The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's applications to renew licenses for two Residential Level II facilities in Davenport, Florida, should be denied and a $2,500.00 fine imposed for the reasons given in the Department of Children and Families' (Department) Amended Denial of Applications & Imposition of Fines issued on February 8, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Background The Department is charged with the responsibility of regulating the licensing and operation of residential treatment facilities pursuant to chapter 397, Florida Statutes (2017). Petitioner is a Delaware limited liability corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida. Subject to the outcome of this proceeding, Petitioner is licensed to operate two Residential Level II facilities in Davenport under the name Cares Treatment. One facility is located at 146 Sunset View Drive (Case No. 18-0230), the other at 389 Sand Ridge Drive (Case No. 18-0234). The licenses were issued on December 15, 2016, and were to expire on December 14, 2017. Each license authorizes Petitioner to "provide substance abuse services for Adults and/or Children/Adolescents for the following component: Residential Level 2 (6 beds)."4/ Resp. Ex. 2. The Torres family home is not a licensed facility and services cannot be provided to residents who reside at that location. Petitioner is not licensed to provide services under the Partial Hospitalization Program (PHP), the Outpatient Program (OP), or the Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP).5/ These services require a separate license from the Department. In December 2017, Petitioner filed with the Department new applications to provide those services. However, the applications were denied and no appeal was taken. According to the renewal applications, Petitioner provides a "residential treatment facility for children and adolescents." Resp. Ex. 3. Each facility "is a free-standing residential facility which provides a structured living environment within a system of care approach for children, adolescents and adult[s] who have a primary diagnosis of mental illness or emotional disturbance and who may also have other disabilities." Id. Petitioner's facilities are a family-run business. Roberto Torres, Jr. (Mr. Torres), is the Chief Executive Officer and manager of the limited liability corporation; Cecilia Torres, his wife, is the Treasurer/Chief Financial Officer; Karla Torres, a daughter, is the Vice President/Chief Administrative Officer; Roberto Torres, III (the son), is the Secretary/Chief Information Officer; and Kristina Torres, a daughter, is the Ambassador/Chief Relationship Officer. Resp. Ex. 4. On November 27, 2017, Petitioner filed its applications for renewal of the two licenses. On December 1, 2017, the Department issued separate, but identical, letters denying both applications on the grounds they were not timely filed and they were incomplete. Resp. Ex. 5. On February 16, 2018, the Department was authorized to amend its letters of denial with a single amended denial document, which combined the original charges in the two letters into Counts I and II and added new Counts III, IV, and V. Resp. Ex. 1. The amended denial letter also seeks to impose a $2,500.00 administrative fine for violating various Class II rules. The specific rules are not identified in the original or amended charging documents, but the Department's PRO cites Florida Administrative Code Rule 65D- 30.003(1)(a) and "rules set forth in 65D-30" as the rules on which it relies. Because proper notice of the specific rules was not given, the rule violations have not been considered. The charges in the amended denial letter can be summarized as follows: Count I - The application for the facility at 146 Sunset View Drive was not timely filed and was incomplete in violation of sections 397.403 and 397.407(8). Count II - The application for the facility at 389 Sand Ridge Drive was not timely filed and was incomplete in violation of sections 397.403 and 397.407(8). Count III - In November 2016, O.G., a 16-year-old female who had been recently discharged from a Baker Act facility, was admitted for treatment of substance abuse and mental health issues. After residing a few months at the Sunset View location, she was moved to the Torres family home, an unlicensed facility, where she remained for one or two months. By providing services at that unlicensed location, Petitioner violated section 397.401(1). She was then moved to the Sand Ridge location for two or three months before being returned to the Torres family home. She continued to receive substance abuse treatment at the family home until her discharge two or three months later. This constitutes a second violation of the same statute. While under the care of Petitioner, O.G. was subjected to actions which resulted in verified abuse reports against Mr. Torres and his son and contributed to the delinquency and exploitation of a child. Such conduct constitutes a threat to the health or safety of O.G. in violation of section 397.415(1)(d). Count IV - On October 19, 2017, J.W., who transferred from a Baker Act facility, was accepted by Petitioner for care and to receive "partial hospitalization program" services, which Petitioner is not licensed to provide. This constitutes a violation of sections 397.401(1) and 397.415(1)(a)2.c. J.W. was later discharged in contravention of his wishes and desires, which resulted in him relapsing and again being Baker Acted. This conduct constitutes a threat to J.W.'s health or safety in violation of section 397.415(1)(d). Count V - On January 23, 2018, the Department attempted to conduct an onsite inspection at both licensed facilities to review J.W.'s files, but was denied access to the premises. Petitioner later failed to respond to a written request by the Department for records relating to J.W. and O.G. This conduct constitutes a violation of section 397.411. The charging document asserts the conduct in Count III violates four Class II rules (not otherwise identified), for which a $500.00 fine should be imposed for each violation; and the conduct described in Count IV violates "applicable" Class II rules (not otherwise identified), for which a single $500.00 penalty should be imposed. Rule 65D-30.003(1)(a), the only rule cited in the Department's PRO, requires in relevant part that "all substance abuse components" be provided "by persons or entities that are licensed by the department pursuant to Section 397.401, F. S." The Charges Counts I and II Section 397.407(8) provides that "the Department may deny a renewal application submitted fewer than 30 days before the license expires." For Petitioner to meet this deadline, license renewal applications were due on or before November 15, 2017. An application is not considered filed until an application with the signature of the chief executive officer is submitted by the applicant. Around 3:30 p.m. on November 27, 2017, Mr. Torres spoke by telephone with Ms. Harmon, the Department System of Care Coordinator, regarding three new licensure applications he was filing. During the conversation, he was reminded that renewal applications for his two existing licenses had not been filed. Mr. Torres responded that he "would have to get on that." Properly signed renewal applications were submitted electronically at 5:00 p.m. and 5:42 p.m. that afternoon. In his cross-examination, Mr. Torres attempted to establish that the Department's website, the Provider Licensing and Designation System (PLADS), was periodically inoperative, and this prevented him from filing his on-line applications in a timely manner. However, there is no credible evidence to support this claim. In fact, after Mr. Torres raised this issue early on in the case, Ms. Harmon reviewed the activity log of Mr. Torres' two on-line applications and found that he began the application process in late August or early September 2017, but did nothing further until he hit the submit button after speaking with her on November 27, 2017. Also, during this same period of time, the PLADS program (to which all applicants have access) indicated that the applications were in "Waiting Approval" status, which meant the applications were "in process" but had never been submitted. Therefore, the applications were not timely filed.6/ Section 397.403(1)(f) requires license applications to include, among other things, "proof of satisfactory fire, safety, and health inspections." Neither application filed