referral patterns do not necessarily match those appropriate to the rest of the population. Another factor to consider is that a substantial number of the people who make up the District V population are seasonal residents and many of these individuals return for major surgery, especially of an elective or non-emergency nature, to those areas from which they have come and with which they are most familiar and comfortable. St. Anthony's expert, in addition to suggesting an alternative to actual use rate, also suggests that instead of using a 350 procedure figure in calculating numerical need, a 200 procedure figure be used because of the independent pediatric program at All Children's Hospital. The Department urges that this be rejected on the basis that it ignores certain salient factors. One of these is that for the purpose of applying rule standards, All Children's/Bayfront's shared service qualifies as a single existing open heart surgery program. Also, open heart procedures, by their nature highly specialized and complex, require costly, highly specialized manpower and facility resources and the application of the rule procedure standard is, even in the eyes of Petitioner's planner, designed to limit unnecessary duplication of resources while maintaining a high quality of care. Petitioner shows no legitimate health care planning purpose for using any figure other than that called for by the rule and applied by the Department, which is found to be reasonable and appropriate. Moreover, there is a limited pool of nurses available to staff the specialized functions of an open heart surgery program or a CCU incident thereto. The nursing staff which works in these units is made up of specially trained individuals critical to the success of the program and it is generally difficult to recruit this caliber of nurse. In the event an additional facility, Petitioner, is authorized to establish its own separate program, it will have a substantial adverse impact on the staff situation at the existing facilities, and if basic economic principles apply, could result in an increase in nursing costs and a related increase in health care charges. Another factor to be considered is the potential for loss of patients at Bayfront/All Children's if the St. Anthony's operation is begun. One witness estimates a 42 percent (110 adult procedure) loss to Bayfront/All Children's based on the reasonable assumption that several of the cardiologists on staff at St. Anthony's, who currently refer patients to the group performing open heart surgery at All Children's, would begin to refer their patients to the "in house" capability at St. Anthony's where the surgery, now being performed at All Children's, would henceforth be accomplished. It is reasonable to expect that a substantial, if not 42 percent, loss will occur, and taken together, the loss of referrals and the loss of staff to St. Anthony's by the opening of that program would have a substantial adverse impact on the open heart surgery program at All Children's/Bayfront. This potential diminishment in the efficiency and quality of care in the existing open heart surgery program at All Children's/Bayfront, which may come about as the result in the reduction in number of adult patients treated there is not justified in that there is no showing that any group in District V, including the medically indigent, are receiving less than adequate treatment. Even assuming there 1:3 no need established utilizing the Department's numerical methodology, an applicant can successfully apply for a certificate of need if it shows there are "not normal" circumstances justifying award of the certificate. It has long been the Department's position that these "not normal" circumstances be raised by the applicant in the application prior to the completeness deadline in order for them to be legitimately heard, considered, and resolved at hearing. Review of the application submitted by St. Anthony's in this case fails to reveal that the applicant alleged or demonstrated any "not normal" circumstances and even that which might be so considered, the out- migration theory previously discussed herein, was not raised in the application, but only in the testimony of St. Anthony's expert at the hearing. Petitioner has shown no problems regarding financial accessibility nor has it shown that any identifiable subgroup within the district is having difficulty obtaining open heart services. Indigent patients are being served effectively and it was demonstrated that, as currently constituted, All Children's and Bayfront both provide a higher percentage of indigent care than does applicant, St. Anthony's. Assuming approval of St. Anthony's application, there is no indication it will increase its percentage of indigent care in the open heart surgery area above that which it already provides in the other services offered. Rule 10-5.011(f)4(a), FACE requires access to open heart surgery services within two hours for at least 90 percent of the service area population. There is no evidence offered by Petitioner to indicate that this standard is not being met by the existing facilities. St. Anthony's has not established by competent evidence its ability to recruit and maintain adequate, experienced staff to implement its open heart program if approved though, in reality, this may well be one of the lesser problems involved and, as was stated previously, there was no showing that approval of its program would, by enhancing competition, lower costs for health care services. Quite the contrary, it appears that St. Anthony's program would constitute an unnecessary duplication of a specialized service and would have an adverse impact upon the All Children's/Bayfront program and, possibly, the others within the district. Petitioner's evidence of prospective charges for open heart surgery, showing it to anticipate lower charges than Largo and Plant, is somewhat irrelevant in that those two facilities are located in an area of the district which does not fall within the primary service area considered here. Petitioner contends that the Department's approval of a CON for open heart surgery by Humana-Brandon, in District VI, and its approval of a certificate for open heart surgery for Tallahassee Community Hospital, in District III, are inconsistent with its denial of its application in District V. For a variety of reasons, other than the fact that the districts are different and the conditions dissimilar, there is little inconsistency involved. Granting approval of a CON for open heart surgery to St. Anthony's creates a legitimate concern that approval would cause the currently existing All Children's/Bayfront program to drop well below the 200 annual