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
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 there is need for a new Pediatric Heart Transplant and/or Pediatric Heart and Lung Transplant program in Organ Transplant Service Area (OTSA) 3; and, if so, whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 10471 (heart) and/or 10472 (heart and lung), filed by The Nemours Foundation, d/b/a Nemours Children’s Hospital (Nemours or NCH), to establish a Pediatric Heart Transplant and/or Pediatric Heart and Lung Transplant program, satisfy the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for award of a CON.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Applicant, Nemours Nemours Children’s Hospital is a licensed Class II specialty children’s hospital located in Orange County, Health Planning District 7, Subdistrict 7-2, OTSA 3, which is owned and operated by The Nemours Foundation. Nemours is licensed for 100 beds, including 73 acute care, nine comprehensive medical rehabilitation, two Level II neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and 16 Level III NICU beds, and is a licensed provider of pediatric inpatient cardiac catheterization and pediatric open-heart surgery. As the primary beneficiary of the Alfred I. duPont Testamentary Trust established in the will of Alfred duPont, the Foundation was incorporated in Florida in 1936. The Foundation set out to provide children and families medical care and services, its mission being “[t]o provide leadership, institutions, and services to restore and improve the health of children through care and programs not readily available, with one high standard of quality and distinction regardless of the recipient’s financial status.” Foundation assets reached $5.5 billion, by the end of 2015. The Foundation has funded $1.5 billion of care to Florida’s pediatric population through subspecialty pediatric services, research, education, and advocacy. Nemours has established a pediatric care presence throughout the State of Florida. Nemours operates over 40 outpatient clinics throughout Florida that offer primary care, specialty care, urgent care, and cardiac care services to pediatric patients in central Florida, Jacksonville, and the panhandle region. Nemours also provides hospital care to pediatric inpatients at Nemours Children’s Hospital in Orlando, as well as through affiliations with Wolfson’s Children’s Hospital in Jacksonville, West Florida Hospital in Pensacola, and numerous hospital partners in central Florida. The resources Nemours offers in the greater Orlando area are especially significant with 17 Primary Care Clinics, five Urgent Care Clinics, 10 Specialty Care Clinics, nine Nemours Hospital partners, and, of course, NCH itself. These clinics are located throughout OTSA 3 where Nemours determined access to pediatric care was lacking, including Orlando, Melbourne, Daytona Beach, Titusville, Kissimmee, Lake Mary, and Sanford, as well as neighboring Lakeland. The clinics are fully staffed with hundreds of Nemours-employed physicians who live in the clinic communities. Through these satellite locations, as well as the Nemours CareConnect telemedicine platform, Nemours is able to bring access to its world-class subspecialists located at NCH to children throughout the State of Florida who otherwise would not have access to such care. Nemours was established to provide state of the art medical care to children through its integrated model. Nemours’ development has been and continues to be driven by its mission and objective to be a top-tier, world-class pediatric healthcare system. NCH is the first completely new “green field” children’s hospital in the United States in over 40 years, allowing Nemours to integrate cutting-edge technology and a patient-centered approach throughout. Nemours has created a unique integrated model of care that addresses the needs of the child across the whole continuum, connecting policy and prevention, to the highest levels of specialized care for the most complex pediatric patients. From its inception, Nemours envisioned the development of a comprehensive cardiothoracic transplant program as proposed by the CON applications at issue in this proceeding. NCH is located in the Lake Nona area, just east of downtown Orlando in a development known as Medical City. Medical City is comprised of a new VA Hospital, the University of Central Florida (UCF) College of Medicine and School of Biomedical Sciences, the University of Florida (UF) Research and Academic Center, the Sanford Burnham Medical Research Institute, and a CON-approved hospital, which is a joint venture between UCF and AHCA, which will serve as UCF’s teaching hospital. Medical City is intended to bring together life scientists and research that uses extraordinarily advanced technology. Co- location in an integrated environment allows providers and innovators of healthcare, “the brightest minds,” so to speak, to interact and to share ideas to advance healthcare and wellness efforts. Agency for Health Care Administration AHCA is the state health-planning agency that is charged with administration of the CON program as set forth in sections 408.031-408.0455, Florida Statutes. Context of the Nemours Applications Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.044, AHCA requires applicants to obtain separate CONs for the establishment of each adult or pediatric organ transplantation program, including: heart, kidney, liver, bone marrow, lung, lung and heart, pancreas and islet cells, and intestine transplantations. “Transplantation” is “the surgical grafting or implanting in its entirety or in part one or more tissues or organs taken from another person.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.065. Heart transplantation, lung transplantation, and heart/lung transplantation are all defined by rule 59C-1.002(41) as “tertiary health services,” meaning “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.” AHCA rules define a “pediatric patient” as “a patient under the age of 15 years.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.044(2)(c). AHCA rules divide Florida into four OTSAs, corresponding generally with the northern, western central, eastern central, and southern regions of the state. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.044(2)(f). The programs at issue in this proceeding will be located in OTSA 3, which is comprised of Brevard, Indian River, Lake, Martin, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia Counties. Currently, there are no providers of PHT in OTSA 3, and there are no approved PHLT programs statewide. The incidence of PHT in Florida, as compared to other types of solid organ transplants, is relatively small. The chart below sets forth the number of pediatric (ages 0-14) heart transplant discharges by year for the four existing Florida PHT programs during Calendar Years (CY) 2013 through 2016, and the 12-month period ending June 2017: HOSPITAL HEART TRANSPLANT CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 2017 All Children’s Hospital 7 14 9 8 7 UF Health Shands Hospital 6 8 15 15 9 Memorial Regional Hospital 5 5 5 7 4 Jackson Health System 2 2 1 4 1 Total 20 29 30 34 21 The above historic data demonstrates that the incidence of PHT statewide is relatively rare, and does fluctuate from program to program and from year to year. As can be seen, the most recent available 12-month data reflects that only 21 PHTs were performed during that time, for an average program volume of only 5.25 cases. Florida has more existing and approved PHT programs than every other state in the country except California, which has more than double the pediatric population of Florida. And like Florida, two of the California programs are extremely low- volume programs. Additionally, evidence regarding the number of PHLT patients demonstrated just how rare this procedure is. From 2013 to 2016, there was an annual average of only four PHLTs nationally, with only one actual transplant on a Floridian. Nemours’ health planner stated that although Nemours projected in its application that it would perform one heart/lung procedure each year, it is a “very low-volume service,” and Nemours in actuality expects that there will be years with zero volume of PHLT. The CON Applications Nemours filed its applications for heart transplantation, heart/lung transplantation, and lung transplantation in the second Other Beds and Programs Batching Cycle of 2016. Nemours is proposing the development of a comprehensive cardiothoracic transplant program, which will be the only such program in Florida. This will be achieved by combining three types of transplant services (heart, lung, and heart/lung) in one comprehensive cardiothoracic transplant program. Each application was conditioned on the development of all three transplantation programs. Nemours is located in OTSA 3, where there is currently no PHT provider, PLT provider, or PHLT provider. There are, however, three providers of pediatric open-heart surgery and pediatric cardiac catheterization, and a large, growing pediatric population. Unlike any other facility in Florida, the Nemours Cardiac Center (Cardiac Center) is uniquely organized to treat all forms of congenital heart disease. The Cardiac Center employs a “programmatic approach” to offer the most beneficial environment and the finest care available for pediatric patients. The Cardiac Center, physically located at NCH, throughout Florida, is organized as a single Department of Cardiovascular Services to house Cardiac Surgery, Cardiac Anesthesia, Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and Cardiology. Cardiac Center physicians throughout Florida are organized as a single entity with the goal of providing the highest quality, patient-centered care to all patients without the usual barriers created by the departmental “silos.” The entire Cardiac Center clinical team, including nurses and physicians, is dedicated solely to the special challenges of congenital heart abnormalities and makes the care of children with heart disease the life’s work of team members. The fully integrated organizational structure permits the team to take shared responsibility for all aspects of the delivery of quality care to these pediatric patients from admission to discharge. The Cardiac Center holds weekly patient consensus conferences, where all providers, including physicians, nurses, and the patients’ caregivers, participate in case reviews of all inpatients and those patients scheduled for surgery or catheterization. The Cardiac Center is “state of the art” with a designated cardiovascular operating room, a designated cardiovascular lab that includes an electrophysiology lab, and a dedicated comprehensive care unit. In addition, The Foundation has furthered the commitment to the Cardiac Center by funding an additional $35 million expansion to the sixth floor of NCH, adding an additional 31 inpatient beds, an additional operating room, and a comprehensive cardiovascular intensive care unit. Dr. Peter D. Wearden joined Nemours in 2015 as the chief of cardiac surgery, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular Services, and director of the Cardiac Center at Nemours. Dr. Wearden will serve as director of the Comprehensive Cardiothoracic Transplant Program at Nemours and will be instrumental in the development and implementation of the program. Dr. Wearden was recruited from the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh (CHP), where he served as the surgical director of Heart, Lung, and Heart/Lung Transplantation. He was also the director of the Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Support and Artificial Heart Program. CHP rose to a US News and World Report top 10 program during Dr. Wearden’s tenure. CHP is at the forefront of organ transplantation and is where the first pediatric heart/lung transplantation was performed. Dr. Wearden is a trained cardiothoracic surgeon who completed fellowships in both cardiothoracic surgery (University of Pittsburgh) and Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery (Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada). He is certified by the American Board of Thoracic Surgery and holds additional qualifications in Congenital Heart Surgery from that organization. In his tenure as a board-certified pediatric transplant specialist, he has participated in over 200 pediatric cardiothoracic transplantations, of which he was the lead surgeon in over 70. In addition, he has procured over $20 million in National Institutes of Health research funding since 2004 specific to the development of artificial hearts and lungs for children and their implementation as a live-saving bridge to transplantation. Dr. Wearden was a member of the clinical team that presented to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel for approval of the Berlin Heart, the only FDA-approved pediatric heart ventricular assist device (VAD)1/ currently available, and he proctored the first pediatric artificial heart implantation in Japan in 2012. A VAD is referred to as “bridge to transplant” in pediatric patients because the device enables a patient on a waiting list for a donated heart to survive but is a device on which a child could not live out his or her life. Both utilization of VADs and heart transplantation procedures are in the “portfolio of surgical interventions” that can save the life of a child with heart failure. Dr. Wearden is an international leader in the research and development of VADs. Victor Morell, an eminent cardiac surgeon and chief of Pediatric Cardiac Surgery at CHP, testified that Dr. Wearden’s presence in Orlando alone and the work that he will be able to do with VADs and a PHT program will likely save lives. Many of the physicians that comprise the Nemours Cardiac Center transplant team not only have significant transplant experience, but also have experience performing transplants together. These physicians came with Dr. Wearden from CHP, were trained by Dr. Wearden, or otherwise worked with Dr. Wearden at some point in their careers. The physicians recruited to the Nemours transplantation team were trained at or hail from among the most prestigious programs in the country. For example, Dr. Kimberly Baker, a cardiac intensivist, was trained by Dr. Wearden in the CHP ICU. Dr. Constantinos Chrysostomou, Nemours’ director of cardiac intensive care, worked with Dr. Wearden at CHP, and has experience starting the pediatric ICU in Los Angeles at Cedar Sinai Hospital. Dr. Steven Lichtenstein, chief of cardiac anesthesia, held the same position at CHP for 12 years before he was recruited to Nemours. Dr. Karen Bender, a cardiac anesthesiologist, was recruited by Dr. Wearden from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia – one of the leading programs in the country. Dr. Michael Bingler, a cardiac interventionalist, was at Mercy Children’s Hospital in Kansas City for eight years. Dr. Adam Lowry of the Nemours cardiac intensive care center previously trained at both Texas Children’s Hospital (the number one program in the country) and Stanford. The 11 physicians that comprise the Cardiac Center’s Cardiothoracic Physician Team have collectively participated in 1,146 cardiothoracic transplantations. These physicians came to Nemours to care for the most acute, critically ill patients, including those requiring PHT. In addition to the physician team, the expertise and skill of the non-physician staff in the catheterization lab, the operating room, and the cardiac ICU are crucial to a successful program. Dr. Dawn Tucker is the administrative director of NCH’s Cardiac Center and heads the nursing staff for NCH’s Cardiac Center, which includes 23 registered nurses with transplant experience. Dr. Tucker holds a doctorate of Nursing Practice and was formerly the director of the Heart Center at