on November 27, 2017, included an updated Treatment Resource Affidavit, a current Fire and Safety Inspection form, and a complete and current Health Facility and Food Inspection form. Therefore, the applications filed on November 27, 2017, were incomplete. Count III On November 17, 2016, O.G., then a 16-year-old female, was admitted for treatment at the facility. O.G. had a history of bi-polar episodes, depression, and drug abuse. Before seeking treatment at Petitioner's facility, she had been Baker Acted twice. After learning about Petitioner's facility through another provider, O.G.'s family placed her in the facility to address her substance abuse and behavior problems. Upon admission, a treatment plan was devised by a licensed mental health counselor (LMHC), with a target completion date of May 17, 2017. Resp. Ex. 10. The treatment plan listed four staff members overseeing her case: Karla Torres (case manager); the LMHC; and S.F. and K.V., two "caregivers" or interns. Id. O.G. was discharged from the facility nine months later on August 14, 2017. Petitioner was paid approximately $166,000.00 by O.G.'s parents for her nine-month stay. O.G. was initially placed in the facility located at 146 Sunset Drive, where she remained for approximately three months. She was then moved to the Torres family home at 2347 Victoria Drive in Davenport for two or three months. The Torres home is not a licensed facility. By housing her at an unlicensed location and providing services during that period of time, Petitioner violated section 397.401(1), which makes it unlawful to provide substance abuse services at an unlicensed location. O.G.'s parents were unaware that their daughter was residing in the unlicensed family home. After Mr. Torres and O.G. "got into an argument," she was moved to the facility at 389 Sands Drive for several months. She then returned to the Torres home, where she remained for two or three months until she was discharged. By housing her at an unlicensed location and providing substance abuse services, Petitioner violated section 397.401(1) a second time. During her stay at the Torres home, Mr. Torres discussed "sex" with O.G.; he told her that he cheated on his wife; and he complimented her "quite a few times" for having "a nice body." He also told her that "18" was a special age and if she were 18 years old, things would be different. He added that her parents were "too strict." These highly inappropriate comments were especially egregious in nature, given the fact that O.G. was a minor with mental health and substance abuse issues, and she was living in the licensee's family home. One photograph of O.G. taken in the home shows Mr. Torres standing in the background donned in his pajamas. Resp. Ex. 16. These actions constitute a violation of section 397.415(1)(d)2., which makes it unlawful to commit an intentional or negligent act materially affecting the health or safety of an individual receiving services from the provider. Mr. Torres occasionally escorted O.G. to two local bars (Miller's Ale House and Marrakesh Hooka Lounge) in Champions Gate. On one visit to Miller's Ale House in April or May 2017, he purchased her a Blue Moon beer, even though she was a minor and in a substance abuse program. She consumed the beer in his presence while the two sat at the bar. Although Mr. Torres attempted (through argument) to deny the incident, O.G. filmed the event on her cell phone. Resp. Ex. 13. This action by him also constitutes a violation of section 397.415(1)(d)2. Petitioner argues in its PRO that the whole incident was a fabrication and the result of a conspiracy by O.G.'s father, the Tampa Police Department, and Department counsel. The contention is rejected. When O.G. was discharged from the residential treatment facility in August 2017, Petitioner enrolled her in another program, IOP, which required her to periodically return to the facility on weekends for further treatment. Her first return visit was the weekend of August 26, 2017. During the weekend visit, the son gave her a cell phone. O.G.'s admission document for the IOP program indicated she would be given IOP services for 60 to 90 days, with a goal of her being substance free at the end of that period. Resp. Ex. 24. There is no record of her being discharged from the program. The Department argues in its PRO that by providing IOP services to O.G., Petitioner was providing a service beyond the scope of its license. However, this allegation was not included in the amended charging document and has not been considered. See, e.g., Trevisani v. Dep't of Health, 908 So. 2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)(a licensee may not be disciplined for an offense not charged in the complaint). After being discharged from her original treatment plan on August 14, 2017, O.G. returned to her mother's home. Except for one weekend visit to Petitioner's facility for IOP services, she remained at home until September 16, 2017. That day, O.G. ran away from home with Preston, a resident she had met at Petitioner's facility. After leaving home, she went to Melbourne, and then to West Palm Beach. A Missing/Endangered Runaway Juvenile bulletin was posted by law enforcement on October 5, 2017. Resp. Ex. 11. During this period of time, Petitioner’s records show that O.G. was still enrolled in the unlicensed IOP program. Resp. Ex. 24. While in the West Palm Beach area, O.G. contacted the son on the cell phone he had given her and told him she had run away from home. She asked him to send her some money so that she could go to Tampa to work in a strip club. Because O.G. was not old enough to accept a wire money transfer, the son wired $600.00 to a friend of O.G., who gave her the money. Using the money provided by the son, O.G. traveled to Tampa and met the son on September 30, 2017. The two went to Todd Couples Superstore, where he purchased several adult entertainment outfits she could wear to audition for a job in a strip club. Resp. Ex. 12. He also purchased her various personal items at a Walgreens. The son then drove her to several clubs to audition for a job. After several auditions, she was hired by Scores Tampa, a local strip joint where "people take off their clothes for money." O.G., who was only 17 years old at the time, signed an employment contract on September 30, 2017, using a borrowed driver's license of S.F., a 21-year-old female. Resp. Ex. 15. S.F. was a former intern at Petitioner's facility and is listed as a member of the team staff on O.G.'s initial treatment plan. By that time, S.F. had left Petitioner's facility and moved back to Tampa. That same evening, O.G. began working in Scores Tampa. O.G. says she took off her clothes while performing. The son remained in the club while she worked. After she got off work at 2:00 a.m., he drove her to S.F.'s house. O.G. continued working at the club for the next few days. With the assistance of local law enforcement, O.G. returned to her mother's home on October 7, 2017. After she ran away from home, and even while working in the club, O.G. maintained contact with Mr. Torres through texts and Facetime and asked him not to report her whereabouts to anyone. Although O.G.'s mother spoke to Mr. Torres on several occasions after O.G. went missing in September 2017, neither Mr. Torres nor the son informed her of the daughter's whereabouts. On November 30, 2017, the Department received a report of alleged human trafficking and sexual exploitation of a child. The alleged perpetrator was the son, while the victim was identified as O.G. Because the son was an employee of Petitioner, an institutional investigation was conducted. The investigation was closed on December 26, 2017, with a confirmed report of Human Trafficking-Commercial Exploitation of a Child against the son. Resp. Ex. 17. During the investigation, Mr. Torres and members of his family declined to be interviewed or answer any questions. Instead, they referred all questions to their attorney. On February 6, 2018, the Department received another report of abuse involving Mr. Torres. The report alleged that in April or May 2017, Mr. Torres transported O.G. to a bar at Miller's Ale House in "Davenport" [sic] and purchased her a beer. After an institutional investigation, the file was closed on March 1, 2018, as verified for Substance Misuse – Alcohol against Mr. Torres. Resp. Ex. 18. See also Finding of Fact 18. Mr. Torres declined to participate in the investigation. By clear and convincing evidence, the Department