procedures considered necessary for quality of care. Further, in the Tallahassee area, a "not normal" situation existed which does not exist here. The geographical separation of alternative facilities in the Tallahassee area is substantially different and creates an entirely different picture that which exists in the District V/District VI area. Taken together, then, it is found that application of the numerical need and ancillary provisions of rule 10-5.011, F.A.C. demonstrates no numerical need for a new program and approval and implementation of St. Anthony's application would likely result in a diminishment, as opposed to enhancement, of the quality of open heart surgery care in the District as well as an increase rather than a decrease in health care costs. Further, it is found that there are no "not normal" circumstances, aliunde the numerical need, to justify approval of Petitioner's application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the application of St. Anthony's Hospital for approval of a certificate of need to establish and operate an open heart surgery program at its facility in St. Petersburg, Florida be denied. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of February, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0637 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By St. Anthony's Hospital: Accepted and incorporated herein Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted in so far as open heart surgery is not done at Bayfront. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein 14. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein 23. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein Rejected as not proven Rejected Rejected & 31. Accepted and incorporated herein Rejected & 34. Accepted and incorporated herein Last sentence rejected. Balance accepted. & 37. Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein Rejected. There was no showing any patient from St. Anthony's has been harmed by transfer to All Children's nor that patients or their families are dissatisfied. - 42. Rejected as not supported by evidence of record. 43. - 47. Accepted and incorporated herein 48. & 49. Accepted 50. & 51. Accepted as to total procedures in District V but rejected as to the conclusion that-all existing providers are performing at a level of more than 350 adult open heart surgeries per year. While Largo and Plant may, All Children's/Bayfront is not. 52. & 53. Accepted Rejected as not supported by the evidence Accepted as a cite to the pertinent rule - 59. Rejected. Out-migration is not a proper factor for consideration under statute or rule Accepted as to the rule not addressing mixed programs. - 63. Rejected as not consistent with the rule and proper implementation of the need methodology thereunder. The conclusion that all existing programs in District 10 are currently operating at more than 350 procedures annually is rejected. All Children's is not. Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein & 68. Rejected. Use of figures attributable to out- migration is not provided for or permitted by the rule. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted Irrelevant. Even if true, there is no showing of the reason or that petitioner would capture these patients. Accepted Accepted Accepted & 76. Rejected. Cited provision of application stated "may" indicate, not "did' indicate. In addition, MEDPAR data relates only to Medicare patients and an extrapolation of that figure is not necessarily reliable. Accepted Accepted but not considered controlling in that the rule provides time reference for use in the methodology. Not established & 81. Accepted 82. Rejected as not supported by any independent evidence of record. Accepted - 87. Accepted 88. & 89. Rejected. Bayfront's application was withdrawn. 90. Accepted By the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1.-18. Accepted and incorporated herein 19. & 20. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein 24. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein 27. - 29. Accepted and incorporated herein 30. - 32. Accepted and incorporated herein 33. & 34. Accepted and incorporated herein 35. Accepted and incorporated herein 36. & 37. Accepted 38. - 40. Accepted and incorporated herein 41. No ruling. Not understood. 42. Accepted and incorporated herein 43. Accepted and incorporated herein 44. Accepted and incorporated herein 45. - 47. Accepted and incorporated herein 48. Accepted 49. - 55. Accepted and incorporated herein 56. Accepted 57. Accepted and incorporated herein 58. & 59. Accepted and incorporated herein 60. & 61. Accepted and incorporated herein 62. Accepted and incorporated herein 63. & 64. Accepted 65. Accepted and incorporated herein 66. Accepted 67. Accepted and incorporated herein 68. Accepted 69. Accepted By All Children's Hospital 1. - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein 4. & 5. Accepted 6. & 7. Rejected as a summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact 8. & 9. Accepted 10. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein 20. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein 23. & 24. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein 28. - 30. Accepted and incorporated herein 31. & 32. Accepted Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein & 36. Accepted and incorporated herein By Bayfront Medical Center 1. - 3. Not Findings of Fact 4. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein 9. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein 11. & 12. Not Findings of Fact 13. - 49. Accepted and incorporated herein 50. & 51. Accepted and incorporated herein 52. & 53. Accepted and incorporated herein 64. - 56. Accepted and incorporated herein 57. - 68. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein - 72(c). Accepted and incorporated herein 72(d). Argument, not Finding of Fact 72(e).- 72(1). Accepted and incorporated herein Not a Finding of Fact Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted & 77. Accepted Not a Finding of Fact - 81. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein - 86. Accepted and incorporated herein 87. & 88. Accepted and incorporated herein Merely a comment on the evidence Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted & 95. Accepted Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein & 99. Accepted 100. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ivan Wood, Esquire Wood, Lusksinger & Epstein Four Houston Center 1221 Lamar, Suite 1400 Houston, Texas 77010 John H. Parker, Jr., Esquire Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs 1200 Carnegie Building 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Steven M. Presnell, Esquire Lee Elzie, Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison and Kelly 804 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire H. Darrell White, Jr., Esquire McFarlain, Sternstein, Wiley and Cassedy, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact In June 1983 Delray filed an application with HRS for a CON for a cardiac catheterization laboratory and open heart surgery service for its hospital in Delray, Palm Beach County, Florida. During the same batching cycle, JFK/HI filed an application for a CON to establish a cardiac catheterization laboratory on the campus of John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital in Atlantis, Palm Beach County, Florida. The Delray application was reviewed as one application by HRS. In November 1983, and during a subsequent batching cycle, JFK filed an application for a CON to establish an open heart surgery program. Delray Community Hospital is located in the Medical Center at Delray, the geographic center of the southern half of Palm Beach County. The Medical Center already does or will include a 160-bed acute care hospital (with a 51-bed addition in progress) a 120-bed skilled nursing facility, a 72-bed psychiatric hospital, a 60-bed rehabilitation hospital, an adult congregate living facility, medical office buildings and a shopping mall. Delray intends to perform coronary angioplasty in its cardiac catheterization laboratory. Delray is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. JFK is a 333-bed acute care hospital located in Atlantis, Florida, adjacent to Lake Worth, Florida, in central Palm Beach County. It is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. The hospital presently offers a full range of acute care services, including blood banking and renal dialysis. HRS has recently approved the establishment of a cancer center, outpatient surgery center, and psychiatric unit at JFK. PBGMC is an acute care hospital located in Palm Beach Gardens, the northern portion of Palm Beach County. The hospital offers cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services. The great majority of PBGMC's cardiac patients reside in Martin County, northern Palm Beach County, Ft. Pierce, and Okeechobee. Approximately 80 percent of JFK's patients reside in the communities of Lake Worth, West Palm Beach, and Lantana, all of which are in central Palm Beach County. Delray's primary service area is located in the southern part of Palm Beach County and includes the City of De1ray, unincorporated Delray, sections of western Boynton Beach, and some sections of western Boca Raton. Approximately 75 percent of Delray's patients are drawn from its primary service area. Delray's service area is also described as that area of Palm Beach County between Hypoluxo Road and the Broward County line. JFK is north of Hypoluxo Road. Accordingly, the Delray primary service area does not overlap with the JFK Primary service area. North Ridge is an acute care hospital located in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. The hospital offers cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services. The general service area of the hospital is primarily north Broward County. The facility also draws patients from southern Palm Beach County. North Ridge is located in HRS District Ten. Delray, JFK, and PBGMC, however, are located in HRS District Nine. District Nine is comprised of the following counties: Palm Beach, Martin, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, and Indian River. The service area for cardiac catheterization services and for open heart surgery services consists of the entire service district. At the present time, the only cardiac catheterization laboratory and open heart surgery service in HRS District Nine are located at PBGMC. In 1986, the Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research projects that just over one million people will live in District Nine. Approximately 70 percent of the population of District Nine lives in Palm Beach County, and 30 percent lives in the four remaining counties to the north. Ninety percent of the population living within HRS District Nine live within 2 hours travel time, under average travel conditions, of Delray and JFK. Section 10-5.11(15)(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides a formula for computing the number of cardiac catheterization laboratories needed in a District. A two-year planning horizon is used in determining need. In HRS District Nine, a 1981 statewide use rate is employed in the formula since there were no existing cardiac catheterization laboratories in the District in 1981. According to the need formula, there is a 1986 need for five cardiac catheterization laboratories in District Nine. Subtracting the one existing laboratory leaves a net need of four cardiac catheterization laboratories in the District. The need formula for determining the number of open heart surgery programs in the District is found in Section 10-5.11(16)(h), Florida Administrative Code. A two-year planning horizon is used in computing the need for this service. In HRS District Nine, a 1981 statewide use rate is utilized in the formula because there were no open heart surgery programs in the District in 1981. According to this formula, there is a need in HRS District Nine for three open heart surgery programs, or a net need for two programs in the District. Section 10-5.11(15)(o), Florida Administrative Code, provides that no additional cardiac catheterization laboratories shall be established in a service area unless the average number of procedures performed by existing laboratories is greater than six hundred. The PBGMC laboratory was established in 1982 and has yet to perform six hundred procedures on an annualized basis. Each expert health planner agreed that the applications at issue should be granted, notwithstanding PBGMC's inability to meet the six hundred procedure standard at this time, in that: the projected need for cardiac catheterization services in District Nine is overwhelming; there has been significant growth in the number of procedures performed at PBGMC; based upon such growth, and PBGMC's own projections, it is likely that PBGMC will perform six hundred procedures in 1984; PBGMC's laboratory) is still in a "start-up" phase; and PBGMC expects minimal impact from the approval of these applications. Section 10-5.11(16)(k), Florida Administrative Code, provides that no additional open heart surgery programs shall be established within a service area unless each existing open heart surgery program within the area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 surgery cases per year. The PBGMC open heart surgery program was established in November, 1983, and