Mercy Children’s Hospital in Kansas City, where she oversaw the initiation of a PHT program. The average years of experience for total nursing care in cardiac units across the nation is two years. The average years of experience in the Nemours Cardiac Center is eight years. Medical literature shows the greater the years of nursing staff experience, the lower the mortality and morbidity rates. The nursing staff at Nemours, moreover, has extensive experience in dealing not only with pediatric cardiac patients, but with pediatric heart transplants as well. The Cardiac Center’s cardiothoracic nursing staff has over 220 years of collective cardiothoracic transplant experience. Nemours operates a “simulation center” that allows the Cardiac Center to simulate any type of cardiac procedure on a model patient before performing that procedure on an actual patient. The model patient’s “heart” is produced using a three- dimensional printer that creates a replica of the heart based on MRI’s or other medical digital imaging equipment. These replica hearts are printed on-site, using the only FDA-approved software for such use, and are ready for use in the simulation center within a day after medical imaging. Nemours Cardiac Center currently performs what the Society of Thoracic Surgeons has coined “STAT 5” cardiac procedures. STAT 5 cardiac procedures are the most complex; STAT 1 procedures are the least complex. A PHT is a STAT 4 procedure. Since Dr. Wearden’s arrival at the Nemours Cardiac Center, there have been no patient mortalities. The uncontroverted evidence established that Nemours has assembled a high-quality, experienced, and unquestionably capable team of physicians and advanced practitioners for its cardiothoracic transplantation programs and is capable of performing the services proposed in its applications at a high level. UF Health Shands While not a party to this proceeding,2/ UF Health Shands’ (Shands) presence at the final hearing was pervasive. AHCA called numerous witnesses affiliated with Shands in its case-in-chief. The scope of the testimony presented by Shands- affiliated witnesses was circumscribed by Order dated December 13, 2017 (ruling on NCH’s motion in limine) that: At hearing, the Agency may present evidence that the needs of patients within OTSA 3 are being adequately served by providers located outside of OTSA 3, but may not present evidence regarding adverse impact on providers located outside of OTSA 3. Baycare of Se. Pasco, Inc. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., Case No. 07-3482CON (Fla. DOAH Oct. 28, 2008; Fla. AHCA Jan. 7, 2009). UF Health Shands Hospital is located in Gainesville, Florida. UF Health Shands Children’s Hospital is an embedded hospital within a larger hospital complex. Shands Children’s Hospital has 200 beds and is held out to the public as a children’s hospital. The children’s hospital has 72 Level II and III NICU beds. Unlike Nemours, Shands offers obstetrical services such that babies are delivered at Shands. It also has a dedicated pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) as well as a dedicated pediatric cardiac intensive care unit. The Shands Children’s Hospital has its own separate emergency room and occupies four floors of the building in which it is located. It is separated from the adult services. Shands Children’s Hospital is nationally recognized by U.S. News & World Report as one of the nation’s best children’s hospitals. The children’s hospital has its own leadership, including Dr. Shelley Collins, an associate professor of pediatrics and the associate chief medical officer. As a comprehensive teaching and research institution, Shands Children’s Hospital has virtually every pediatric subspecialty that exists and is also a pediatric trauma center. The children’s hospital typically has 45 to 50 physician residents and 25 to 30 fellows along with medical students. Over $139 million has been awarded to Shands for research activities. As a teaching hospital, Shands is accustomed to caring for the needs of patients and families that come from other parts of the state or beyond. Jean Osbrach, a social work manager at Shands, testified for AHCA. Ms. Osbrach oversees the transplant social workers that provide services to the families with patients at Shands Children’s Hospital. Ms. Osbrach described how the transplant social workers interact with the families facing transplant from the outset of their connection with Shands. They help the families adjust to the child’s illness and deal with the crisis; they provide concrete services; and these social workers help the families by serving as navigators through the system. These social workers are part of the multidisciplinary team of care, and they stay involved with these families for years. Shands is adept at helping families with the issues associated with getting care away from their home cities. Shands has apartments specifically available in close proximity to the children’s hospital and relationships with organizations that can help families that need some financial support for items such as lodging, transportation, and gas. Ms. Osbrach’s ability to empathize with these families is further enhanced because her own daughter was seriously ill when she was younger. Ms. Osbrach testified that, while she was living in Gainesville, she searched out the best options for her child and decided that it was actually in Orlando. Despite the travel distance, she did not hesitate to make those trips in order to get the care her child needed at that time. The Shands Children’s Hospital is affiliated with the Children’s Hospital Association, the Children’s Miracle Network, the March of Dimes, and the Ronald McDonald House Charities. Shands operates ShandsCair, a comprehensive emergency transport system. ShandsCair operates nine ground ambulances of different sizes, five helicopters, and one fixed-wing jet aircraft. ShandsCair does over 7,000 transports a year, including a range of NICU and other pediatric transports. ShandsCair is one of the few services in the country that owns an EC-155 helicopter, which is the largest helicopter used as an air ambulance. This makes it easier to transport patients that require a lot of equipment, including those on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Patients on ECMO can be safely transported by ground and by air by ShandsCair. Shandscair serves as a first responder and also provides facility-to- facility transport. It has been a leader in innovation. The congenital heart program at Shands includes two pediatric heart surgeons, as well as pediatric cardiologists Dr. Jay Fricker and Dr. Bill Pietra, both of whom testified for AHCA. Dr. Fricker did much of his early work and training at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, and came to the University of Florida in 1995. He is a professor and chief of the Division of Cardiology in the Department of Pediatrics at Shands. He is also the Gerold L. Schiebler Eminent Scholar Chair in Pediatric Cardiology at UF. He has been involved in the care of pediatric heart transplant patients his entire career. Dr. Bill Pietra received his medical training in Cincinnati and did his early work at several children’s hospitals in Colorado. He came to the University of Florida and Shands in July 2014 and is now the medical director, UF Health Congenital Heart Center. Shands performed its first pediatric heart transplant in 1986. Shands treats the full range of patients with heart disease and performs heart transplants on patients, from infants through adults, with complex congenital heart disease. Shands provides transplants to pediatric patients with both congenital heart defects and acquired heart disease (cardiomyopathy). Shands will accept the most difficult cases, including those that other institutions will not take. Data presented by AHCA dating back to the beginning of 2014 demonstrate that Shands has successfully transplanted numerous patients that were less than six months old at the time of transplantation. This data also demonstrates that Shands serves all of central and north Florida, as well as patients that choose to come to Shands from other states. PHT patients now survive much longer than in the past, and in many cases, well into adulthood. Because Shands cares for both adult and pediatric patients, it has the ability to continue to care for PHT patients as they transition from childhood to adulthood. Managed care companies are now a significant driver of where patients go for transplantation services. Many managed- care companies identify “centers of excellence” as their preferred providers for services such as PHT. Shands is recognized by the three major managed-care companies that identify transplant programs as a center of excellence for PHT services. AHCA’s Preliminary Decision Following AHCA’s review of Nemours’s applications, as well as consideration of comments made at the public hearing held on January 10, 2017, and written statements in support of and in opposition to the proposals, AHCA determined to preliminarily deny the PHT and PHLT applications, and to approve the PLT application. AHCA’s decision was memorialized in three separate SAARs, all dated February 17, 2017. Marisol Fitch, supervisor of AHCA’s CON and commercial-managed care unit, testified for AHCA. Ms. Fitch testified that AHCA does not publish a numeric need for transplant programs, as it does for other categories of services and facilities. Rather, the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate need for the program based on whatever methodology they choose to present to AHCA. In addition to the applicant’s need methodology, AHCA also looks at availability and accessibility of service in the area to determine whether there is an access problem. Finally, an applicant may attempt to demonstrate that “not normal” circumstances exist in its proposed service area sufficient to justify approval. Statutory Review Criteria Section 408.035(1) establishes the statutory review criteria applicable to CON Applications 10471 and 10472. The parties have stipulated that each CON application satisfies the criteria found in section 408.035(1), (d), (f), and (h), Florida Statutes. The only criteria at issue essentially relate to need and access. However, the Agency maintains that section 408.035(1)(c) is in dispute to the extent that center transplant volume as a result of Nemours’ approval would lead to or correlate with negative patient outcomes. AHCA believes that there is no need for the PHT or PHLT programs that Nemours seeks to develop because the needs of the children in the Nemours service area are being met by other providers in the state, principally Shands and Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital. Section 408.035(1)(a) and (b): The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed; and the availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the district of the applicant. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.044(6)(b).3/ The criteria for the evaluation of CON applications, including applications for organ transplantation programs, are set forth at section 408.035 and rule 59C-1.044. However, neither the applicable statutes nor rules have a numeric need methodology that predicts future need for PHT or PHLT programs. Thus, it is up to the applicant to demonstrate need in accordance with rule 59C-1.044. There are four OTSAs in Florida, numbered OTSA 1 through OTSA 4. NCH is located in OSTA 3, which includes the following counties: Seminole, Orange, Osceola, Brevard, Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Martin, Lake, and Volusia. (See § 408.032(5), Fla. Stat; Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C- 01.044(2)(f)3.) OTSA 3 also generally corresponds with the pediatric cardiac catheterization and open-heart surgery service areas defined by AHCA rule. (See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C- 1.032(2)(g) and 59C-1.033(2)(h)). Currently, there is no provider of PHT in OTSA 3, but there are three providers of pediatric cardiac catheterization and pediatric open-heart surgery: Orlando Health Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children; Florida Hospital for Children; and Nemours. There are no licensed providers of PHLT anywhere in the State of Florida. There are four existing providers and one approved provider of PHT services in Florida: UF Shands in OTSA 1; Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in OTSA 2; Jackson Memorial Hospital in OSTA 4; and Memorial Regional Hospital, d/b/a Joe DiMaggio’s Hospital in OTSA 4; and a third approved program in OTSA 4, Nicklaus Children’s Hospital, which received final approval from AHCA in August 2017. As noted above, there is no fixed-need pool published for PHT, PHLT, or PLT programs. Alternatively, AHCA follows rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2., which requires consideration of population demographics and dynamics; availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict, or both; medical treatment trends; and market conditions. To quantify the need for a new PHT program in District 7, OTSA 3, Nemours created and presented a methodology that started with the statewide use rate in its projected first year. Then for the second year, Nemours aggressively increased the use rate to the highest rate in any of the other transplant service areas in the state. Then, in an even more aggressive (and unreasonable) assumption, Nemours projected that it would essentially capture all of the cases in OTSA 3 by the second year of the program. In its application, the assumptions resulted in a projection that Nemours would do four transplants in the first year of operation and eight in the second. These projections fall short of the rule requirement that the applicant project a minimum of 12 transplants per year by the second year of operation. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.044(6)(b)2. At hearing, Nemours updated (increased) those first and second year projections to 7 and 13 cases, respectively. However, these updated projections included one child, aged 15 to 17, in year one, and two in year two. There are several reasons these projections lack credibility. First, as noted, Nemours assumed a near- 100 percent market share based on the highest use rate in the state by just year two. Second, when Nemours prepared its update, it used the most recent calendar year data. However, this was not the most current data. Calendar Year 2016 reflected 34 cases statewide, but that number had dropped to 21 for the most recent 12-month period available at the time of the hearing. Use of this most recent 12-month data would have significantly decreased the Nemours PHT volume projections. In addition, the projection of 13 cases by year two would place Nemours at a higher PHT case volume than three of the four established programs in the state, and would be at a level that is nearly equivalent to the much more established Shands program. This is not credible, especially considering that Nemours also admitted at hearing that only two OTSA 3 residents received pediatric heart transplants in 2016. The existence of unmet need cannot be based solely on the absence of an existing service in the proposed service area. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)3. While Nemours’ own health planner agreed that the absence of a PHT program in OTSA 3 is not itself a basis for finding need, Nemours nevertheless argues that this rule is inapplicable in this proceeding because the title to this subsection of the rule is “Comparative Review” and a portion of this subsection addresses competing applications in the same cycle. As detailed further in the Conclusions of Law section herein, this interpretation is unconvincing and rejected. AHCA interprets this rule provision to apply to those batched applications submitted without the submission of a competing application in the same batching cycle, as with Nemours in this proceeding. Nemours initiated its cardiac catheterization and cardiac surgery program in June/July 2016. In its PHT application, Nemours projected that it would meet or exceed the rule minimum required volumes of 200 cardiac catheterizations and 125 open-heart surgery cases by the end of 2017. Actual volumes achieved by Nemours in CY 2017 were 97 open-heart cases and 196 cardiac catheterizations. The incidence of PHLT is extremely low. During the four calendar years, 2013 through 2016, there were only 16 PHLT transplants performed nationwide. Only one Florida resident received a PHLT during that four-year period, and that was performed in Massachusetts. Also during that four-year period, only three Florida residents were registered for PHLT. There is no evidence in this record as to why two of the three registered Florida residents did not obtain a PHLT. Based on the national use rate for PHLTs from CY 2013 through CY 2016, Nemours projects that it will perform an average of one PHLT per year. Nemours acknowledges that due to the extremely low incidence of PHLTs, there may be some years that no PHLTs are performed at Nemours. Geographic Access There is no evidence of record that families living in central Florida are currently being forced to travel unreasonable distances to obtain PHT services. Indeed, there are five existing or approved programs within the state, with at least two located very reasonably proximate to OTSA 3. According to the analysis of travel distances for PHT patients living in OTSA 3 contained in the Nemours application (Exhibit 15), only some residents located in Brevard and Indian River Counties are not within 120 miles of an existing PHT program. There was agreement that patients that need a PHT are approaching the end-stage of cardiac function, and in the absence of a PHT will very likely die. Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that the parents of a child living in central Florida and needing a PHT will travel to St. Petersburg or Gainesville for transplant services rather than let their child die because the travel distance is too far. To the contrary, the evidence in this record from witnesses on both sides, as well as common sense, is that families will go as far as necessary to save their child. The notion that there is some pent-up demand for PHT services among central Florida residents (especially when there is no evidence of a single OTSA 3 patient being turned down or unable to access a PHT) is without support in this record. The parents of four pediatric patients testified at the final hearing. Two testified for Nemours. The other two testified for AHCA and were parents of children that received PHTs at Shands. One of the Nemours witnesses was the parent of a child that has not received a transplant. The other received transplant services at Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg. The parents of the two Shands patients were representative of the two broad categories of PHT patients. One was a patient with a congenital heart defect that lives in Cocoa Beach (Brevard County). The patient likely had the heart defect since birth, but it was not diagnosed until she was six years old. That patient was asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis but deteriorated over a period of years. While she was first seen at Shands, the family had the time and researched other prominent institutions, including Texas Children’s Hospital, Boston Children’s Hospital, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. They did this because, like all of the parents that testified, they “would have gone to the ends of the earth” to save their child. This family researched the volumes and experience of the programs they considered and looked for what they felt was the best program for their child, and ultimately chose Shands. It was clear that they felt Shands was the right choice. Their daughter received her heart transplant at Shands, is doing well, and is now considering what college to attend. Additionally, this family did not find the two hours and 35 minute travel time from their home in Brevard County to Shands to be an impediment, and actually consider Shands as being relatively close to their home. This testimony supports the obvious truism that obtaining the best possible outcome for a sick child is the paramount goal of any parent. The other parent witness called by AHCA has a daughter that, on Christmas Eve in 2008, went from perfectly healthy to near death and being placed on life support within a 24-hour period. As opposed to a congenital heart defect, this patient had cardiomyopathy. This family lives in Windermere, a suburb of Orlando. She acquired a virus that attacked her heart. She was initially treated at Arnold Palmer Children’s Hospital where she had to be placed on ECMO. From there, she was safely airlifted to Shands while still on ECMO where, upon arrival, the receiving team of physicians informed the family that she was one of the most critically ill children they had ever seen. After an 11-hour open-heart surgery, a Berlin Heart was successfully implanted and kept her alive for four months until an appropriate donor heart became available. This patient also had an excellent outcome and is now a student at the University of Florida. The following exchange summarizes how the child’s mother felt about the inconvenience of having to travel from the Orlando area to Gainesville: Q If a family in Orlando told you, or in your city of residence told you that their child was critically ill and they were worried about having to travel and potentially spend time in Gainesville to get care, what would you tell them? A Well, I would tell them to just take it a day at a time and – when your child is critically ill, convenience never really comes into your mind. What comes into your mind is how do I help my child live. And so you will go anywhere. And it’s just an hour and a half, it just doesn’t matter. When you are talking about saving your child, it means nothing. It literally means nothing. It is clear from the testimony of these two parents that nothing about having a gravely ill child is “convenient.” It creates great stress, but it was also clear that having an experienced provider was more important than just geographic proximity. The mothers of the two Shands patients persuasively spoke of their concerns about further diluting the volumes of the existing programs that could result from approval of a sixth pediatric heart transplant program in Florida, particularly when there are two other programs that are not that far from the Orlando area.4/ While transplantation is not an elective service, it is not done on an emergent basis. As noted, the number of families affected is, quite fortunately, very small. While having a child with these issues is never “convenient,” the travel issues that might exist do not outweigh the weight of the evidence that fails to demonstrate a need for approval of either application. The Orlando area, being centrally located in Florida, is reasonably accessible to all of the existing providers. Most appear to go to Shands, which is simply not a substantial distance away. The credible evidence is that families facing these issues are able to deal with the travel inconvenience. In addition, Nemours presented evidence regarding the various locations at which they provide services, ranging from Pensacola to Port St. Lucie. Clearly, Nemours sees itself as providing some cardiac services to patients in these locations, but it would also suggest that patients seen at these locations may be referred to NCH for transplant services, which would mean that some patients would be bypassing closer facilities. As observed by AHCA, for Nemours to posit that it is appropriate for patients to travel from Pensacola or Jacksonville to Orlando while asserting that it is not acceptable for patients in Orlando to go to Gainesville or St. Petersburg is an illogical inconsistency. Financial Access Nemours asserts that approval of its proposed programs will enhance financial access to care. Nemours currently serves patients without regard to ability to pay and will extend these same policies to transplant recipients. Approximately half of Nemours’ projected PHTs are to be provided to Medicaid recipients, the other half to commercially insured patients.5/ However, there was no competent evidence of record that access to PHT or PHLT services was being denied by any of the existing transplant providers because of a patient’s inability to pay. Transplant Rates at Shands In its need methodology, Nemours utilized the use rate from OTSA 1 where Shands is located because it is the highest use rate in the state. Despite this, Nemours then asserted that Shands is not performing as many PHTs as it could or should. The Nemours CON applications are not predicated on any argument that their proposed programs are needed because of poor quality care at any of the existing pediatric transplant programs in Florida. Indeed, Dr. Wearden stated his belief that Shands provides good quality care in its transplant programs, and he respects the Shands lead surgeon, Dr. Mark Bleiweis. As evidence of his respect for the Shands PHT program, Dr. Wearden has referred several transplant patients to Dr. Bleiweis at Shands. Despite that position, Nemours argued that the Shands program is unduly conservative and cautious in its organ selection and may have some “capacity” issues due to a few cited instances of apparent surgeon unavailability. These assertions, made by Nemours witnesses with no first-hand knowledge of the operations of the Shands program, are not persuasive. With regard to whether the Shands program is unduly “cautious,” “conservative,” or “picky,” Nemours relied on a document produced by Shands in discovery. Nemours also relied on data reported by Shands to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). The data included a list of all of the organs offered to Shands since the beginning of 2015, the sequencing of the offer of that organ to Shands, whether the organ was transplanted at Shands or elsewhere, the primary and secondary reasons the organ was refused (if refused) and other information. The SRTR exhibit demonstrates that a high number of the organs that are offered are not acceptable for transplant on patients waitlisted at Shands. It also shows that organs that are accepted may have to be examined by many different centers before being deemed potentially acceptable. This demonstrates the extensive level of complexity, nuance, and clinical judgment involved in the decision to accept an organ for transplant in a pediatric patient. Indeed, Dr. Wearden agreed that the decision by a program to accept or turn down an organ involves both clinical expertise and judgment, and that there are many reasons an organ might be turned down, which helps explain why the transplanted percentage of total organs offered nationally is on average, so small. Dr. Wearden chose a few examples of organs that were not taken by Shands to express an opinion that Shands may be unduly conservative in its organ selection. However, this assertion was credibly refuted by Dr. Pietra, a transplant cardiologist and the medical director of the UF Health Congenital Heart Center. Dr. Pietra discussed the complexity of these cases and how simply looking at the SRTR data does not provide enough information to reach Dr. Wearden’s conclusion. An organ that might be acceptable for one patient would not be acceptable for another for a host of reasons. Many more organs are rejected by transplant centers than are accepted. Dr. Pietra credibly opined that being conservative and cautious are important traits for a transplant surgeon, particularly for one that wants the accepted organ to work well for the patient long-term. That does not mean that Shands is rejecting organs when it should have taken them, nor does the SRTR data support the proposition that the Nemours program should be approved because its program may have accepted an organ for a particular patient that Shands might have rejected. Nemours also argues that Shands performs PHTs at a rate lower than the region and the country, and that this should mitigate for the approval of another program. This assertion is predicated on waitlist information reported in the SRTR data. Patients that are placed on the waitlist have different status designations, depending on the severity of their condition. That status may change, up or down, over time. Due to the shortage of organs, until a patient reaches status 1A, he or she is unlikely to be offered an organ. The evidence reflected that Shands puts patients on the PHT organ waitlist at a time earlier than the moment they require the transplant surgery under what is called the “pediatric prerogative.” This helps those patients maintain their status on the list but does not result in organs being provided to less severely ill patients to the detriment of those in greater need. Further, the record evidence supports the finding that Shands waitlists patients because the clinical determination has been made that the child will ultimately require a transplant. This was corroborated by the parent of a Shands PHT patient who testified that when her daughter was placed on the waitlist, Dr. Fricker concluded at that time that her daughter would ultimately need a PHT, even though she was placed on a lower status initially, and it was a few years before the transplant occurred. Transplant surgeon Dr. Victor Morell, of the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, testified that he waitlists his PHT patients not only when they need the procedure performed immediately, but rather when, in his clinical judgment, he determines the patient will ultimately need a PHT. This testimony supports the finding that there is nothing clinically unusual or inappropriate about how the Shands program waitlists patients. Shands realizes that its philosophy, which is contemplated within and permitted under the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) rules, makes its statistics, both in terms of percent of patients transplanted and waitlist mortality, look worse. While Shands’ waitlist mortality may be higher than expected as reflected in the SRTR data, it is still significantly lower than in the UNOS region or the United States. Shands advocates for its patients by their waitlist practices because it believes it helps secure the best outcomes for its patients. It does not indicate need for a new PHT program. Nemours also suggests that there may be a “capacity” problem at Shands because the organ rejection information provided by Shands shows that, during the 3-year period of CY 2015 through CY 2017, there were seven entries showing as either a primary or secondary reason for organ rejection that the surgeon was unavailable. However, this included both adult and pediatric hearts, and further investigation revealed that in only four instances were there potential PHT recipients at Shands. Of those four hearts that were rejected, two were not accepted by any PHT provider, and the two that were accepted were placed with adult transplant patients, not PHT patients. Shands has two PHT transplant surgeons. In very few instances at Shands, an organ was offered but not accepted because the surgeon was not available for one of several reasons. In one instance, there was another transplant scheduled. A surgeon could be ill, could be gone, or may have just completed another long surgery and be too fatigued to safely perform another. Like Shands, Nemours also has two experienced PHT surgeons. Although Dr. Wearden believes that Nemours would endeavor to not reject an organ for this reason, this ambition ignores