established that the actions of Mr. Torres and his son presented a threat to the health or safety of O.G. in contravention of section 397.415(1)(d)2. Count IV J.W., who did not testify, is a 42-year-old male who was discharged from a hospital on October 9, 2017 (after being Baker Acted), and admitted to Petitioner's facility the same day to receive PHP services. He was diagnosed as having mental health and substance abuse issues and a history of suicidality. He voluntarily left the facility on November 9, 2017. In its PRO, Petitioner characterizes J.W. as "a disgruntled addict." While a resident at the facility, J.W. received a few video sessions with a Miami Springs psychiatrist, who was identified on the renewal applications as the facility medical director, and he was given online counseling sessions for two weeks by an LMHC, who resided in Palm Bay and worked as an independent contractor with the facility. Neither professional was told by Mr. Torres that Petitioner was not licensed to provide PHP services. By providing PHP services to J.W., Petitioner violated sections 397.401(1) and 397.415(1)(a)2.c. According to the LMHC, on October 24, 2017, she was directed by Mr. Torres, who is not a licensed clinician, to "discharge" J.W. from the PHP program and place him in a lower level of care, Sober Living. Resp. Ex. 25. This would still allow J.W. to remain a resident at the facility but not receive the PHP services. Although the charging document alleges that J.W. did not wish to be discharged from the PHP program, and this caused him to have a relapse in his condition and later Baker Acted again, there is no competent evidence to establish this string of events. Count V Section 397.411 requires all licensees to provide Department representatives access to their facilities and to allow the inspection of pertinent records. Based upon information from a provider in Jacksonville that Mr. Torres had requested its assistance in providing PHP services to J.W., the Department instituted an investigation of Petitioner. In January 2018, the Department attempted to conduct an onsite inspection of Petitioner's facilities and to review the files relating to J.W. The inspectors were denied entry. Thereafter, the Department sent a written request to Petitioner for the records of J.W. and O.G. No records were provided and Petitioner failed to respond to the request. These actions constituted a violation of section 397.411. At hearing, Mr. Torres contended (through argument) that because the Department had already taken preliminary action on December 1, 2017, to deny his applications, there was no requirement that he provide access to the facility or respond to written requests for records. This assertion has been rejected. See § 397.411(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (an application for licensure as a service provider constitutes full permission for an authorized agent of the department to enter and inspect at any time).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order denying the applications for renewal of Petitioner's two licenses. An administrative fine should not be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 2018.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has overpaid Respondent $9713.34 in reimbursed claims for home health visit services. If so, additional issues are whether Petitioner is entitled to impose a fine of $1942.67 and assess costs of $254.70.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a Medicaid provider since 2005, and the record discloses no prior violations of Medicaid law. Respondent provides home health visit services to Medicaid recipients in their homes, which may be group homes or private homes. The five recipients at issue in this case reside in private homes. As identified in the FAR, the recipients are M. O., who is Recipient 1; A. del. P., who is Recipient 2; J. R., who is Recipient 3; N. M. de O., who is Recipient 4; and B. C. C., who is Recipient 5. (The Preliminary Audit Report dated November 8, 2011 (PAR), identifies these recipients by the numbers, respectively, of 1, 4, 7, 9, and 10, but this recommended order will refer to the recipients by the numbers assigned to them in the FAR.) Respondent stipulates that the Florida Medicaid Home Health Services Coverage and Limitations Handbooks applicable to the years in question authorize a full reimbursement for home health visit services provided to a single recipient at a specific address and a reduced reimbursement of one-half for home health visit services provided on the same date to subsequent recipients at the same address. This provision, which has been in Medicaid handbooks for about ten years, occurs on page 3-2 in Petitioner Exhibit 5. As for the dates of service at issue in this case, Respondent concedes that, at the time of receiving home health visit services, Recipients 1-4 each resided with another recipient, who also received home health visit services from Respondent on the same dates. Respondent concedes that it has received full reimbursements for the services that it provided to these coresident recipients. Respondent contends that it is entitled to full reimbursements for the services that it provided to Recipients 1-4 because Petitioner's Medicaid billing program did not allow Respondent to enter the necessary information to halve these reimbursements. Respondent contends that Recipient 5 did not reside with another recipient receiving home health visit services from Respondent for any date of service occurring from May 6, 2009, through September 1, 2009. Alternatively, Respondent would contend that, if this contention failed to prevail, it is entitled to a full reimbursement for Recipient 5 on the same ground as it is for Recipients 1-4. There is no merit to Respondent's contention as to Recipients 1-4. First, reimbursement rates are set by the home health services coverage and limitations handbooks, not a Medicaid billing program maintained by Petitioner for use by providers. Second, Petitioner has proved that Respondent could have entered on its submitted claims halved reimbursement amounts for Recipients 1-4. Third, Petitioner gave Respondent a chance to correct its claims for Recipients 1-4 without any penalty. The Amended Preliminary Audit Report dated October 31, 2012 (APAR), which reduced the claimed overpayment to $9713.34, provides: "If the identified overpayment is paid within 15 days of receipt of this letter, amnesty will be granted in regard to the application of sanctions and the assessment of costs for this audit." As one of Petitioner's witnesses testified, all Respondent had to do within 15 days was to contact Petitioner and arrange for a repayment schedule. But Respondent did not avail itself of this opportunity, clinging instead to its argument that some flaw in the online billing program entitles Respondent to full reimbursements for all coresidents to whom it provided home health visit services. Assuming, strictly for the sake of discussion, that something was wrong with the online billing program, the amnesty offer constitutes the repair of the program and the restoration of Respondent to the point of submission (or resubmission) of the subject reimbursement claims. By not accepting the offer, Respondent essentially refuses to use the repaired program and unreasonably repeats its demand that it be relieved from a longstanding limitation on Medicaid reimbursement of home health visit services. As for Recipient 5, the dispute is whether this recipient coresided with another recipient receiving home health visit services from Respondent. The PAR found a problem with four recipients, including Recipient 5, but, after examining documentation provided by Respondent, Petitioner dropped the overpayment claims arising out of the other three recipients, but not Recipient 5. Relying on information contained in the Florida Medicaid database, which is known as FLMMIS, Petitioner determined that Recipient 5 coresided with another recipient. Although each recipient is required to provide updated residential information when appropriate, it is possible that Recipient 5 may not have timely done so. For its part, though, Respondent did not have documentation showing where the home health visit services were provided. Respondent instead relied on Recipient 5's Plan of Care, which is typically completed by the physician and presumably focuses more on the treatment plan than the recipient's place of residence. The record does not reveal the date of the Plan of Care on which Respondent relied, nor how often these plans are updated. Petitioner's staff tried to verify the address in Recipient 5's Plan of Care, but were unable to do so. On these facts, the addresses on FLMMIS control. It is unclear what role a recipient's address plays in a plan of care, but a recipient's address in FLMMIS is crucial because it is used to establish and maintain the recipient's Medicaid eligibility. A service log contemporaneously documenting the location that a provider visited to provide home health visit services probably would have sufficed to overcome the evidentiary force of the FLMMIS and FAR, which, as noted below, is evidence of the overpayment, but a mere plan of care cannot overcome this evidence. Having determined that Petitioner has proved that Recipient 5 coresided with another recipient of home health visit services from Respondent on the dates in question, Respondent's alternative argument, which is the billing argument that it used for Recipients 1-4, is rejected on the same grounds. Lastly, Petitioner has proved all factual grounds for imposing a fine of $1942.67 and assessing investigative costs of $254.70.