has yet to perform 350 cases on an annual basis. The expert health planners agree that pending applications should be granted, nonetheless, in that; the projected need for open heart surgery services in District Nine is overwhelming; the PBGMC program just began operation; PBGMC projects that it will reach the 350 procedures a year standard in its own application for open heart surgery services; and the PBGMC program has experienced tremendous growth in utilization during its first several months of operation. Historically, Palm Beach County residents needing cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services have been referred to Broward County and Dade County hospitals. This referral pattern is not in the best interest of the patients, patients' families, or treating physicians. There is potential for danger, even death, to the patient in transport, the patient does not receive continuity in care from his/her primary physician, and psycho-social problems exist for patients and families. While the cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgery programs in Broward County may he within two hours' travel time of many of the residents of District Nine, it was demonstrated that it is neither reasonable nor economical for patients in District Nine to travel to Broward County for cardiac catheterization or open heart surgery. It is the policy of JFK to admit all patients who demonstrate a need for service, and JFK participates fully in the Medicaid program. This policy will be consistent for cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services at JFK. Delray is in the process and will obtain a Medicaid contract for indigent patients using cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services at Delray since Delray believes it has an obligation to provide such regional services to all in need. Based on projected need and the intentions of JFK medical staff cardiologists and internists regarding utilization of the proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory, JFK will perform 300 cardiac catheterization procedures annually within its first three years of operation. Delray's financial projections for the cardiac catheterization laboratory were based on 520 procedures performed during the lab's first year of operation and 650 procedures during the lab's second year of operation. These projections are reasonable in light of the number of procedures needed according to the applicable need methodology and the number of cases presently being referred out of Palm Beach County by physicians using JFK and Delray. The service costs for the proposed JFK laboratory and for the proposed Delray laboratory are comparable to the cost for such services at other facilities in the area. Both Delray and JFK have the financial resources to provide capital for the proposed cardiac catheterization laboratories. There have been significant advances in the technology regarding cardiac catheterizations. Catheterization is no longer simply a diagnostic tool, but can also be used in the emergency treatment of heart attack victims. However, to be effective, the catheterization service must be quickly available in a facility close to the patient. Further, more coronary angioplasty is being performed, a procedure that takes longer and reduces the capacity of cardiac catheterization laboratories. Approval of cardiac catheterization laboratories at Delray and at JFK should positively impact and help reduce mortality rates for cardiovascular diseases in District Nine. Regional, or tertiary care, services should be located in the major metropolitan areas. In District Nine, Palm Beach County is the major population base, accounting for 70 percent of the District's population. It is not reasonable, from a planning perspective to establish an open heart surgery program in an area with a relatively small population base. Open heart surgery is a very sophisticated service, in relation to general acute care services. In order to operate a quality open heart surgery program, a hospital needs access to adequate resources relative to staff and other facility capabilities. Delray already has a number of existing programs and departments in place which can economically be utilized with a catheterization lab and open heart surgery service. Delray has one operating room sized as a primary open heart surgery room and another room sized as a backup operating room for open heart surgery. In addition Delray has departments for nuclear medicine, respiratory therapy, physical therapy, and various types of imaging, which can be utilized in a cardiovascular program. Delray also can take advantage of national purchasing contracts through NME which should result in cost savings to the patients. In that the open heart surgery suite at JFK was constructed pursuant to JFK's recent expansion and renovation of its surgery department, any indirect overhead expense associated with the implementation of the JFK open heart surgery program is insignificant, as such costs are already being absorbed by the facility. Based on projected need and the intentions of JFK medical staff cardiologists and internists regarding utilization of the proposed program, JFK will perform 200 open heart surgery procedures annually within the first three years of operation. Delray has projected that it will perform 195 open heart surgeries during year one and 270 open heart surgery procedures during the second year of operation. These projections are reasonable in light of the number of procedures projected by the applicable need methodology described above and in light of the number of cases referred out of District Nine by physicians on staff at Delray and JFK. JFK did not utilize Medicare DRG rates in preparing its pro forma statement of income and expense in that it sought to determine the feasibility of the utilization of the surgical suite to perform open heart surgery, rather than considering all costs and revenues associated with the patient's hospital stay. Although the hospital will be reimbursed by Medicare on a DRG basis, it is difficult to project accurately on that basis, as JFK's DRG rates have already changed three times in six months. The pro forma contained in JFK's application for a CON to establish open heart surgery services assumed DRG implementation. That pro forma, if projected forward to 1986, the year in which the service will be instituted, still shows the project to be financially feasible. On the other hand, Delray projected its expenses using the DRG rates although it has no contract obligating it to use those rates at the present time. Even so, by considering all directly related expenses, Delray has demonstrated that its cardiac