reality. He cannot guarantee that the same could not or would not happen at Nemours for the same reasons it occasionally occurs at Shands. As explained by Dr. Pietra, when there are only small to medium volume programs, there is not likely to be a sufficient number of surgeons such that this scenario can be avoided entirely. Not Normal Circumstances In both its heart and heart/lung applications, Nemours articulated the following “not normal circumstances” in seeking approval: Florida does not have any approved pediatric heart/lung transplant programs. Florida's only two approved pediatric lung transplant programs have not performed any lung transplant programs in the last two reporting years according to AHCA reporting data. Significantly, there are no pediatric heart transplant or lung transplant programs in AHCA's Organ Transplant Service Area OTSA 3 in which NCH is located-an area of the State with one the fastest growing and youngest populations. Florida has no other pediatric comprehensive, multi-organ thoracic transplant program. Florida has no other pediatric comprehensive, multi-organ thoracic transplant program that is part of a pediatric specific integrated delivery system such as Nemours offers. NCH offers a unique, dedicated model of cardiothoracic care developed at its Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children (AIDHC) in Wilmington, Delaware and implemented upon the opening of the program at NCH. The key and differentiating element of this Model of Care is a unified team of cardiac clinical and administrative professionals who serve children with cardiac problems in dedicated facilities (the "Cardiac Team"). The Cardiac Team only cares for children with cardiac diagnoses. As such, the Cardiac Team of anesthesiologists, surgeons, cardiologists, nurses, and other support personnel do not "float" to other hospital floors or departments as in a typical hospital setting. This dedicated model of cardiac care allows the Cardiac Team to develop highly specialized knowledge and relationships to provide the best treatment protocols for patients with cardiac conditions. NCH has developed state-of-the art facilities and innovative clinical pathways for the care of the most complex pediatric thoracic patients. NCH has and will bring new opportunities for research in pediatric cardiology, cardiac surgery, and pulmonary medicine, particularly clinical translational and basic research into the linkages between childhood obesity and cardiac conditions. Nemours operates a regional network of clinics in Florida, with primary locations in Pensacola, Jacksonville, and Orlando, that will operate in partnership with NCH for the appropriate regional referral of patients in Florida for pediatric thoracic care. NCH can reduce the out-migration of pediatric, thoracic transplant patients from OTSA 3 to other parts of the State as well as the out-migration of these patients to other out-of-state transplant programs. Similarly, NCH will reduce the outmigration of organs donated in Florida to other states ensuring that Florida recipient patients are first priority for organs donated in Florida. NCH has in place the infrastructure, facilities, and resources to seamlessly add thoracic transplant services to its existing comprehensive cardiac surgery program. Additional needed staff are already being recruited to this program. As a result, the project has minimal incremental cost that will need to be incurred. Total project costs are, therefore, estimated to be $715,425.00. In addition, according to Nemours, an additional “not normal” circumstance has emerged since the filing of the applications: the approval of Nemours’ PLT application in the absence of a PHT program at the facility, which it contends is “a very unusual situation.” Noteworthy about these purported reasons for approval are that: (1) none of them are specifically directed at a unique circumstance relating to a need for another PHT program; and (2) most of them are either a recitation of the fact that there is no existing program in the service area or are about Nemours’ capability to provide these services. They are not directed at whether there is a need for its proposed programs. In fact, the main thrust of Nemours’ case was directed at proof regarding its capabilities. But the flaw in this theme is best demonstrated in the testimony of Dawn Tucker, the last witness called by Nemours. Ms. Tucker is the cardiac program administrative director for Nemours. When asked why she supported the proposed program, she talked about the experience of the team, a desire to care for sick patients, an organization (Nemours) that financially supports the program, and the network of centers that Nemours has in Florida. These factors address why Nemours “wants” these CONs. None of them addresses the threshold issue of whether there is a “need” for these programs in OTSA 3. More specifically, the first, third, and fourth bullet points are all based on the absence of a program in OTSA 3. By rule, that is not a basis for establishing need. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.009(2)(e)3. AHCA appropriately rejected the absence of a program in OTSA 3 as the sole basis upon which need for the proposed projects could be established. The second bullet point relates to the pediatric lung transplant application that is not at issue in this matter. The fifth and sixth bullet points relate to the Nemours integrated model of care. But again, this does not address whether there is a need for the proposed programs. The fact that Nemours has an employed-physician model is not unique or “not normal.” AHCA considered the information regarding the model of care and correctly noted that the model of care does not itself enhance access or improve outcomes. It should be noted that Shands’ doctors are employed by the University of Florida. In addition, the reliance on this model does not guarantee a robust program. This bullet point references the much older and more established Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Delaware, that is touted as the model for Nemours. Nemours presented evidence relating to its more established hospital in Delaware that also provides PHT services. However, the PHT program at duPont is a low-volume program, performing only one PHT in 2016. None of the managed- care companies that recognize Shands as a center of excellence also recognizes the duPont Hospital as such. One of the companies--Lifetrac--acknowledges duPont as a “supplemental” program, whereas Shands is one of its “select” programs. This demonstrates that simply having the financial resources of the duPont Foundation or the model of care used by that organization does not guarantee high volumes or success. The “not normal circumstance” bullet points regarding Nemours’ facilities, research, and other infrastructure similarly do not demonstrate need. Otherwise, a hospital could obtain a CON for a new program by spending the money in advance and then demanding approval based upon those expenditures. AHCA recognized that Nemours had recruited some very qualified clinicians, but correctly noted that that does not create or evidence need for the proposed programs. The remaining bullet point asserts that approval of the PHT and PHLT programs could reduce outmigration of both patients and organs. By definition, because neither of these transplant programs exists in OTSA 3, all patients leave OTSA 3 for these services. Again, that alone does not establish need, nor is it automatically a “not normal” circumstance. As discussed herein, Nemours has not demonstrated a sufficient need or an access problem that justifies approval of either application. With regard to the outmigration of organs from Florida, Nemours has argued that Florida is a net exporter of organs and that this is a “not normal” circumstance justifying approval of its application. However, organs harvested in one state are commonly used in another. There is nothing unusual or negative about that fact. Indeed, Dr. Wearden agreed that in his experience, this is a common occurrence. There is a national allocation system through UNOS and this sharing, as explained by Dr. Pietra, facilitates the best match for organs and patients. UNOS divides the country into regions for the purpose of allocation of donor organs, with Florida being one of six states in Region 3. The evidence of record did not establish that approval of the Nemours applications would result in the reduction of organs leaving Florida, or even that such would be a desirable result. Nemours also argued at hearing that approving their applications would increase the number of donor organs that are procured and transplanted in Florida. Nemours suggested that its programs would increase public awareness and implied that it would accept organs for future patients that surgeons at other programs turn down. However, these arguments are purely conjectural and are rejected. No record evidence exists which demonstrates that a Nemours program would increase the supply of organs in Florida. Indeed, Nemours presented no such relevant data or statistical evidence in its applications to demonstrate that this will occur. Finally, Nemours argues that its PHT and PHLT applications should be approved because it does not make sense for AHCA to have approved the PLT program but denied the other two applications. Nemours goes on to note that while there are hospitals in the country that do PHTs but not PLTs, there are no hospitals that do lungs but not hearts. Regardless of whether that is true, Florida law separates these three services into separate CON applications, which are reviewed independently. The wisdom of the rule is not at issue in this proceeding. Regardless of any overlap in the skill sets required to perform these procedures, approval of the pediatric lung transplant application does not determine need for pediatric heart or pediatric heart/lung programs. Nemours failed to establish that “not normal” circumstances currently exist that would warrant approval of either the PHT or PHLT programs. Nor did Nemours credibly demonstrate any other indicators of need for its proposed programs. Section 408.035(1)(c): The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant’s record of providing quality of care. The parties stipulated that Nemours is a quality provider. However, AHCA maintains that this criterion is in dispute to the extent that center transplant volume as a result of Nemours’ approval would lead to or correlate with negative patient outcomes. Nemours failed to demonstrate that it would achieve the volumes it projected unless it takes significant volumes from other Florida providers.6/ Approval of Nemours will not create transplant patients that do not exist or are not currently able to reasonably access services. While Nemours has assembled a team of professionals with varying levels of transplant experience, it has not been demonstrated that it will achieve volume sufficient to reasonably assure quality care.7/ Section 408.035(1)(e): The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district. Approval of the Nemours PHT and PHLT programs would unquestionably improve geographic access to those services for the very few residents of OTSA 3 that need them. However, given the extreme rarity of pediatric heart and heart/lung transplants, approval of the Nemours programs would not result in enhanced access for a significant number of patients. Moreover, there was no credible non-hearsay evidence presented at hearing that any resident of OTSA 3 that needed PHT or PHLT services was unable to access those services at one of the existing PHT programs in Florida or, for PHLT, at a facility elsewhere. Based upon persuasive evidence at hearing, there is also clearly a positive relationship between volume and outcomes. As with any complex endeavor, practice makes perfect. In this instance, maintaining a minimum PHT case volume provides experience to the clinicians involved and helps maintain proficiency. According to the credible testimony of Dr. Pietra, programs should perform no fewer than 10 PHTs per year. “If you can stay above 10, then your program is going to be exercised at a minimum amount to keep everybody sort of at a peak performance.” The clear intent of the minimum volume requirement of 12 heart transplants per year contained in rule 59C- 1.044(6)(b)2. is to ensure a sufficient case volume to maintain the proficiency of the transplant surgeons and other clinicians involved in the surgical and post-surgical care of PHT patients. In addition, pediatric transplant programs are measured statistically based on outcomes, such as mortality and morbidity. Because of this, the loss of even one patient in a small program can be devastating to that hospital’s mortality statistics. As such, small programs may become less willing to take more complicated patients. In a perverse sort of way, adding more programs that dilute volumes may decrease, rather than increase, access because of the fear a small program might have for taking more complex patients. Adequate case volume is also important for teaching facilities, such as Shands, to benefit residents of all the OTSAs by being able to train the next generation of transplant physicians. The mothers of the two Shands patients that testified made note of the complexity of their daughters’ conditions and how their cases were used for training purposes. There was no persuasive evidence of record that approval of the Nemours applications would meaningfully and significantly enhance geographic access to transplant services in OTSA 3. The modest improvement in geographic access for the few patients that are to be served by the two programs is not significant enough to justify approval in the absence of demonstrated need. There is no evidence that approval of the Nemours applications will enhance financial access nor that patients are not currently able to access PHT or PHLT services because of payor status. Section 408.035(1)(g): The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost- effectiveness. It is clear that establishing and maintaining a transplant program is expensive. Given the limited pool of patients, the added expense of yet a sixth Florida program is not a cost-effective use of resources. This criterion also relates to the Nemours position that AHCA should approve the PHT and PHLT applications simply because the PLT application was approved, and it would not be cost-effective for Nemours unless the PHT and PHLT applications were also approved. However, each of these applications must rise or fall on its own merit. As of the hearing, Nemours had not yet implemented its PLT program. Given the absence of need for either the PHT or PHLT programs, the cost-effective solution might be for Nemours to reconsider implementation of the PLT program. 408.035(1)(i): The applicant’s past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. AHCA agreed at hearing that Nemours satisfies section 408.035(1)(i). Nonetheless, Nemours provides a very high level of Medicaid services, and projects a high-level volume related to Medicaid patients and charity care patients. As noted, approximately half of the PHTs projected by Nemours will be performed on Medicaid patients. Conformance with this criterion would mitigate toward approval had there been persuasive evidence that Medicaid and medically indigent patients are currently being denied access to PHT and PHLT services. However, no such evidence was presented.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying CON Application Nos. 10471 and 10472 filed by The Nemours Foundation, d/b/a Nemours Children’s Hospital. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 31st day of July, 2018.