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding a total overpayment of $9713.34, imposing a fine of $1942.67, and assessing costs of $254.70. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Enrique F. Vazquezbello Amer-Cu Home Care, Inc. Suite 210 3271 Northwest 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Jeffries H. Duvall, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Stuart Williams, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Mail Stop 1 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Conclusions Having reviewed the Notice of Intent to Impose Fine dated March 3, 2009, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("the Agency") has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2) with the Respondent and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees. The Respondent shall remit to the Agency, within ninety (90) days of this Final Order, the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). A check should be made payable to the "Agency for Health Care 1 Filed November 9, 2009 11:58 AM Division of Administrative Hearings. Administration." The check, along with a reference to this case number, should be sent directly to: Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS # 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Unpaid amounts will be subject to statutory interest and may be collected by all methods legally available. The above-styled case is hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this s3 day o tJ-?t?<: ,2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Care Administrat1 A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Ann Lisenby Parmer Lisenby Home Care, Inc. 412 North Cove Blvd. Panama City, Florida 32401 (U. S. Mail) Shaddrick A. Haston Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Finance & Accounting Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #2 Mail Stop Code #14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this _6ay of /}6 , 2009. Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873 Ce1t1f1ecl Article Number SENDERS RECORD CHARLIE CRIST GOVERNOR March 3, 2009 ANN LISENBY PARMER LISENBY HOME CARE, INC. 412 N COVE BLVD PANAMA CITY, FL 32401 JFlORl AAGENCY F,OR HIcAl.lCH CARE AOMAINISlllATION Better Health Care for all Floridians oqJ521 CASE #: 2009002407 NOTICE OF INTENT TO IMPOSE FINE Pursuant to Section 400.474 (6) (f), Florida Statutes (F.S.), a fine of $5,000 is hereby imposed for failure to submit the home health agency quarterly report within 15 days after the quarter ending September 30. As required in section 400.474(6) (f), F.S., the agency shall impose a fine of$ 5,000. TO PAY NOW, PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE WITHIN 21 DAYS AND MAil.ED WITH A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF INTENT TO: Agency for Health Care Administration Finance and Accounting, Revenue Section OMCManager 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #14 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Include License Number: 20651096 and Case Number: 2009002407 in check memo field. EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obtain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. SEE ATTACHED ELECTION OF RIGHTS FORM. Agency for Health Care Administration By: Anne Menard, Manager Home Care Unit cc: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 Legal Intake Unit, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive,MS#34 Tallahassee. Florida 32308 Visit AHCA online at http://ahca.myfl · • I EXHIBIT I No Theme Page 1 ofl HOME HEALTH AGENCY QUARTERLY REPORT For the Quarter July 1 to September 30, 2008 Send an e-mail with this information to home.ti_ alth@ahca.myflorida.com by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 to avoid a $5,000 fme. NAME OF HOME HEALTH AGENCY Lisenby home Care, Inc LICENSE# 20651096 STREET ADDRESS & CITY: 412 N. Cove Blvd, Panama City, Fl 32401 On September 30, 2008, there were _3_ insulin-dependent diabetic patients receiving insulin injection services from my home health agency. On September 30, 2008 there were _36_ patients receiving home health services from my home health agency AND licensed hospice services. On September 30, 2008, there were a total of_77_ patients receiving home health services from my home health agency. The following professional nurses (RNs or LPNs), whose primary job responsibility is to provide home health services to patients, received remuneration from my home health agency in excess of $25,000 between July 1, 2008 and September 30, 2008. NONE Name Florida License Number Insert additional names and license numbers if necessary. http://webmail.att.net/wm/en-US/toolbar/advnotheme.html 10/2/2008 psPS - Track & Confirm Page 1 of 1 • !:fQ!DtltltlJllSlgn.J.n Track & Confirm Search Results Label/Receipt Number: 7160 3901984813801355 Status: Delivered Your item was delivered at 9:48 AM on March 19, 2009 in PANAMA CITY, FL 32401. Track &Confirm Enter Label/Receipt Number. N..-o---t-i--f-i-·c-··d·-·o·-·n- - -Q. rn·t·i01J$------- ---- Track & Confirm by email Get current event information or updates for your item sent to you or others by email. (Bo>) Return Receipt (Electronic) Verify who signed for your item by email. ( tJo>) Copyright© 1999-2007 USPS. All Rights Reserved. No FEAR Act EEO Data FOIA '\:,_· J-i t;.-,pe ; :;•,· • l.\!!.'-'l·/•. ;- t' ip!;,,; http://trkcnfrm1.smi.usps.com/PTSinternetWeb/InterLabellnquiry.do 03/24/2009 STATE OF FLORIDA
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated that the only statutory criteria at issue are those related to need and long term financial feasibility as it relates to need, specifically Subsections 381 494(6)(c~ 1,2,9, and 12, Florida Statutes and Rule 10-5.011(1 (b)l. and 3. Florida Administrative Code. Nurse World, Inc. is an existing non-Medicare home health care agency and is a provider of temporary nursing services in District VII. The five biggest home health agencies in District VII are Nurse World, Visiting Nurse Association (VNA), Upjohn, PRN (no full name ever given), and Norrell. Nurse World is the largest of these as far as active staff, but is the only one of these that is not Medicare-certified. HRS is the agency responsible for certification and licensure of home health agencies. A home health agency in Florida must obtain a CON from HRS before it can be licensed and become eligible to receive Medicare reimbursement. Medicare is a federally funded health program for the elderly and certain disabled persons. Medicare reimbursement is limited to reimbursement for skilled nursing, physical therapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy, home health aid services, and medical social services. The Medicare program reimburses home health agencies on a cost reimbursement basis with a cap for each discipline. Home health agency costs in excess of Medicare caps must be absorbed by the agency. Consequently, traditional concepts of price competition have no applicability to home health agencies providing Medicare reimbursable services. Individuals become Medicare eligible for home health agencies' services in two ways. First, age makes an individual eligible when a person is over 65 and has paid a sufficient number of quarters to social security. Another way is for an individual under 65 to be declared