cath lab and open heart surgery service would be financially feasible on an immediate and long-term basis. Delray's projected costs and charges are comparable to or lower than the charges established by other institutions in the service area. Likewise, the charges for open heart surgery at JFK will be comparable to charges established by similar institutions in the service area. Both Delray and JFK have adequate capital resources to establish open heart surgery programs. Neither Delray nor JFK should have any problem recruiting fully qualified cardiovascular surgeons based upon the overwhelming need for the programs, based upon the desirability of working and living in the Palm Beach County area, and based upon the recent experience of PBGMC, which hospital has just recently recruited a cardiovascular surgeon for its program. Neither PBGMC nor North Ridge participate in the Medicaid program. Accordingly, the approval of open heart surgery programs (and cardiac catheterization laboratories) at Delray (which will obtain a Medicaid contract) and at JFK (which already has a Medicaid contract), will result in the availability of cardiac services to indigent and Medicaid patients in District Nine for the first time ever. At the time of the final hearing, the open heart surgery service at PBGMC had been in operation less than six months. However, that service was experiencing rapid growth. The service areas of PBGMC and Delray for cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery do not overlap to any significant extent. Less than 3 percent of the PBGMC cath lab and open heart surgery patients come from the Delray service area. A cath lab and open heart surgery service at Delray will have no impact on the ability of PBGMC to obtain and maintain the minimum number of procedures required by the applicable rules. Although PBGMC, located in northern Palm Beach County, may he impacted by JFK located in central Palm Beach County, the record is clear that most of PBGMC's cardiac patients reside in northern Palm Beach County - Stuart, Ft. Pierce, Okeechobee, and Belle Glade, all of which are located outside of Palm Beach County. Accordingly, PBGMC has become a primary provider of cardiac services to the residents of the four counties in District Nine north of Palm Beach County. Therefore, the approval of open heart surgery programs (in addition to cardiac catheterization laboratories) at Delray and JFK will result in a highly appropriate locating of facilities according to health planning standards: Delray serving the residents of southern Palm Beach County, JFK serving the residents of central Palm Beach County, and PBGMC serving the residents of northern Palm Beach County and the four counties north of Palm Beach County. Moreover, the approval of all applications herein will result for the first time in cardiac services being reasonably and economically accessible to residents of District Nine. Although North Ridge failed to prove any impact it would suffer from approval of the programs sought by JFK, it is likely that North Ridge will experience some loss of patients from south Palm Beach County if Delray opens a high-quality cardiac catheterization laboratory and open heart surgery program. However, it is not likely that Delray will immediately begin to serve 100 percent of the patients in south Palm Beach County requiring those services, and North Ridge can still continue to compete for those patients. Further, the only impact shown by North Ridge from the loss of patients from Palm Beach County is economic. More significantly, any financial losses that might be experienced by North Ridge can be more than offset by reducing some of its current expenses. During its last fiscal year, North Ridge paid over $11 million to related companies, including a $3.7 million management fee which was shown to be exorbitant. More than $4.5 million of the monies paid to related companies was not permitted by Medicare as reimbursable costs. It was also shown that North Ridge is overstaffed and is paying an excessive amount for supplies for its cardiac catheterization laboratory and open heart surgery program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: Dismissing the petitions of North Ridge, PBGMC, and Delray in opposition to the JFK applications in that each of the Petitioners and Intervenors have failed to demonstrate standing to contest the JFK applications; Dismissing the petitions of North Ridge and PBGMC in opposition to the Delray application in that each has failed to demonstrate standing to contest the Delray application; and Granting Certificates of Need to Delray and JFK for cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgery services. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard M. Benton, Esquire P. O. Box 1833 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1833 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire 318 North Monroe Street P. O. Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 C. Gary Williams, Esquire Michael J. Glazer, Esquire P. O. Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert Weiss, Esquire Perkins House, Suite 101 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Gilroy 318 North Calhoun Street P. O. Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3300 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's applications for certificates of need to institute cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth F. Hoffman Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones and Gay Post Office Box 1872 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert M. Eisenberg District IV Legal Counsel Post Office Box 2417-F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Charles Collette Art Forehand, Administrator Assistant General Counsel Office of Community Medical Department of HRS Facilities 1317 Winewood Boulevard Department of HRS Tallahassee, Florida 32301 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether this case presents "not normal circumstances" that lead to award to St. Anthony's Hospital, Inc., of a certificate of need for an Open Heart Surgery program?