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 Whether the Certificate of Need application (CON 9239) of Galencare, Inc., d/b/a Brandon Regional Hospital ("Brandon") to establish an open heart surgery program at its hospital facility in Hillsborough County should be granted?
Findings Of Fact District 6 District 6 is one of eleven health service planning districts in Florida set up by the "Health Facility and Services Development Act," Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. See Section 408.031, Florida Statutes. The district is comprised of five counties: Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, Hardee, and Highlands. Section 408.032(5), Florida Statutes. Of the five counties, three have providers of adult open heart surgery services: Hillsborough with three providers, Manatee with two, and Polk with one. There are in District 6 at present, therefore, a total of six existing providers. Existing Providers Hillsborough County The three providers of open heart surgery services ("OHS") in Hillsborough County are Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., d/b/a Tampa General Hospital ("Tampa General"), St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc. ("St. Joseph's"), and University Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a University Community Hospital ("UCH"). For the most part, Interstate 75 runs in a northerly and southerly direction dividing Hillsborough County roughly in half. If the interstate is considered to be a line dividing the eastern half of the county from the western, all three existing providers are in the western half of the county within the incorporated area of the county's major population center, the City of Tampa. Tampa General Opened approximately a century ago, Tampa General has been at its present location in the City of Tampa on Davis Island at the north end of Tampa Bay since 1927. The mission of Tampa General is three-fold. First, it provides a range of care (from simple to complex) for the west central region of the state. Second, it supports both the teaching and research activities of the University of South Florida College of Medicine. Finally and perhaps most importantly, it serves as the "health care safety net" for the people of Hillsborough County. Evidence of its status as the safety net for those its serves is its Case Mix Index for Medicare patients: 2.01. At such a level, "the case mix at Tampa General is one of the highest in the nation in Medicare population." (Tr. 2452). In keeping with its mission of being the county's health care safety net, Tampa General is a full-service acute care hospital. It also provides services unique to the county and the Tampa Bay area: a Level I trauma center, a regional burn center and adult solid organ transplant programs. Tampa General is licensed for 877 beds. Of these, 723 are for acute care, 31 are designated skilled nursing beds, 59 are comprehensive rehabilitation beds, 22 are psychiatry beds, and 42 are neonatal intensive care beds (18 Level II and 24 Level III). Of the 723 acute care beds, 160 are set aside for cardiac care, although they may be occupied from time-to-time by non-cardiac care patients. Tampa General is a statutory teaching hospital. It has an affiliation with the University of South Florida College of Medicine. It offers 13 residency programs, serving approximately 200 medical residents. Tampa General offers diagnostic and interventional cardiac catheterization services in four laboratories dedicated to such services. It has four operating rooms dedicated to open heart surgery. The range of open heart surgery services provided by Tampa General includes heart transplants. Care of the open heart patient immediately after surgery is in a dedicated cardiovascular intensive care unit of 18 beds. Following stay in the intensive care unit, the patient is cared for in either a 10-bed intermediate care unit or a 30- bed telemetry unit. Tampa General's full-service open heart surgery program provides high quality of care. St. Joseph's Founded by the Franciscan Sisters of Allegheny, New York, St. Joseph's is an acute care hospital located on Martin Luther King Boulevard in an "inner city kind of area" (Tr. 1586) of the City of Tampa near the geographic center of Hillsborough County. On the hospital campus sit three separate buildings: the main hospital, consisting of 559 beds; across the street, St. Joseph's Women's Hospital, a 197-bed facility dedicated to the care of women; and, opened in 1998, Tampa Children's Hospital, a 120-bed free-standing facility that offers pediatric services and Level II and Level III neonatal intensive care services. In addition to the women's and pediatric facilities, and consistent with the full-service nature of the hospital, St. Joseph's provides behavioral health and oncology services, and most pertinent to this proceeding, open heart surgery and related cardiovascular services. Designated as a Level 2 trauma center, St. Joseph's has a large and active emergency department. There were 90,211 visits to the Emergency Room in 1999, alone. Of the patients admitted annually, fifty-five percent are admitted through the Emergency Room. The formal mission of St. Joseph's organization is to take care of and improve the health of the community it serves. Another aspect of the mission passed down from its religious founders is to take care of the "marginalized, . . . the people that in many senses cannot take care of themselves, [those to whom] society has . . . closed [its] eyes . . .". (Tr. 1584). In keeping with its mission, it is St. Joseph's policy to provide care to anyone who seeks its hospital services without regard to ability to pay. In 1999, the hospital provided $33 million in charity care, as that term is defined by AHCA. In total, St. Joseph's provided $121 million in unfunded care during the same year. Not surprisingly, St. Joseph's is also a disproportionate Medicaid provider. The only hospital in the district that provides both adult and pediatric open heart surgery services, St. Joseph's has three dedicated OHS surgical suites, a 14-bed unit dedicated to cardiovascular intensive care for its adult OHS patients, a 12-bed coronary care unit and 86 progressive care beds, all with telemetry capability. St. Joseph's provides high quality of care in its OHS. UCH University Community Hospital, Inc., is a private, not-for-profit corporation. It operates two hospital facilities: the main hospital ("UCH") a 431-bed hospital on Fletcher Avenue in north Tampa, and a second 120-bed hospital in Carrollwood. UCH is accredited by the JCAHO "with commendation," the highest rating available. It provides patient care regardless of ability to pay. UCH's cardiac surgery program is called the "Pepin Heart & Vascular Institute," after Art Pepin, "a 14-year heart transplant recipient [and] . . . the oldest heart transplant recipient in the nation alive today." (Tr. 2841). A Temple Terrace resident, Mr. Pepin also helped to fund the start of the institute. Its service area for tertiary services, including OHS, includes all of Hillsborough County, and extends into south Pasco County and Polk County. The Pepin Institute has excellent facilities and equipment. It has three dedicated OHS operating suites, three fully-equipped "state-of-the-art" cardiac catheterization laboratories equipped with special PTCA or angioplasty devices, and several cardiology care units specifically for OHS/PTCA services. Immediately following surgery, OHS patients go to a dedicated 8-bed cardiovascular intensive care unit. From there patients proceed to a dedicated 20-bed progressive care unit ("PCU"), comprised of all private rooms. There is also a 24-bed PCU dedicated to PTCA patients. There is another 22-bed interventional unit that serves as an overflow unit for patients receiving PTCA or cardiac catheterization. UCH has a 22-bed medical cardiology unit for chest pain observation, congestive heart failure, and other cardiac disorders. Staffing these units requires about 110 experienced, full-time employees. UCH has a special "chest pain" Emergency Room with specially-trained cardiac nurses and defined protocols for the treatment of chest pain and heart attacks. UCH offers a free van service for its UCH patients and their families that operates around the clock. As in the case of the other two existing providers of OHS services in Hillsborough Counties, UCH provides a full range of cardiovascular services at high quality. Manatee County The two existing providers of adult open heart surgery services in Manatee County are Manatee Memorial Hospital, Inc., and Blake Medical Center, Inc. Neither are parties in this proceeding. Although Manatee Memorial filed a petition for formal administrative hearing seeking to overturn the preliminary decision of the Agency, the petition was withdrawn before the case reached hearing. Polk County The existing provider of adult open heart surgery services in Polk County is Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc. ("Lakeland"). Licensed for 851 beds, Lakeland is a large, not-for- profit, tertiary regional hospital. In 1999, Lakeland admitted approximately 30,000 patients. In fiscal 1999, there were about 105,000 visits to Lakeland's Emergency Room. Lakeland provides a wide range of acute care services, including OHS and diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac catheterization. It draws its OHS patients from the Lakeland urban area, the rest of Polk County, eastern Hillsborough County (particularly from Plant City), and some of the surrounding counties. Lakeland has a high quality OHS program that provides high quality of care to its patients. It has two dedicated OHS surgical suites and a third surgical suite equipped and ready for OHS procedures on an as-needed basis. Its volume for the last few years has been relatively flat. Lakeland offers interventional radiology services, a trauma center, a high-risk obstetrics service, oncology, neonatal intensive care, pediatric intensive care, radiation therapy, alcohol and chemical dependency, and behavioral sciences services. Lakeland treats all patients without regard to their ability to pay, and provides a substantial amount of charity care, amounting in fiscal year 1999 to $20 million. The Applicant Brandon Regional Hospital ("Brandon") is a 255-bed hospital located in Brandon, Florida, an unincorporated area of Hillsborough County east of Interstate 75. Included among Brandon's 255 beds are 218 acute care beds, 15 hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds, 14 tertiary Level II neonatal intensive care unit ("NICU") beds, and 8 tertiary Level III NICU beds. Brandon offers a wide array of medical specialties and services to its patients including cardiology; internal medicine; critical care medicine; family practice; nephrology; pulmonary medicine; oncology/hematology; infectious disease; neurology; psychiatry; endocrinology; gastroenterology; physical medicine; rehabilitation; radiation oncology; pathology; respiratory therapy; and anesthesiology. Brandon operates a mature cardiology program which includes inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization, outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization, electrocardiography, stress testing, and echocardiography. The Brandon medical staff includes 22 Board-certified cardiologists who practice both interventional and invasive cardiology. Board certification is a prerequisite to maintaining cardiology staff privileges at Brandon. Brandon's inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization program was initiated in 1989 and has performed in excess of 800 inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures per year since 1996. Brandon's daily census has increased from 159 to 187 for the period 1997 to 1999 commensurate with the burgeoning population growth in Brandon's primary service area. Brandon's Emergency Room is the third busiest in Hillsborough County and has more visits than Tampa General's Emergency Room. From 1997- 1999, Brandon's Emergency Room visits increased from 43,000 to 53,000 per year and at the time of hearing were expected to increase an additional 5-6 percent during the year 2000. Brandon has also recently expanded many services to accommodate the growing health care needs of the Brandon community. For example, Brandon doubled the square footage of its Emergency Room and added 17 treatment rooms. It has also implemented an outpatient diagnostic and rehabilitation center, increased the number of labor, delivery and recovery suites, and created a high-risk ante-partum observation unit. Brandon was recently approved for 5 additional tertiary Level II NICU beds and 3 additional tertiary Level III NICU beds which increased Brandon's Level II/III NICU bed complement to 22 beds. Brandon is a Level 5 hospital within HCA's internal ranking system, which is the company's highest facility level in terms of service, revenue, and patient service area population. Brandon has been ranked as one of the Nation's top 100 hospitals by HCIA/Mercer, Inc., based on Brandon's clinical and financial performance. The Proposal On September 15, 1999, Brandon submitted to AHCA CON Application 9239, its third application for an open heart surgery program in the past few years. (CON 9085 and 9169, the two earlier applications, were both denied.) The second of the three, CON 9169, sought approval on the basis of the same two "not normal" circumstances alleged by Brandon to justify approval in this proceeding. CON 9239 addresses the Agency's January 2002 planning horizon. Brandon proposes to construct two dedicated cardiovascular operating rooms ("CV-OR"), a six-bed dedicated cardiovascular intensive care unit ("CVICU"), a pump room and sterile prep room all located in close proximity on Brandon's first floor. The costs, methods of construction, and design of Brandon's proposed CV-OR, CVICU, pump room, and sterile prep room are reasonable. As a condition of CON approval, Brandon will contribute $100,000 per year for five years to the Hillsborough County Health Care Program for use in providing health care to the homeless, indigent, and other needy residents of Hillsborough County. The administration at Brandon is committed to establishing an adult open heart surgery program. The proposal is supported by the medical and nursing staff. It is also supported by the Brandon community. The Brandon Community in East Hillsborough County Brandon, Florida, is a large unincorporated community in Hillsborough County, east of Interstate 75. The Brandon area is one of the fastest growing in the state. In the last ten years alone, the area's population has increased from approximately 90,000 to 160,000. An incorporated Brandon municipality (depending on the boundaries of the incorporation) has the potential to be the eighth largest city in Florida. The Brandon community's population is projected to further increase by at least 50,000 over the next five to ten years. Brandon Regional Hospital's primary service area not only encompasses the Brandon community, but further extends throughout Hillsborough County to a populous of nearly 285,000 persons. The population of Brandon's primary service area is projected to increase to 309,000 by the year 2004, of which approximately 32,000 are anticipated to be over the age of 65, making Brandon's population "young" relative to much of the rest of the State. The community of Brandon has attracted several new large housing developments which are likely to accelerate its projected growth. According to the Hillsborough County City- County Planning Commission, six of the eleven largest subdivisions of single-family homes permitted in 1998 are located nearby. For example, the infrastructure is in place for an 8,000-acre housing development east of Brandon which consists of 7,500 homes and is projected to bring in 30,000 people over the next 5-10 years. Two other large housing developments will bring