disabled. The 1985 State Health Plan is the most current plan. The only portion of the 1985 State Health Plan which is applicable to home health agency applications is that access to home health services should be improved, specifically access for Medicaid and indigent patients. Nurse World's application satisfies this requirement. Only certain portions of the District VII local health plan are applicable to Nurse World's application. The methodology employed in the local plan was derived from a rule which was declared invalid. See infra on the inapplicability of these portions of the plans. The portions of the local plan which are applicable are the priorities that a home health agency provide a full range of service, improve access for underserved groups, and have interrelationships with the existing health care facilities and community. Since Nurse World, Inc.'s inception in August of 1981, it has grown from a staff of approximately 50-75 nurses to a current staff of close to 700 active field employees including registered nurses (R.N.s), licensed practical nurses (LPNs), nurse aides, and ancillary personnel. Nurse World's growth is due in part to quality patient care and effective and efficient employee management. A background check is done on personnel prior to hiring. Some of Nurse World's employees are screened by competency examinations. Ninety percent of its staff is made up of LPNs, Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) or Physician Aides (PAs). All receive additional training by Nurse World. Other home health agencies in District VII often call Nurse World to obtain nurses to fill out their shifts whereas Nurse World has never had that problem. In line with HRS' position that applicants must demonstrate that existing agencies cannot meet existing need, Nurse World submitted considerable reputation-type testimony. Upon proper predicate and under certain circumstances, evidence of character reputation and evidence of modus operandi, are admissible. "Character is distinct from reputation; reputation is evidence of character," Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, Subsection 405.1 (2d Ed. 1984). See same text, Subsection 404.11 on modus operandi. Indeed, CON applicants traditionally try much of a contested case upon evidence of their own professional reputations, and the reputation of their competitors, privy to the case or not. This entire line of inquiry was prompted by HRS' negative burden of proof concept and upon authority of Balsam v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 486 So. 2d (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In these contexts, reputation evidence, a hearsay exception, was admitted in evidence. Nurse World's reputation as reported from all sources in the community (District VII) is excellent, particularly for quality of care, reliability, and speed of response. This type of reputation evidence was also supplemented by opinion evidence from various witnesses' personal on-going experience. Nurse World also presented testimony that Upjohn does not have a good reputation, that VNA has an unfavorable attitude towards indigent patients, and that UpJohn and VNA nurses will contact a doctor less appropriately than Norrell or Nurse World when there is a change in the patient's condition. There was a modicum of evidence that a better nurse knows when to call a doctor and when not to. Nurse World is a continuing education unit (CEU) provider, offering seminars covering state of the art nursing skills twice monthly. This service naturally increases the proficiency and quality of Nurse World's own employees who attend, but additionally, its continuing medical education seminars serve the community as a whole, since every two years LPNs and R.N.s, must each complete 24 hours of additional training so as to be eligible to renew their professional licenses. Nurse World is the only home health agency in Central Florida that has a CEU provider number. Unlike most hospital CEUs in the area, its continuing medical education services are free of charge and it maintains a suggestion box for topics to be addressed. Its use of video tape instruction both in-house and for seminars is an advanced technique. Nurse World has the exclusive contract to provide nursing services to Hospice of Central Florida. Hospice of Central Florida is a Medicare-certified home health agency, which has no nursing staff of its own. It has only support staff. Nurse World provides all its nurses. After switching to VNA, Hospice switched back to Nurse World. Nurse World has guaranteed in its application that if the CON is issued, it will provide 3 percent of its patient visits to indigents and 3 percent of its patient visits to Medicaid-eligible patients. It is satisfied for any CON grant to be conditioned on such a requirement. Nurse World's proposal to devote 6 percent of its patient visits to the traditionally medically underserved is relatively high for a home health agency. Nurse World presently provides $8,000 in indigent care through its Hospice contract and provides one free patient visit for every five patient visits at Brookwood AMI Hospital. It also has an indigent volunteer services program which provides basic nursing skills training to families so that they can care for their loved ones at home. Nurse World is a "full service" agency. It is considered "high-tech", providing in the home C-pap, IV therapy, respirator, feeding through a chest tube catheter, hyperalimentation, passive motion and other services previously available only in hospitals. This element of its services is particularly significant because of Nurse World's availability to handle difficult cases such as AIDS victims, infants, and multiply-afflicted elderly patients on a 24 hour a day, 7 days a week basis. Nurse World proposes to offer and does offer a full range of services. No other home health agency in District VII provides the full range of services to the degree and over the 24 hour a day period as Nurse World does. These types of difficult cases appear to be underserved in District VII. Nurse World is the only home health agency in the District that effectively staffs its office seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Nurse World has done so ever since it took its first critical care patient and entered into high tech nursing. This relates directly to quality of care and being responsive to patients' needs with no endangering delay as discussed below in relation to high tech protocols. Among health care providers generally and among home health care agencies particularly, Nurse World has a unique approach to insure immediate access and responsiveness to its patients: it mans its telephones with live dispatchers with immediate access to professionals on call. No other Central Florida home health agency does this. At all times there is at least a registered nurse available by phone when a patient reaches Nurse World. There is always a second professional backup behind the professional on the phone, often the Director Ms. Denner, herself. Nurse World has adopted this approach because it feels there is not enough time for turnaround response with other systems when a critical care high tech patient or confused elderly patient gets in trouble or has an emergency. Answering services hold calls; beepers require the professional on call to find a phone and return a call to the answering service, receive the emergency message, and then, finally, call the patient. Nurse World's method allows for the professional who receives the call at any hour of the day or night, even on a weekend, to respond to most situations immediately over the phone, and if necessary to contact the 911 emergency number and the patient's own regular nurse within minutes. Nurse World was the first nursing service in the Central Florida area to render home health services to an AIDS patient, includes AIDS nursing in its continuing medical education efforts, and now gets referrals for Medicare on that basis. No other home health agency is dealing with AIDS patients to the extent that Nurse World is. Nurse World also has an agreement with Centaur, the AIDS support group for Central Florida, through which Nurse World will provide nurses at cost or at its "break even indigent rate". Nurse World has provided health care services to AIDS patients for a very minimal charge since this area of home health care-has been identified and has accelerated numerically. There are approximately 80-100 