Findings Of Fact The parties and existing programs in District 5. St. Anthony's Hospital, Inc., the applicant for CON No. 7418 (the subject of this proceeding), is a not-for-profit corporation. Its facility, St. Anthony's Hospital, at which the adult open heart surgery program would be operated if CON No. 7418 were granted, is a 427-bed licensed general community hospital providing adult acute medical services in surgery, psychiatry and obstetrics. Located south of Ulmerton Road in Pinellas County, (generally considered "South Pinellas County,") St. Anthony's also provides home health care, family medicine clinics, outreach education, health screening and occupational health. Also located in South Pinellas County are Bayfront Medical Center, All Children's Hospital, and Northside Hospital. Northside is not a party to this proceeding although it recently received approval for a CON to provide open heart surgery services. Northside is located 6-1/2 to 7 miles from St. Anthony's and provides services in the same service area. Bayfront Medical Center, Inc., is one of two intervenors in this proceeding. Its facility, Bayfront Medical Center is a 518-bed, acute care, not-for-profit hospital located within the limits of the city of St. Petersburg and 1.7 miles from St. Anthony's. It offers cardiac, cancer and emergency services as well as a Level II trauma center. Bayfront also maintains a large women's and children's program, a rehabilitation center and a neurology program. Its cardiology program includes adult and pediatric cardiac catheterization, angioplasty and open heart surgery. But the open heart surgery program is shared with All Children's Hospital. Pre-operative and post-operative patient care is Bayfront's responsibility. The actual surgery takes place on the premises of All Children's. All Children's Hospital is a research hospital affiliated with the University of South Florida College of Medicine. Most importantly, and certainly most pertinent to this case, it is a dedicated Class II pediatric specialty hospital, one of two pediatric specialty hospitals in Florida, and one of only 47 in the nation. It provides, therefore, primary, secondary and tertiary care for children, in addition to the open heart surgery services it provides adults. Its cardiac surgery program was grandfathered under CON law to begin children's cardiac surgery in 1975. At the time of the grandfathering, All Children's was asked by state officials to consider adult cardiac surgery services as well. The hospital trustees and medical staff agreed and began a combined pediatric/adult open heart surgery program in 1976. As explained, above, the adult program is shared with Bayfront. All Children's Hospital is not a party to this proceeding. Largo Medical Center, Inc.'s facility, Largo Medical Center is a 256- bed, acute-care hospital specializing in cardiology and open heart surgery. Largo, the other intervenor in the proceeding, is located in AHCA's District 5 but outside South Pinellas County, as are two other open heart surgery programs: a program at Morton F. Plant Hospital in Clearwater and a program at HCA Bayonet Point/Hudson Medical Center located in Hudson in Pasco County. Morton F. Plant Hospital and HCA Bayonet Point/Hudson Medical Center are not participants in this proceeding. The Agency for Health Care Administration is the single state agency authorized by Section 408.034(1), Florida Statutes, to issue or deny certificates of need, "written statements ... evidencing community need for a new ... health service [such as an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program.]" Section 408.032(2), Florida Statutes. Standing of the Intervenors. Over half of Largo's open heart surgery patients originate from St. Anthony's defined service area and 35 percent from South Pinellas County. If St. Anthony's achieves its projected volume, Largo likely will lose 35 percent of its open heart surgery patients in the third year of operation. A loss of that number of patients will contribute to a substantial loss of revenue to Largo. As concerns Bayfront's standing to intervene in this proceeding, St. Anthony's purpose in seeking a CON for an open heart surgery program is to obtain authorization for a program to take the place of the All Children's/Bayfront adult open heart surgery program. As counsel for St. Anthony's made clear in oral representation during hearing, whether made clear from the face of St. Anthony's application or not, the application is a "replacement application for Bayfront/All Children's [open heart surgery program]." (Tr. 208.) Filing of the CON application Under cover of a certification of its authorized agent dated September 17, 1993, St. Anthony's Hospital, Inc., filed an application for Certificate of Need 7418 with the Agency for Health Care Administration. The application seeks expansion of existing cardiology services at St. Anthony's health care facility in Pinellas County to include an on-site program for adult open heart surgery. d . Background This is not the first time St. Anthony's has initiated proceedings to obtain a CON for open heart surgery. It has filed applications before because of its concern that South Pinellas County is not being served appropriately by the adult open heart services program shared by Bayfront Medical Center and All Children's Hospital. In the application in this case, St. Anthony's describes its previous attempts in this way: ... St. Anthony's has on eight occasions, since 1987, applied for a Certificate of Need to provide open heart surgery services. Each application has either been denied, or was withdrawn by St. Anthony's based on represent- ations St. Anthony's received that All Children's/Bayfront shared program was adequate and appropriate to meet the needs of south Pinellas adult open heart patients. St. Anthony's has historically deferred to All Children's so as not to unnecessarily duplicate services. St. Anthony's Ex. 1, p 27. In CON application 7396, filed July 14, 1993, All Children's Hospital requested AHCA to allow the hospital "to discontinue services to the adult cardiac surgery population effective June 30, 1994 ...". St. Anthony's Ex. No. 20, attachment at p.7. The reason for the request was that All Children's had experienced and projected to continue to experience growth in its pediatric surgery caseload. Since "All Children's mission and legal responsibility lies with Florida's children ... the [hospital's] obvious difficulty ... [was] how to continue dealing with a growing pediatric patient load with decreasing availability of facilities." Id. At the same time, although not increasing as rapidly as children's surgery, the growth of the caseload for adult open heart surgery, as of the summer of 1993, was continuing in St. Petersburg. As a licensed pediatric hospital, All Children's opined in CON Application 7396, [W]e are unable to expand the adult program in even a moderate fashion and are unable to provide the true continuum of adult cardiac care that adult cardiologists and surgeons believe to be needed in the community. Only an adult licensed hospital can provide those services and allow for future growth. Id., at 8. With regard to the growing pediatric patient load threatened by decreasing availability of facilities, the application