an additional 5,000-10,000 persons to the Brandon area. The community of Brandon is also an attractive area for relocating businesses. Recent additions to the Brandon area include, among others, CitiGroup Corporation, Atlantic Lucent Technologies, Household Finance, Ford Motor Credit, and Progressive Insurance. CitiGroup Corporation alone supplemented the area's population with approximately 5,000 persons. The community of Brandon has experienced growth in the development of health care facilities with 5 new assisted living facilities and one additional assisted living facility under construction. The average age of the residents of these facilities is much higher than of the Brandon area as a whole. Existing Providers' Distance from Brandon's PSA Brandon's primary service area ("PSA") is comprised of 12 zip code areas "in and around Brandon, essentially eastern Hillsborough County." (Tr. 1071). Using the center of each zip code in Brandon's primary service area as the location for each resident of the zip code area, the residents of Brandon's PSA are an average of 15 miles from Tampa General, 16.4 miles from St. Joseph's, 17.3 miles from UCH and 24.6 miles from Lakeland Regional Medical Center. In contrast, they are only 7.7 miles from Brandon Regional Hospital. Using the same methodology, the residents of Brandon's PSA are an average of more than 40 miles from Blake Medical Center (44.9 miles) and Manatee Memorial (41 miles). Numeric Need Publication Rule 59C-1.033, Florida Administrative Code (the "Open Heart Surgery Program Rule" or the "Rule") specifies a methodology for determining numeric need for new open heart surgery programs in health planning districts. The methodology is set forth in section (7) of the Rule. Part of the methodology is a formula. See subsection (b) of Section (7) of the Rule. Using the formula, the Agency calculated numeric need in the District for the January 2002 Planning Horizon. The calculation yielded a result of 3.27 additional programs needed to serve the District by January 1, 2002. But calculation of numeric need under the formula is not all that is entailed in the complete methodology for determining numeric need. Numeric need is also determined by taking other factors into consideration. The Agency is to determine net need based on the formula "[p]rovided that the provisions of paragraphs (7)(a) and (7) (c) do not apply." Rule 59C-1.033(b), Florida Administrative Code. Paragraph (7)(a) states, "[a] new adult open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved in the district" if the following condition (among others) exists: 2. 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(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Both Blake Medical Center and Manatee Memorial Hospital in Manatee County were operational and performed less that 350 adult open heart surgery operations in the qualifying time periods described by subparagraph (7)(a)2., of the Rule. (Blake reported 221 open heart admissions for the 12-month period ending March 31, 1999; Manatee Memorial for the same period reported 319). Because of the sub-350 volume of the two providers, the Rule's methodology yielded a numeric need of "0" new open heart surgery programs in District 6 for the January 2002 Planning Horizon. In other words, the numeric need of 3.27 determined by calculation pursuant to the formula prior to consideration of the programs described in (7)(a)2.1, was "zeroed out" by operation of the Rule. Accordingly, a numeric need of zero for the district in the applicable planning horizon was published on behalf of the Agency in the January 29, 1999, issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly. No Impact on Manatee County Providers In 1998, only one resident of Brandon's PSA received an open heart surgery procedure in Manatee County. For the same period only two residents from Brandon's PSA received an angioplasty procedure in Manatee County. These three residents received the services at Manatee Memorial. Of the two Manatee County programs, Manatee Memorial consistently has a higher volume of open heart surgery cases and according to the latest data available at the time of hearing has "hit the mark" (Tr. 1546) of 350 procedures annually. Very few residents from other District 6 counties receive cardiac services in Manatee County. Similarly, very few Manatee county residents migrate from Manatee County to another District 6 hospital to receive cardiac services. In 1998, only 19 of a total 1,209 combined open heart and angioplasty procedures performed at either Blake or Manatee Memorial originated in the other District 6 counties and only two were from the Brandon area. Among the 6,739 Manatee County residents discharged from a Florida hospital in calendar year 1998 following any cardiovascular procedure (MDC-5), only 58(0.9 percent) utilized one of the other providers in District 6, and none were discharged from Brandon. Among the 643 open heart surgeries performed on Manatee County residents in 1998, only 17 cases were seen at one of the District 6 open heart programs outside of Manatee County. There is, therefore, practically no patient exchange between Manatee County and the remainder of the District. In sum, there is virtually no cardiac patient overlap between Manatee County and Brandon's primary service area. The development of an open heart surgery program at Brandon will have no appreciable or meaningful impact on the Manatee County providers. CON 9169 In CON 9169, Brandon applied for an open heart surgery program on the basis of special circumstances due to no impact on low volume providers in Manatee County. The application was denied by AHCA. The State Agency Action Report ("SAAR") on CON 9169, dated June 17, 1999, in a section of the SAAR denominated "Special Circumstances," found the application to demonstrate "that a program at Brandon would not impact the two Manatee hospitals . . .". (UCH Ex. No. 6, p. 5). The "Special Circumstances" section of the SAAR on CON 9169, however, does not conclude that the lack of impact constitutes special circumstances. In follow-up to the finding of the application's demonstration of no impact to the Manatee County, the SAAR turned to impact on the non-Manatee County providers in District The SAAR on CON 9169 states, "it is apparent that a new program in Brandon would impact existing providers [those in Hillsborough and Polk Counties] in the absence of significant open heart surgery growth." Id. In reference to Brandon's argument in support of special circumstances based on the lack of impact to the Manatee County providers, the CON 9169 SAAR states: [T]he applicant notes the open heart need formula should be applied to District 6 excluding Manatee County, which would result in the need for several programs. This argument ignores the provision of the rule that specifies that the need cannot exceed one. (UCH No. 6, p. 7). The Special Circumstances Section of the SAAR on CON 9169 does not deal directly with whether lack of impact to the Manatee County providers is a special circumstance justifying one additional program. Instead, the Agency disposes of Brandon's argument in the "Summary" section of the SAAR. There AHCA found Brandon's special circumstances argument to fail because "no impact on low volume providers" is not among those special circumstances traditionally or previously recognized in case law and by the Agency: To demonstrate need under special circumstances, the applicant should demonstrate one or more of the following reasons: access problems to open heart surgery; capacity limits of existing providers; denial of access based on payment source or lack thereof; patients are seeking care outside the district for service; improvement of care to underserved population groups; and/or cost savings to the consumer. The applicant did not provide any documentation in support of these reasons. (UCH No. 6, p. 29). Following reference to the Agency's publication of zero need in District 6, moreover, the SAAR reiterated that [t]he implementation of another program in Hillsborough County is expected to significantly [a]ffect existing programs, in particular Tampa General Hospital, an important indigent care provider. (Id.) Typical "not normal circumstances" that support approval of a new program were described at hearing by one health planner as consisting of a significant "gap" in the current health care delivery system of that service. Typical Not Normal Circumstances Just as in CON 9169, none of the typical "not normal" circumstances" recognized in case law and with which the Agency has previous experience are present in this case. The six existing OHS programs in District 6 have unused capacity, are available, and are adequate to meet the projected OHS demand in District 6, in Hillsborough County ("County"), and in Brandon's proposed primary service area ("PSA"). All three County OHS providers are less than 17 miles from Brandon. There are, therefore, no major service geographic gaps in the availability of OHS services. Existing providers in District 6 have unused capacity to meet OHS projected demand in January 2002. OHS volume for District 6 will increase by only 179 surgeries. This is modest growth, and can easily be absorbed by the existing providers. In fact, existing OHS providers have previously handled more volume than what is projected for 2002. In 1995, 3,313 OHS procedures were generated at the six OHS programs. Yet, only 3,245 procedures are projected for 2002. The demand in 1995 was greater than what is projected for 2002. Neither population growth nor demographic characteristics of Brandon's PSA demonstrate that existing programs cannot meet demand. The greatest users of OHS services are the elderly. In 1999, the percentage in District 6 was similar to the Florida average; 18.25 percent for District 6, 18.38 percent for the state. The elderly percentage in Hillsborough County was less: 13.21 percent. The elderly component in Brandon's PSA was less still: 10.44 percent. In 2004, about 18.5 percent of Florida and District 6 residents are projected to be elderly. In contrast, only 10.5 percent of PSA residents are expected to be elderly. Brandon's PSA is "one of the younger defined population segments that you could find in the State of Florida" (Tr. 2892) and likely to remain so. Brandon's PSA will experience limited growth in OHS volume. Between 1999 - 2002, OHS volume will grow by only 36. The annual growth thereafter is only 13 surgeries. This is "very modest" growth and is among the "lowest numbers" of incremental growth in the State. Existing OHS providers can easily absorb this minimal growth. Brandon's PSA, is not an underserved area . . . there is excellent access to existing providers and . . . the market in this service area is already quite competitive. There is not a single competitor that dominates. In fact, the four existing providers [in Hillsborough and Polk Counties] compete quite vigorously. (Tr. 2897). Existing OHS programs in District 6 provide very good quality of care. The surgeons at the programs are excellent. Dr. Gandhi, testifying in support of Brandon's application, testified that he was very comfortable in referring his patients for OHS services to St. Joseph and Tampa General, having, in fact, been comfortable with his father having had OHS at Tampa General. Likewise, Dr. Vijay and his group, also supporters of the Brandon application, split time between Bayonet Point and Tampa General. Dr. Vijay is very proud to be associated with the OHS program at Tampa General. Lakeland also operates a high quality OHS program. In its application, Brandon did not challenge the quality of care at the existing OHS programs in District 6. Nor did Brandon at hearing advance as reasons for supporting its application, capacity constraints, inability of existing providers to absorb incremental growth in OHS volume or failure of existing providers to meet the needs of the residents of Brandon's primary service area. The Agency, in its preliminary decision on the application, agreed that typical "not normal" circumstances in this case are not present. Included among these circumstances are those related to lack of "geographic access." The Agency's OHS Rule includes a geographic access standard of two hours. It is undisputed that all District 6 residents have access to OHS services at multiple OHS providers in the District and outside the District within two hours. The travel time from Brandon to UCH or Tampa General, moreover, is usually less than 30 minutes anytime during the day, including peak travel time. Travel time from Brandon to St. Joseph's is about 30 minutes. There are times, however, when travel time exceeds 30 minutes. There have been incidents when traffic congestion has prevented emergency transport of Brandon patients suffering myocardial infarcts from reaching nearby open heart surgery providers within the 30 minutes by ground ambulance. Delays in travel are not a problem in most OHS cases. In the great majority, procedures are elective and scheduled in advance. OHS procedures are routinely scheduled days, if not weeks, after determining that the procedure is necessary. This high percentage of elective procedures is attributed to better management of patients, better technology, and improved stabilizing medications. The advent of drugs such as thrombolytic therapy, calcium channel blockers, beta blockers, and anti-platelet medications have vastly improved stabilization of patients who present at Emergency Rooms with myocardial infarctions. In its application, Brandon did not raise outmigration as a not-normal circumstance to support its proposal and with good reason. Hillsborough County residents generally do not leave District 6 for OHS. In fact, over 96 percent of County residents receive OHS services at a District 6 provider. Lack of out-migration shows two significant facts: (a) existing OHS programs are perceived to be reasonably accessible; and (2) County residents are satisfied with the quality of OHS services they receive in the County. This 96 percent retention rate is even more impressive considering there are many OHS programs and options available to County residents within a two-hour travel time. In contrast, there are two low-volume OHS providers in Manatee County, one of them being Blake. Unlike Hillsborough County residents, only 78 percent of Manatee County residents remain in District 6 for OHS services. Such outmigration shows that these residents prefer to bypass closer programs, and travel further distances, to receive OHS services at high-volume facility in District 8, which they regard as offering a higher quality of service. In its Application, Brandon does not raise economic access as a "not normal" circumstance. In fact, Brandon concedes that the demand for OHS services by Medicaid and indigent patients is very limited because Brandon's PSA is an affluent area. Brandon does not "condition" its application on serving a specific number or percentage of Medicaid or indigent patients. There are no financial barriers to accessing OHS services in District 6. All OHS providers in Hillsborough County and LRMC provide services to Medicaid and indigent patients, as needed. Approving Brandon is not needed to improve service or care to Medicaid or indigent patient populations. Tampa General is the "safety net" provider for health care services to all County residents. Tampa General is an OHS provider geographically accessible to Brandon's PSA. Tampa General actively services the PSA now for OHS. Brandon did not demonstrate cost savings to the patient population of its PSA if it were approved. Approving Brandon is not needed to improve cost savings to the patient population. Brandon based its OHS and PTCA charges on the average charge for PSA residents who are serviced at the existing OHS providers. While