identifiable AIDS cases in the area. Nurse World has provided the bulk of care for these approximately 80- 100 diagnosed AIDS cases. Other agencies are reluctant to provide this care. Bona fide AIDS patients are eligible for Medicare. The Medicare bureaucracy is processing AIDS case applicants quickly, in 3 to 6 months, basically because there is that necessity. Dr. Robbins, a physician practicing in the Brevard, Seminole, and Orange County area in infectious diseases and internal medicine specializes in the treatment of AIDS. He sees a need for Nurse World to become Medicare certified to render services to the Medicare eligible AIDS patients, because in his experience, Nurse orld renders the best services qualitatively to these types of patients. Any number of AIDS patients (either on or off Medicare) above the number actually served by Nurse World or treated by Dr. Robbins has not been statistically demonstrated, but all testimony on the subject supports the 80-100 existing case figure and the concept that the AIDS numbers are escalating in both Medicare-certified and uncertified categories. One problem situation arising with increasing AIDS patients qualifying for Medicare is basically the same problem for all patients so qualifying. Once qualified, patients naturally must utilize one of the Medicare-certified home health agencies. The continuity of care of a patient is interrupted when Nurse World can no longer render nursing services to a former patient due to that patient becoming Medicare eligible. A break in the continuity of care unfavorably affects the quality of care rendered any patient. The patient and staff often develop a rapport and a break in care can emotionally depress the patient, leading to medical (physical) setbacks. Quality of care is likewise negatively impacted by switches in car givers because the more often a nurse sees a given patient over a period of time, the more that nurse is able to monitor the quality and progress of that patient. There is modest evidence that Nurse World is proficient in scheduling the right nurse for the right patient. Nurse World is the only home health agency that actually video tapes some cases and then trains specific nurses before ever sending them into the patient's home. There is presently a tendency to get people out of hospitals sooner than before due to the new diagnostic related grouping (DRG) regulations. Physicians then routinely refer these patients for home health care visits. As a result, in the last few years, there has been a quantifiable increase in the number of home health care visits requested in District VII. As a result of the increased demand and the inability of the Medicare-certified home health agencies to answer that demand (need), patients referred for Medicare home health services frequently will be seen only once or twice a week rather than three weekly visits as requested by their physicians. This is a significant deficiency in appropriate care for high tech critical care cases, including but not limited to the multiply- afflicted elderly. Also, nursing homes in the area are now experiencing sicker patients due to individuals getting out of the hospitals earlier through DRGs. The scope of nursing home care has increased. The patients released from hospitals cannot go directly home if their case is too complicated. Thus, many patients first go into nursing homes before going to their own homes. Nurse World provides temporary staff relief for the Americana Health Care Center, a skilled nursing home facility in-Winter Park, Florida. According to the testimony of Jill Miller, R.N., Director of Nurses for Americana, Nurse World's staff meets the high standards set at Americana whereas the other home health care agencies she has sometimes used have not. Nurse World personnel, however, are unable to follow the Medicare eligible patients home after release from Americana because Nurse World has no Medicare certificate. This breaks the continuity of care for Americana Medicare patients and can result in all the unfavorable physical and emotional setbacks set out above. Although the break in this continuity of Nurse World care is pronounced and more easily demonstrated using the Americana facility, and although it may be inferred that continuity of care is extremely important especially for the predominantly elderly population that uses Medicare regardless of which nursing home they exit, the continuity of exclusive care by Nurse World personnel specifically, falls short of representing a "special need" as that phrase has come to be understood in CON practice. This is also true for newly qualifying AIDS patients and hospital releases. Nurse World has provided high-tech in-service training at Americana free of charge. Nurse World is the only home health agency that staffs hospitals, nursing homes, and private duty visits. This sharpens the nurses' skills, especially their critical skills. Generally the existing Medicare-certified home health agencies still do not take home high-tech patients. It is advantageous to professional health care providers, the individual patients, and the community at large to encourage home care for high-tech patients. Caring for high- tech patients at home rather than in the hospital results in a cost savings to the community and for the individual patients as it is obviously much cheaper to care for patients at home. Also, the patients tend to get better quicker in their home environment. Examples of Nurse World's expertise in this area are that Nurse World was the first agency in the southeast United States to take home a baby on C-pap, a very sophisticated involved respirator. Nurse World is still the only agency located in District VII to have provided the C-pap at home. There is still no C-pap patient within District VII. Nurse World took home the first critical care, high tech patient in the Central Florida area four years ago. It is also the only agency that provides continuous passive motion care at home. Continuous passive motion care is a "state of the art" physical therapy device that provides continuous physical therapy. Nurse World has averaged three to four of these patients a week over the last year. Caring for high-tech critical care patients at home even when a "mini-intensive care unit" is necessary, costs the community much less than hospital care which can total $716 per day for a non-critical patient. Nurse World employs the largest number of critical care nurses in the area of any provider. Nurse World was the first agency that did blood gases on a patient at home, the first to take home a patient on a ventillator, the first to do home hyperalimentation, and the first to do a home I.V. patient. Two other agencies in the Orlando area now render high-tech services but not to the extent that Nurse World does. They began these services on a limited basis about a year after Nurse World began. Nurse World's "firsts" in these areas are significant because being in the vanguard of opening up these areas of practice has caused it to establish its own written in-home high tech policy and procedure (protocols) which the industry may voluntarily adopt since there is no HRS rule covering the subject matter. Most important about the protocols as developed and maintained by Nurse World are fail-safe techniques for dealing with malfunction of high tech machinery, power failure, isolation techniques for AIDS patients (sometimes considered "high tech"), and direct and immediate telephone contact with professional staff in any emergency. HRS does not presently have any methodology pursuant to rule or policy for projecting need for a home health agency. The methodology that HRS employed in reviewing the Nurse World application was contained in the District VII local health plan. That plan had adopted an HRS proposed rule which was subsequently declared invalid in Home Health Services v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 8 FALR 1510 (March 12, 1986). Sharon Gordon-Girvin, an expert in health planning, testified on behalf of Nurse World. She presented two methodologies for projecting the need for a home health agency in District VII. After the proposed rule was declared invalid, HRS developed a policy for determining the need for additional home health agencies, reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit 78, which was employed between March and August of 1986. That policy was actually used in reviewing home health agency applications, and in making decisions. HRS issued certificates of need for home health agencies based on that policy. Applying that HRS policy, which Gordon-Girvin considers "reasonable," there is a need for 35.3 home health agencies in District VII in 1986. 