projected, "a true crisis within one year in the surgery, SICU area if adjustments are not made to alleviate the situation." Id. The crisis, however, did not materialize. As of June 20, 1994, nearly one year after the filing of the withdrawal application, the President and Chief Executive Officer of All Children's Hospital was of the opinion that there was not a crisis in the care of pediatric patients. Nor was there a crisis in the care of adult open heart surgery patients. In fact, adult open heart surgery patients were receiving very high quality care within one year of the projection of crisis made in the application. The application to terminate the open heart surgery program was withdrawn prior to June 20, 1994. All Children's withdrew the application in response to wishes expressed in the community that the program be continued. Nonetheless, St. Anthony's viewed the representations made by All Children's in CON application 7396 to "impeach any continued suggestion by All Children's or Bayfront that the existing shared services agreement is a normal or appropriate setting for adult open heart services." St. Anthony's Ex. No. 1, pg. 27. It filed, therefore, the application that initiated this proceeding. Transfer Stress and Limitations of the All Chidren's/Bayfront OHS program. After pre-operative care at Bayfront, adult open heart surgery patients are transferred through an enclosed corridor connecting Bayfront to All Children's. The same corridor is used to transfer the patients back to Bayfront for appropriate post- operative care following the surgery and intensive care at All Children's. Patients typically suffer stress when being transferred from one institution to another. They certainly suffer "transfer stress" when being transferred from St. Anthony's to Bayfront for open heart surgery in the All Children's/Bayfront program, just as they would suffer stress in transfers from Bayfront to St. Anthony's were St. Anthony's application to be granted and were the St. Anthony program to take the place of the All Children's/Bayfront program. Typical transfer time, however, between Bayfront and All Children's is only about five minutes. Most patients do not realize they are going from one institution to another. Although the arrangement is less than ideal, it is doubtful that open heart surgery patients suffer stress due to the transfers from Bayfront to All Children's and back again. There are, however, some drawbacks with regard to angioplasty patients in the All Children's adult program. Ambulation of angioplasty patients cannot be appropriately observed postoperatively at All Children's because there are not telemetry facilities available at All Children's for observation. There are such facilities at Bayfront and the patients may be observed there post- operatively once out of the intensive care unit at All Children's. Carlos M. Estevez, M.D., is a cardiologist with St. Petersburg Medical Clinic with active privileges at St. Anthony's, Bayfront, All Children's and Edward White Hospital. Beds have been unavailable postoperatively for adult therapeutic anigoplasty patients of his on occasion at All Children's. The patients have been required to be transferred to Bayfront or back to St. Anthony's, with French sheaths in their groin, a less- than-ideal situation. Dr. Estevez' therapeutic anigoplasty patients requiring open heart backup at All Children's are typically discharged from All Children's after spending the night in the intensive care unit. For the average angioplasty patient, intensive care services are an overutilization of services. Dr. Estevez believes "crisis" would be a fair term to describe the current situation for his angioplasty patients in the All Children's/Bayfront program. Not Normal Circumstances Part of CON review is to look for factors the application shows to be "beyond the norm," or "any unusual circumstances." AHCA's interrogatory answer responded with regard to defining "not normal circumstances," in this way: There is no definition for "not normal circum- stances." In the absense (sic) of a projected numeric need pursuant to a fixed pool publication, an applicant may demonstrate valid need, justi- fiable evidence of situations or occurrences in a service area which are not accounted for such as access problems, which may support approval. St. Anthony's Ex. 7, p. 9. Circumstances of the All Children's/Bayfront Program. As a dedicated Class II pediatric specialty hospital, All Children's, alone, cannot provide the continuum of care needed by adult open heart surgery patients. Its provision of services, as stated above, is limited to surgery and postoperative intensive care. Other services in the continuum of care required by adult open heart surgery patients include admission to an emergency room, and pre-operative coronary care as well as post-operative care (other than intensive care) all the way through cardiac rehabilitation. The components of the continuum other than the actual surgery and post-op intensive care are provided by Bayfront and other hospitals. Despite All Children's inability to provide "continuum of care," by itself, to adult open heart surgery patients, the care provided the open heart surgery patient in the All Children's/Bayfront program is of high quality. All Children's physical site is limited for future growth both as to the adult open heart program and its pediatric programs. The physical outer limits of the hospital building are right on the property line, "all the way around. It has no room to expand." St. Anthony's Ex. No. 20. But for physical limitations, All Children's pediatric services would expand because the need for expansion in the pediatric program exists. The inability of the pediatric programs to expand compromises All Children's mission: pediatric care in a hospital dedicated to pediatrics. The adult open heart surgery program, if withdrawn, would free All Children's somewhat for further pediatric program growth both as to resources and space. But All Children's is no longer trying to withdraw from the program. All Children's board of trustees believes that only an adult licensed hospital can provide the continuum of care needed for adult open heart surgery patients and allow for future growth. Moreover, it is not possible to put together a competitive adult open heart pricing structure for the continuum of care that one hospital could provide when adult open heart surgery patients are being transferred from All Children's to and from other hospitals in order to provide the full continuum of care. AHCA's Response to the Application. AHCA's response to the application was denial based on a determination of no need to support the application. After