that approach is acceptable, Brandon does not propose a charge structure which is uniquely advantageous for patients. Restated, patients would not financially benefit if Brandon were approved. Tertiary Service Open Heart Surgery is defined as a tertiary service by rule. A "tertiary health service" is defined in Section 408.032(17), Florida Statutes, as follows: 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. As a tertiary service, OHS is necessarily a referral service. Most hospitals, lacking OHS capability, transfer their patients to providers of the service. One might expect providers of open heart surgery in Florida in light of OHS' status as a tertiary service to be limited to regional centers of excellence. The reality of the six hospitals that provide open heart surgery services in District 6 defies this health-planning expectation. While each of the six provides OHS services of high quality, they are not "regional" centers since all are in the same health planning district. Rather than each being a regional center, the six together comprise more localized providers that are dispersed throughout a region, quite the opposite of a center for an entire region. Brandon's Allegations of Special Circumstances. Brandon presents two special circumstances for approval of its application. The first is that consideration of the low-volume Manatee County providers should not operate to "zero out" the numeric need calculated by the formula. The second relates to transfers and occasional problems with transfers for Brandon patients in need of emergency open heart services. "Time is Muscle" Lack of blood flow to the heart during a myocardial infarction ("MI") results in loss of myocardium (heart muscle). The longer the blood flow is disrupted or diminished, the more myocardium is lost. The more myocardium lost, the more likely the patient will die or, should the patient survive, suffer severe reduction in quality of life. The key to good patient outcome when a patient is experiencing an acute MI is prompt evaluation and rapid treatment upon presentation at the hospital. Restoration of blood flow to the heart (revascularization) is the goal of the treating physician once it is recognized that a patient is suffering an MI. If revascularization is not commenced within 2 hours of the onset of an acute MI, an MI patient's potential for recovery is greatly diminished. The need for prompt revascularization for a patient suffering an MI is summed up in the phrase "time is muscle," a phrase accepted as a maxim by cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons. Recent advances in modern medicine and technology have improved the ability to stabilize and treat patients with acute MIs and other cardiac traumas. The three primary treatment modalities available to a patient suffering from an MI are: 1) thrombolytics; 2) angioplasty and stent placement; and, 3) open heart surgery. Because of the advancement of the effectiveness of thrombolytics, thrombolytic therapy has become the standard of care for treating MIs. Thrombolytic therapy is the administration of medication to dissolve blood clots. Administered intravenously, thrombolytic medication begins working within minutes to dissolve the clot causing the acute MI and therefore halt the damage done by an MI to myocardium. The protocols to administer thrombolysis are similar among hospitals. If a patient presents with chest pain and the E.R. physician identifies evidence of an active heart attack, thrombolysis is normally administered. If the E.R. physician is uncertain, a cardiologist is quickly contacted to evaluate the patient. Achieving good outcomes in cases of myocardial infarctions requires prompt consultation with the patient, competent clinical assessment, and quick administration of appropriate treatment. The ability to timely evaluate patient conditions for MI, and timely administer thrombolytic therapy, is measured and evaluated nationally by the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. The National Registry makes the measurement according to a standard known as "door-to-needle" time. This standard measures the time between the patient's presentation at the E.R. and the time the patient is initially administered thrombolytic medication by injection intravenously. Patients often begin to respond to thrombolysis within 10-15 minutes. Consistent with the maxim, "time is muscle," the shorter the door-to-needle time, the better the chance of the patient's successful recovery. The effectiveness of thrombolysis continues to increase. For example, the advent of a drug called Reapro blocks platelet activity, and has increased the efficacy rate of thrombolysis to at least 85 percent. As one would expect, then, thrombolytic therapy is the primary method of revascularization available to patients at Brandon. Due to the lack of open heart surgery backup, moreover, Brandon is precluded by Agency rule from offering angioplasty in all but the most extreme cases: those in which it is determined that a patient will not survive a transfer. While Brandon has protocols, authority, and equipment to perform angioplasty when a patient is not expected to survive a transfer, physicians are reluctant to perform angioplasty without open heart backup because of complications that can develop that require open heart surgery. Angioplasty, therefore, is not usually a treatment modality available to the MI patient at Brandon. Although the care of choice for MI treatment, thrombolytics are not always effective. To the knowledge of the cardiologists who testified in this proceeding, there is not published data on the percentage of patients for whom thrombolytics are not effective. But from the cardiologists who offered their opinions on the percentage in the proceeding, it can be safely found that the percentage is at least 10 percent. Thrombolytics are not ordered for these patients because they are inappropriate in the patients' individual cases. Among the contraindications for thrombolytics are bleeding disorders, recent surgery, high blood pressure, and gastrointestinal bleeding. Of the patients ineligible for thrombolytics, a subset, approximately half, are also ineligible for angioplasty. The other half are eligible for angioplasty. Under the most conservative projections, then at least 1 in 20 patients suffering an MI would benefit from timely angioplasty intervention for which open heart surgery back-up is required in all but the rarest of cases. In 1997, 351 people presented to Brandon's Emergency Room suffering from an acute MI. In 1998, the number of MIs increased to 427. In 1999, 428 patients presented to Brandon's Emergency Room suffering from an acute MI. At least 120 (10 percent) of the total 1206 MI patients presenting to Brandon's Emergency Room from 1997 to 1999 would have been ineligible for thrombolytics as a means of revascularization. Of these, half would have been ineligible for angioplasty while the other half would have been eligible. Sixty, therefore, is the minimum number of patients from 1997 to 1999 who would have benefited from angioplasty at Brandon using the most conservative estimate. Transfers of Emergency Patients Those patients who presented at Brandon's Emergency Room with acute MI and who could not be stabilized with thrombolytic therapy had to be transferred to one of the nearby providers of open heart surgery. In 1998, Brandon transferred an additional 190 patients who did not receive a diagnostic catheterization procedure at Brandon for either angioplasty or open heart surgery. For the first 9 months of 1999, 114 such transfers were made. Thus, in 1998 alone, Brandon transferred a total of 516 cardiac patients to existing providers for the provision of angioplasty or open heart surgery, more than any other provider in the District. In 1999, Brandon made 497 such transfers. Not all of these were emergency transfers, of course. But in the three years between 1997 and 1999 at least 60 patients were in need of emergency transfers who would benefit from angioplasty with open heart backup. Of those Brandon patients determined to be in need of urgent angioplasty or open heart surgery, all must be transferred to existing providers either by ambulance or by helicopter. Ambulance transfer is accomplished through ambulances maintained by the Hillsborough County Fire Department. Due to the cardiac patient's acuity level, ambulance transfer of such patients necessitates the use of ambulances equipped with Advanced Life Support Systems (ALS) in order to monitor the patient's heart functions and to treat the patient should the patient's condition deteriorate. Hillsborough County operates 18 ambulances. All have ALS capability. Patients with less serious medical problems are sometimes transported by private ambulances equipped with Basic Life Support Systems (BLS) that lack the equipment to appropriately care for the cardiac patient. But, private ambulances are not an option to transport critically ill cardiac patients because they are only equipped with BLS capability. Private ambulances, moreover, do not make interfacility transports of cardiac patients between Hillsborough County hospitals. There are many demands on the ambulance transfer system in Hillsborough County. Hillsborough County's 18 ALS ambulances cover in excess of 960 square miles. Of these 18 ambulances, only three routinely operate within the Brandon area. Hillsborough County ambulances respond to 911 calls before requests for interfacility transfers of cardiac patients and are extremely busy responding to automobile accidents, especially when it rains. As a result, Hillsborough County ambulances are not always available on a timely basis when needed to perform an interfacility transfer of a cardiac patient. At times, due to inordinate delay caused by traffic congestion, inter-facility ambulance transport, even if the ambulance is appropriately equipped, is not an option for cardiac patients urgently in need of angioplasty or open heart surgery. It has happened, for example, that an ambulance has appeared at the hospital 8 hours after a request for transport. Some cardiac surgeons will not utilize ground transport as a means of transporting urgent open heart and angioplasty cases. Expeditious helicopter transport in Hillsborough County is available as an alternative to ground transport. But, it too, from time-to-time, is problematic for patients in urgent need of angioplasty or open heart surgery. Tampa General operates two helicopters through AeroMed, only one of which is located in Hillsborough County. AeroMed's two helicopters are not exclusively devoted to cardiac patients. They are also utilized for the transfer of emergency medical and trauma patients, further taxing the availability of AeroMed helicopters to transfer patients in need of immediate open heart surgery or angioplasty. BayCare operates the only other helicopter transport service serving Hillsborough County. BayCare maintains several helicopters, only one of which is located in Hillsborough County at St. Joseph's. BayCare helicopters are not equipped with intra-aortic balloon pump capability, thereby limiting their use in transporting the more complicated cardiac patients. Helicopter transport is not only a traumatic experience for the patient, but time consuming. Once a request has been made by Brandon to transport a patient in need of urgent intervention, it routinely takes two and a half hours, with instances of up to four hours, to effectuate a helicopter transfer. At the patient's beside, AeroMed personnel must remove the patient's existing monitors, IVS, and drips, and refit the patient with AeroMed's equipment in preparation for flight. In more complicated cases requiring the use of an intra-aortic balloon pump, the patient's balloon pump placed at Brandon must be removed and substituted with the balloon pump utilized by AeroMed. Further delays may be experienced at the receiving facility. The national average of the time from presentation to commencement of the procedure is reported to be two hours. In most instances at UCH, it is probably 90 minutes although "[t]here are of course instances where it would be much faster . . .". (Tr. 3212). On the other hand, there are additional delays from time-to-time. "[P]erhaps the longest circumstance would be when all the labs are full . . . or . . . even worse . . . if all the staff has just left for the day and they are almost home, to then turn them around and bring them all back." (Id.) Specific Cases Involving Transfers Delays in the transfer process were detailed at hearing by Brandon cardiologists with regard to specific Brandon patients. In cases in which "time is muscle," delay is critical except for one subset of such cases: that in which, no matter what procedure is available and no matter how timely that procedure can be provided, the patient cannot be saved. Craig Randall Martin, M.D., Board-certified in Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Disease, and an expert in cardiology, wrote to AHCA in support of the application by detailing two "examples of patients who were in an extreme situation that required emergent, immediate intervention . . . [intervention that could not be provided] at Brandon Hospital." (Tr. 408). One of these concerned a man in his early sixties who was a patient at Brandon the night and morning of October 13 and 14, 1998. It represents one of the rare cases in which an emergency angioplasty was performed at Brandon even though the hospital does not have open heart backup. The patient had presented to the Emergency Room at approximately 11:00 p.m., on October 13 with complaints of chest pain. Although the patient had a history of prior infarctions, PTCA procedures, and onset diabetes, was obese, a smoker and had suffered a stroke, initial evaluation, including EKG and blood tests, did not reveal an MI. The patient was observed and treated for what was probably angina. With the subsiding of the chest pain, he was appropriately admitted at 2:30 a.m. to a non- intensive cardiac telemetry bed in the hospital. At 3:00 a.m., he was observed to be stable. A few hours or so later, the patient developed severe chest pain. The telemetry unit indicated a very slow heart rate. Transferred to the intensive care unit, his blood pressure was observed to be very low. Aware of the seriousness of the patient's condition, hospital personnel called Dr. Martin. Dr. Martin arrived on the scene and determined the patient to be in cardiogenic shock, an extreme situation. In such a state, a patient has a survival rate of 15 to 20 percent, unless revascularization occurs promptly. If revascularization is timely, the survival rate doubles to 40 percent. Coincident with the cardiogenic shock, the patient was suffering a complete heart block with a number of blood clots in the right coronary artery. The patient's condition, to say the least, was grave. Dr. Martin described the action taken at Brandon: . . . I immediately called in the cardiac catheterization team and moved the patient to the catheterization laboratory. * * * Somewhere around 7:30 in the morning, I put a temporary pacemaker in, performed a diagnostic catheterization that showed that one of his arteries was completely clotted. He, even with the pacemaker giving him an adequate heart rate, and even with the use of intravenous medication for his blood pressure, . . . was still in cardiogenic shock. * * * And I placed an intra-aortic balloon pump . . ., a special pump that fits in the aorta and pumps in synchrony with the heart and supports the blood pressure and circulation of the muscle. That still did not alleviate the situation . . . an excellent indication to do a salvage angioplasty on this patient. I performed the angioplasty. It was not completely successful. The patient had a respiratory arrest. He required intubation, required to be put on a ventilator for support. And it became apparent to me that I did not have the means to save this patient at [Brandon]. I put a call to the . . . cardiac surgeon of choice . . . . [Because the surgeon was on vacation], [h]is associate [who happened to be in the operating room at UCH] called me back immediately . . . and said ["]Yes, I'll take your patient. Send him to me immediately, I will postpone my current case in order to take care of your patient.