1986 is the planning horizon year applicable to the Nurse World application. There are 16 existing Medicare home health agencies in District VII. Direct, competent and substantial evidence supports the 16 figure which includes newly certified Profile Medical Services. HRS documentation confirms this. Uncorroborated hearsay evidence of an additional home health agency in District VII was struck. Therefore, the net need is for 19.3 home health agencies in District VII in 1986. HRS, when using this methodology, had a policy of giving out only one/third of the net need in each of three consecutive years. Gordon-Girvin would not term this latter policy nreasonable" and no one offered any acceptable justification for it. No reasonableness of this "award only 1/3 of need" policy was demonstrated and it has since been abandoned, but even by such a system, the net need in 1986 would be for 6.4 additional home health agencies in District VII in 1986. The gross need and the net need continue to increase through 1989. The methodology reflected in Exhibit 7B basically has two constants, the home health use rate and the optimal size visits. They act as constants. The increase in the number of agencies needed is attributable to the growth of the population. Ms. Gordon-Girvin also employed a methodology employed by District III as a point of comparison to see how the number of agencies needed in District VII could be affected by using a very conservative methodology. District III's methodology was selected as a conservative comparison to the former state health policy. Also, no other local health council has a need methodology. Employing the methodology reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit 7A, there is a need for 17 home health agencies in District VII or a net need for 1 additional home health agency. (Gross need minus 16 existing certified agencies). This is a very conservative methodology because it changes very slowly over time. In fact, the net need remains at 1 through 1989. Ms. Gordon-Girvin opined that this methodology employed in Petitioner's Exhibit 7A, is also a reasonable methodology but is very conservative and relies on hospital discharge rates in contrast to the discredited and abandoned HRS policy which is a use-based methodology. There are no other methodologies being employed by planners in Florida and no other methodologies were put forth by either party. Presently, HRS has no rule or policy designating a numeric methodology to determine the need for new medicare home health agencies in any given district. HRS review of CON applications for home health agencies is based solely on statutory criteria, the merits of the proposal, and the district need for the agency as demonstrated by the individual applicant. 80th need methodologies employed by Ms. Gordon Girvin contemplate the need for home heath agencies at the District level. That is, agencies operating in all four of District VII's counties. In reality, the existing home health agencies operate in only one or two mounties. For example, Profile Medical Services, the only successful applicant in the current batch, was recently issued a certificate of need under the HRS policy since discredited and abandoned, but its CON is limited so that it can operate only in 8revard county, so that actually only one-fourth the district need is being met. At the time the Nurse World application was reviewed, there were 11 licensed and approved CON home health agencies in District VII. Six of these agencies only operate in one county and five operate in only two counties. HRS is not aware of any Medicare-certified home health agency that operates in all four counties in District VII under a single certificate of need. Because HRS' policy has been invalidated as a rule and since it has been subsequently abandoned by HRS, it would be invalid to employ it in these proceedings. Even if the District III methodology determined a net need of one is reasonable, it would be unreasonable and unjustified to apply it as modified by HRS' uncodified award only 1/3 of need per year" policy, apparently also abandoned prior to hearing. Therefore, by the only reasonable need methodology presented (that of District III) there is room for one home health agency, not limited by county and not limited by the "award only 1/3 of need per year" policy. The 1/3 limitation should not apply in any case because it has no current application by HRS and because its effect varies the horizon year. Since HRS had no need methodology or policy in place at date of hearing, it took the-position that an applicant must demonstrate need by finding people who are not getting the service. Ms. Gordon-Girvin, Petitioner's expert who had been employed at HRS in health planning for 11 years, opined that there is no adequate quantifiable technique available as a health planning methodology that will allow a health planner to make use of a negative demonstration of need. She suggested use of responses to a newspaper advertisement and then demolished that method of proof as "impractical". Another difficulty with this type of negative demonstration approach is that existing agencies can deal with increased need demands by simply continuing to add staff. Gordon-Girvin knew of no applicant that had acquired a CON by proving lack of access. Additionally, a similar agency position (the Rule of 300) has been struck down by the courts. This negative burden of proof concept has been given short shrift by the courts and is rejected here as well. See Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Johnson and Johnson Home Health Care, Inc., 447 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Richard Gramming, an expert in health planning, testified on behalf of Nurse World. He presented Petitioner's Exhibit 6 which demonstrated that there is a capacity for other agencies in District VII and that if one of those agencies were to be Nurse World, the impact would not be very significant on the available number of visits. The multiplication of the Medicare home health use rate by the 65+ population for District VII produces the potential number of Medicare home health visits for District VII which for 1986 is 317,304. The total number of home health agency visits, Medicare and non-Medicare, for 1984 in District VII was 309,920. Of these visits, 266,531 were Medicare visits. When the actual number of Medicare visits is subtracted from the potential number of Medicare visits, there are 50,773 Medicare visits available for current and existing providers. When Nurse World's projected number of visits from year two (5,625) are subtracted there are still 45,148 Medicare visits available for current providers. Nurse World's approval should have no serious impact on the short or long term financial positions of the existing Medicare providers with the possible exception of Hospice, which may have to hire its nurses elsewhere. An interest such as Hospice's is not one which Chapter 381 is designed to protect. Mr. Gramming's projections are very conservative and the untapped market is probably larger, since the Medicare eligible due to disability were not factored into his formulas and the use rate in the formula was kept constant, whereas it has been increasing over time. A review of Nurse World's past growth rate and conservatively projected growth rate reveals that Nurse World is financially secure for a long-term position. In light of the potential market as demonstrated by the foregoing findings of fact, a long-term financial feasibility of Nurse World will be assured. Home health agencies are labor intensive rather than capital intensive, with few fixed costs. The entry of Nurse World into the market will tend to keep costs as they are or perhaps lower costs through increased competition. Medicare costs caps are more effective in preventing cost inflation. Nurse World has met its minimal burden of proof to establish there will be no significant adverse impact on cost if the Nurse World application is approved; HRS has not gone forward to demonstrate there will be any adverse impact on costs if the application is approved. Nurse World has demonstrated that access to health care by the underserved population will be improved and that the opportunity for specialization within the existing market place will be enhanced by their entry into the market. Nurse World's actual growth rate from 1984 to 1985 and from 1985 to 1986 has been 20 percent per year in gross revenues. Twenty percent growth is logically anticipated for the current year despite a more conservative 12 percent calculation.