review, AHCA determined that the application did not demonstrate that St. Anthony's could support sufficient volume even were the All Children's/Bayfront program to become non-operational. There was, however, an even more fundamental objection to granting the application on the part of the agency. As Elizabeth Dudek, Chief of the Certificate of Need and Budget Review sections of the agency, explained with regard to St. Anthony's premise that the application seeks to have its program "replace" the All Children's/Bayfront adult open heart surgery program, I don't understand that premise. I don't understand it because, one, the All Children's/ Bayfront program is still operational. There is no indication that the All Children's/Bayfront program has somehow indicated that it would relinquish its program volume to St. Anthony's. dditionally, ... by law they wouldn't be able to [accomplish a transfer] through the CON program, you can't transfer [or replace] a program ... Tr. 1534, ll. 2-12. Need. For those in need of open heart surgery services in South Pinellas County, there is another facility in South Pinellas County at which the services can be obtained: Northside. As for all of AHCA District 5, there are other facilities at which open heart surgery services are available. There is no evidence, despite the inability of the All Children's/Bayfront adult program to expand, that the needs of those requiring high quality open heart surgery services in South Pinellas County or AHCA District 5 are going unmet.
The Issue Whether the second and third sentences of Rule 59C-1.033(7)(c), Florida Administrative Code, are invalid? If so, whether they may be severed from the remainder of the Rule?
Findings Of Fact Subparagraph (7)(c) of the Rule states: Regardless of whether need for a new adult open heart surgery program is shown in paragraph (b) above, a new adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved for a district if the approval would reduce the 12 month total at an existing adult open heart surgery program in the district below 350 open heart surgery operations. In determining whether this condition applies, the Agency will calculate (Uc x Px)(OP + 1). If the result is less than 350, no additional open heart surgery program shall normally be approved. (Emphasis supplied to indicate the challenged portion of the Rule.) The first sentence sets forth the objective and intent of subparagraph (7)(c) of the Rule: unless there are "not normal circumstances," a new open heart surgery program will not be approved in a district if the approval would reduce the volume below 350 procedures annually at any existing OHS provider in the district. This is the intent and objective of the sentence despite the use of the word "an" to modify the term "existing adult open heart surgery program in the district" used toward the end of the sentence. As was testified by the Agency representative: [T]he entire notion of the rule, the entire intent of the rule is that existing providers maintain the 350 level. I mean, [there's] no question about that, so that has to be considered. (Tr. 3287). Indeed, intent that it is desirable for individual existing OHS providers to perform 350 procedures in 12-month periods is expressed elsewhere in the Rule. And that goal is so desirable, in fact, that new programs in a district are not under normal circumstances to be approved if the 350 level has not been met recently by an existing provider in the district: (7) Adult Open Heart Surgery Program Need Determination. (a) A new adult open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved in the district if any of the following conditions exist: * * * One or more of the operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for at least 12 months as of 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool; . . . Rule 59C-1.033, F.A.C., (e.s.). Given the clear intent of the Rule as a whole and of the first sentence of subparagraph (7)(c), the formula in the challenged portion of the Rule (the "formula"), should be used to measure and determine whether the approval of a new OHS program would reduce the annual volume of OHS procedures at any existing OHS provider below 350. Under the formula, adult open heart surgeries are projected for each service district. The resulting number is divided by the number of existing OHS programs plus one new OHS program. If calculation results in a number less than 350, the third sentence of the subparagraph purports to carry out the intent of the first sentence of subparagraph (7)(c), that is, "no additional open heart surgery program shall normally be approved." For example, assume 3000 OHS are projected for a service district with five existing programs. Under the formula, 3000 would be divided by six (the existing five plus the proposed program). The result is 500, and the operation of the subparagraph does not prohibit a new OHS program. If, on the other hand, a volume for the district of 3000 were projected and there were eight existing providers, the addition of a ninth program would bring the average below 350 and, by operation of the third sentence, prohibit the approval of a new program. The challenged portion of the Rule, however, does not necessarily implement the objective of the first sentence of subparagraph (7)(c). The calculations in the challenged portion do not determine whether the volume at any specific provider would fall below 350 as the result of a new program. Instead, the calculations measure only the "average" volumes at existing programs plus one new one. A program operating slightly above 350 (such as CRMC), with the addition of a new program (such as the one proposed by Venice) in close enough proximity that their primary service areas significantly overlap, could drop below 350, even though the number of OHS procedures in the district is calculated district-wide to increase and even though the average calculated by the formula exceeds 350. Such a result increases in likelihood when one of the providers in the district (such as Memorial) is projected to have volume significantly above 350. Illustrations of the ineffectiveness of the challenged portion for achieving the clear objective set forth in the first sentence of subpararaph (7)(c) are in CRMC Exhibit no. 58. For example, in 1997, existing OHS providers in District 8 had an average volume of 716. That year CRMC performed only 369 OHS procedures. Had Venice commenced an OHS program in 1997, adverse impact analysis and service area overlap as used by Mr. Baehr in this proceeding show that CRMC would have dropped below 350 procedures in 1997, while the district average would have remained well above 350 despite the addition of a new program.