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner Nurse World a CON to establish and operate a home health agency in District VII (Orange, Osceola, Brevard, and Seminole counties), conditioned upon its providing 3 percent indigent and 3 percent Medicaid qualified services. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of May, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Eric J. Haugdahl, Esquire 1363 East Lafayette Street Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John Rodriguez, Esquire Department of Health and 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 APPENDIX The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties proposed findings of fact (FOF): Petitioners proposed findings of fact: 1-4 To the extent not covered under "Background and Procedure," these are subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in FOF 2. Covered in FOF 8. Covered in FOF 9. Covered in FOF 3 & 10. Covered in FOF 3. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 12. 13-15 Covered in FOF 13. 16 Covered in FOF 16. 17-20 Covered in FOF 7. Covered in FOF 14. Covered in FOF 16-17. Rejected as a conclusion of law; see FOF 13 and conclusions of law. Accepted but subordinate to the facts as found. 25-26 Accepted but subordinate to the facts as found, cumulative FOF 7. 27-28 Rejected as unnecessary, as mere "puffing" and as subordinate to the facts as found. See FOF 10 and 18 on proposal 28. 29. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to the facts as found. See FOF 25.l 30-34 To the extent supported by the admissible direct competent substantial record evidence, these are covered in FOF 16; otherwise rejected. 35. Covered in FOF 6.l 36-37 To the extent supported by the record, covered in FOF 16, otherwise rejected. 38 Covered in FOF 10 and 15. 39-40 To the extent supported by the record and to the extent necessary to a determination of this cause, covered in FOF 17- 21, otherwise rejected. 41-42 Covered in FOF 19. 43-44 Covered in FOF 20-21. Covered in FOF 22. To the extent not covered in FOF 8 and 11 rejected as cumulative. Unnecessary, as mere "puffing", and as subordinate to the facts as found in FOF 14 and 25. Covered in FOF 23. Covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 14-16, and 25. Covered in FOF 25. Covered in FOF 25 but cumulative. Accepted as true, but rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Except as covered as to capability of Nurse World in FOF 14 and 25, it is also largely immaterial to these proceedings in that Mrs. WiIdermuth's child is not eligible for Medicare, cannot become eligible for Medicare and resides outside District VII in Volusia County. 54-56 Covered in FOF 25. 57 Covered in FOF 3 and 8. 58-50 Covered in FOF 25. 61-62 Subordinate to the facts as found. See FOF 39 and 42. Cumulative, see FOF 23. Covered in FOF 15. 65-73 and 75-78 Except as covered in FOF 11 and 16 these proposals are rejected as subordinate, unnecessary or cumulative to the facts as found. 74 Covered in FOF 11 and 18. Covered in FOF 27-34. Rejected as a conclusion of law. 81-89 Covered in FOF 26-35 and conclusions of law. 90 Accepted for the reasons set out in the transcript reference, but as a FOF it is subordinate and unnecessary. 91-95 Covered in FOF 26-35. 96 Rejected as irrelevant since no such out of state methodology was offered. See FOF 28. 97-105 Covered in FOF 30-35. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Covered in FOF 36. Covered in FOF 37. 109-110 Accepted but unnecessary. 111-119 Covered in FOF 36-42. 120 Accepted but rejected as unnecessary. Respondent's proposed findings of fact: 1 Covered in background and procedure. 2 Covered in FOF 2, 8, 14 and 15. 3 Covered in FOF 13. 4 Covered in FOF 11. 5 Covered in FOF 10. 6 Covered in FOF 14 and 25. 7 Covered in FOF 8 and 23 (among others). 8 Covered in FOF 4. 9 Covered in FOF 5. 10 Covered in FOF 6. 11-12 Covered in FOF 26-35.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted the exemption from disqualification from employment that she is seeking.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On August 5, 1994, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County on drug charges. Later that same month, she was found guilty of (in Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 94-26435-A), pursuant to a plea of no contest, the "purchase or possession with intent to purchase cocaine, possession of cocaine, and unlawful possession of cannabis as set forth in Counts 4, 5 & 6 of the Information." Adjudication of guilt was withheld. Petitioner was "sentenced [as a first-time offender] to credit for time served: to wit: SIX (6) DAYS as to Counts 4 & 5; and as to Count 6 the entry of [a] sentence [was] suspended." Thereafter, Petitioner voluntarily enrolled in a six- month, outpatient drug treatment program offered by the Family Health Center. While participating in the program, she attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. Petitioner successfully completed the Family Health Center drug treatment program in February of 1996. (She has not participated in any drug treatment program since that time, although she has remained in contact with her counselor who had worked with her at the Family Health Center.) Some time following her successful completion of the Family Health Center drug treatment program, Petitioner began experiencing personal problems and started using illegal substances again as her way of dealing with these problems. She continued to engage in such unlawful conduct until approximately nine months ago, when she had a "spiritual" awakening and came to the realization that "[t]he lifestyle that [she was] liv[ing was] not for [her]." She started attending church on a regular basis and relying upon her religious beliefs, rather than drugs, to weather the difficult periods in her life. Since that time, she has remained drug-free, and it appears that she is fully committed to continuing her abstinence from the use of illegal substances. In or about March of 1999, after passing a drug test, Petitioner was hired by United Cerebral Palsy (UCP) to work as a patient technician serving disabled clients. Petitioner was employed by UCP for approximately six weeks. Her employment was terminated after background screening revealed the findings of guilt that had been entered against her in Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 94-26435-A in August of 1994, which disqualified her from employment by UCP as a patient technician. Petitioner was told that she could reapply for a patient technician position if and when she obtained an exemption from disqualification from the Department. On April 5, 1999, Petitioner submitted such a request to the Department. Petitioner's request was reviewed by a committee composed of three Department employees. Petitioner appeared before the committee on May 6, 1999. She forthrightly told the committee about her post- treatment drug use. Two of the committee members recommended that Petitioner's application for an exemption be granted. The remaining committee member recommended that the application be denied. The matter was then referred to the District 11 Legal Office, which recommended denial of the application. The Acting District 11 Administrator, Sara Herald, followed the Legal Office's recommendation and, by letter dated May 13, 1999, notified Petitioner of her (Ms. Herald's) determination to deny Petitioner's application and of Petitioner's right to "request an administrative hearing" on the matter. Petitioner requested, and subsequently was afforded, such a hearing. Having considered the evidence presented at that hearing, including Petitioner's testimony (particularly that portion of her testimony concerning the lifestyle changes that she has made over the past nine months and the reasons for these changes, which testimony the undersigned finds credible), the undersigned is convinced that Petitioner has rehabilitated herself and that she will not present a danger if her exemption request is granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order granting the exemption that Petitioner has requested. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1999.