["] At that point, we called for helicopter transport, and there were great delays in obtaining [the] transport. The patient was finally transferred to University Community Hospital, had surgery, was unsuccessful and died later that afternoon. (Tr. 409-412). By great delays in the transport, Dr. Martin referred to inability to obtain prompt helicopter transport. University Community Hospital, the receiving hospital, was not able to find a helicopter. Dr. Martin, therefore, requested Tampa General (a third hospital uninvolved from the point of being either the transferring or the receiving hospital) to send one of its two helicopters to transfer the patient from Brandon to UCH. Dr. Martin described Tampa General's response: They balked. And I did not know they balked until an hour later. And I promptly called them back, got that person on the telephone, we had a heated discussion. And after that person checked with their supervisor, the helicopter was finally sent. There was at least an hour-and-a-half delay in obtaining a helicopter transport on this patient that particular morning that was unnecessary. And that is critical when you have a patient in this condition. (Tr. 413, emphasis supplied.) In the case of this patient, however, the delay in the transport from Brandon to the UCH cardiovascular surgery table, in all likelihood, was not critical to outcome. During the emergency angioplasty procedure at Brandon, some of the clot causing the infarction was dislodged. It moved so as to create a "no-flow state down the right coronary artery. In other words, . . ., it cut off[] the microcirculation . . . [so that] there is no place for the blood . . . to get out of the artery. And that's a devastating, deadly problem." (Tr. 2721). This "embolization, an unfortunate happenstance [at times] with angioplasty", id., probably sealed the patient's fate, that is, death. It is very likely that the patient with or without surgery, timely or not, would not have survived cardiogenic shock, complete heart block, and the circumstance of no circulation in the right coronary artery that occurred during the angioplasty procedure. Adithy Kumar Gandhi, M.D., is Board-certified in Internal Medicine and Cardiology. Employed by the Brandon Cardiology Group, a three-member group in Brandon, Dr. Gandhi was accepted as an expert in the field of cardiology in this proceeding. Dr. Gandhi testified about two patients in whose cases delays occurred in transferring them to St. Joseph’s. He also testified about a third case in which it took two hours to transfer the patient by helicopter to Tampa General. The first case involves an elderly woman. She had multiple-risk factors for coronary disease including a family history of cardiac disease and a personal history of “chest pain.” (Tr. 2299). The patient presented at Brandon’s Emergency Room on March 17, 1999 at around 2:30 p.m. Seen by the E.R. physician about 30 minutes later, she was placed in a monitored telemetry bed. She was determined to be stable. During the next two days, despite family and personal history pointing to a potentially serious situation, the patient refused to submit to cardiac catheterization at Brandon as recommended by Dr. Gandhi. She maintained her refusal despite results from a stress test that showed abnormal left ventricular systolic function. Finally, on March 20, after a meeting with family members and Dr. Gandhi, the patient consented to the cath procedure. The procedure was scheduled for March 22. During the procedure, it was discovered that a major artery of the heart was 80 percent blocked. This condition is known as the “widow-maker,” because the prognosis for the patient is so poor. Dr. Gandhi determined that “the patient needed open heart surgery and . . . to be transferred immediately to a tertiary hospital.” (Tr. 2305-6). He described that action he took to obtain an immediate transfer as follows: I talked to the surgeon up at St. Joseph’s and I informed him I have had difficulties transferring patients to St. Joseph’s the same day. [I asked him to] do me a favor and transfer the patient out of Brandon Hospital as soon as possible by helicopter. The surgeon promised me that he would take care of that. (Tr. 2261). The assurance, however, failed. The patient was not transferred that day. That night, while still at Brandon, complications developed for the patient. The complications demanded that an intra-aortic balloon pump be inserted in order to increase the blood flow to the heart. After Dr. Gandhi’s partner inserted the pump, he, too, contacted the surgeon at St. Joseph’s to arrange an immediate transfer for open heart surgery. But the patient was not transferred until early the next morning. Dr. Gandhi’s frustration at the delay for this critically ill patient in need of immediate open heart surgery is evident from the following testimony: So the patient had approximately 18 hours of delay of getting to the hospital with bypass capabilities even though the surgeon knew that she had a widow-maker, he had promised me that he would make those transfer arrangements, even though St. Joseph’s Hospital knew that the patient needed to be transferred, even though I was promised that the patient would be at a tertiary hospital for bypass capabilities. (Tr. 2262). Rod Randall, M.D., is a cardiologist whose practice is primarily at St. Joseph’s. He had active privileges at Brandon until 1998 when he “switched to courtesy privileges,” (Tr. 1735) at Brandon. He reviewed the medical records of the first patient about whom Dr. Gandhi testified. A review of the patient’s medical records disclosed no adverse outcome due to the patient’s transfer. To the contrary, the patient was reasonably stable at the time of transfer. Nonetheless, it would have been in the patient’s best interest to have been transferred prior to the catheterization procedure at Brandon. As Dr. Randall explained, [W]e typically cath people that we feel are going to have a probability of coronary artery disease. That is, you don’t tend to cath someone that [for whom] you don’t expect to find disease . . . . If you are going to cath this patient, [who] is in a higher risk category being an elderly female with . . . diminished injection fraction . . . why put the patient through two procedures. I would have to do a diagnostic catheterization at one center and do some type of intervention at another center. So, I would opt to transfer that patient to a tertiary care center and do the diagnostic catheterization there. (Tr. 1764, 1765). Furthermore, regardless of what procedure had been performed, the significant left main blockage that existed prior to the patient’s presentation at Brandon E.R. meant that the likely outcome would be death. The second of the patients Dr. Gandhi transferred to St. Joseph’s was a 74-year-old woman. Dr. Gandhi performed “a heart catheterization at 5:00 on Friday.” (Tr. 2267). The cath revealed a 90 percent blockage of the major artery of the heart, another widow-maker. Again, Dr. Gandhi recommended bypass surgery and contacted a surgeon at St. Joseph’s. The transfer, however, was not immediate. “Finally, at approximately 11:00 the patient went to St. Joseph’s Hospital. That night she was operated on . . . ”. (Tr. 2267). If Brandon had had open heart surgery capability, “[t]hat would have increased her chances of survival.” No competent evidence was admitted that showed the outcome, however, and as Dr. Randall pointed out, the medical records of the patient do not reveal the outcome. The patient who was transferred to Tampa General (the third of Dr. Ghandhi's patients) had presented at Brandon’s ER on February 15, 2000. Fifty-six years old and a heavy smoker with a family history of heart disease, she complained of severe chest pain. She received thrombolysis and was stabilized. She had presented with a myocardial infarction but it was complicated by congestive heart failure. After waiting three days for the myocardial infarction to subside, Dr. Gandhi performed cardiac catheterization. The patient “was surviving on only one blood vessel in the heart, the other two vessels were 100 percent blocked. She arrested on the table.” (Tr. 2271). After Dr. Gandhi revived her, he made arrangements for her transfer by helicopter. The transfer was done by helicopter for two reasons: traffic problems and because she had an intra-aortic balloon pump and there are a limited number of ambulances with intra- aortic balloon pump maintenance capability. If Brandon had had the ability to conduct open heart surgery, the patient would have had a better likelihood of successful outcome: “the surgeon would have taken the patient straight to the operating room. That patient would not have had a second arrest as she did at Tampa General.” (Tr. 2273). Marc Bloom, M.D., is a cardiothoracic surgeon. He performs open-heart surgery at UCH, where he is the chief of cardiac surgery. He reviewed the records of this 54-year-old woman. The records reflect that, in fact, upon presentation at Brandon’s E.R., the patient’s heart failure was very serious: She had an echocardiogram done that . . . showed a 20 percent ejection fraction . . . I mean when you talk severe, this would be classified as a severe cardiac compromise with this 20 percent ejection fraction. (Tr. 2712). Once stabilized, the patient should have been transferred for cardiac catheterization to a hospital with open- heart surgery instead of having cardiac cath at Brandon. It is true that delay in the transfer once arrangements were made was a problem. The greater problem for the patient, however, was in her management at Brandon. It was very likely that open heart surgery would be required in her case. She should have been transferred prior to the catheterization as soon as became known the degree to which her heart was compromised, that is, once the results of the echocardiogram were known. Adam J. Cohen, M.D., is a cardiologist with Diagnostic Consultative Cardiology, a group located in Brandon that provides cardiology services in Hillsborough County. Dr. Cohen provided evidence of five patients who presented at Brandon and whose treatments were delayed because of the need for a transfer. The first of these patients was a 76-year old male who presented to Brandon’s ER on April 6, 1999. Dr. Cohen considered him to be suffering “a complicated myocardial infarction.” (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 43) Cardiac catheterization conducted by Dr. Cohen showed “severe multi-vessel coronary disease, cardiogenic shock, severely impaired [left ventricular] function for which an intra-aortic balloon pump was placed . . .”. (Id.) During the placement of the pump, the patient stopped breathing and lost pulse. He was intubated and stabilized. A helicopter transfer was requested. There was only one helicopter equipped to conduct the transfer. Unfortunately, “the same day . . . there was a mass casualty event within the City of Tampa when the Gannet Power Plant blew up . . .”. (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 44). An appropriate helicopter could not be secured. Dr. Cohen did not learn of the unavailability of helicopter transport for an hour after the request was made. Eventually, the patient was transferred by ambulance to UCH. There, he received angioplasty and “stenting of the right coronary artery times two.” (Id., at p. 47.) After a slow recovery, he was discharged on April 19. In light of the patient’s complex cardiac condition, he received a good outcome. This patient is an example of another patient who should have been transferred sooner from Brandon since Brandon does not have open heart surgery capability. The second of Dr. Cohen’s patients presented at Brandon’s E.R. at 10:30 p.m. on June 14, 1999. He was 64 years old with no risk factors for coronary disease other than high blood pressure. He was evaluated and diagnosed with “a large and acute myocardial infarction” Two hours later, the therapy was considered a failure because there was no evidence that the area of the heart that was blocked had been reperfused. Dr. Cohen recommended transfer to UCH for a salvage angioplasty. The call for a helicopter was made at 12:58 a.m. (early the morning of June 15) and the helicopter arrived 40 minutes later. At UCH, the patient received angioplasty procedure and stenting of two coronary arteries. He suffered “[m]oderately impaired heart function, which is reflective of myocardial damage.” (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 58). If salvage angioplasty with open heart backup had been available at Brandon, the patient would have received it much more quickly and timely. Whether the damage done to the patient’s heart during the episode could have been avoided by prompt angioplasty at Brandon is something Dr. Cohen did not know. As he put it, “I will never know, nor will anyone else know.” (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 60). The patient later developed cardiogenic shock and repeated ventricular tachycardia, requiring numerous medical interventions. Because of the interventions and mechanical trauma, he required surgery for repair of his right femoral artery. The patient recently showed an injection fraction of 45 percent below the minimum for normal of 50 percent. The third patient was a 51-year-old male who had undergone bypass surgery 19 years earlier. After persistent recurrent anginal symptoms with shortness of breath and diaphoresis, he presented at Brandon’s E.R. at 1:00 p.m. complaining of heavy chest pain. Thrombolytic therapy was commenced. Dr. Cohen described what followed: [H]he had an episode of heart block, ventricular fibrillation, losing consciousness, for which he received ACLS efforts, being defibrillated, shocked, times three, numerous medications, to convert him to sinus rhythm. He was placed on IV anti- arrhythmics consisting of amiodarone. The repeat EKG showed a worsening of progression of his EKG changes one hour after the initiation of the TPA. Based on that information, his clinical scenario and his previous history, I advised him to be transferred to University Hospital for a salvage angioplasty. (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 62). Transfer was requested at 1:55 p.m. The patient departed Brandon by helicopter at 2:20 p.m. The patient received the angioplasty at UCH. Asked how the patient would have benefited from angioplasty at Brandon without having to have been transferred, Dr. Cohen answered: In a more timely fashion, he would have received an angioplasty to the culprit lesion involved. There would have been much less occlusive time of that artery and thereby, by inference, there would have been greater salvage of myocardium that had been at risk. (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 65). The patient, having had bypass surgery in his early thirties, had a reduced life expectancy and impaired heart function before his presentation at Brandon in June of 1999. The time taken for the transfer of the patient to UCH was not inordinate. The transfer was accomplished with relative and expected dispatch. Nonetheless, the delay between realization at Brandon of the need for a salvage angioplasty and actual receipt of the procedure after a transfer to UCH increased the potential for lost myocardium. The lack of open heart services at Brandon resulted in reduced life expectancy for a patient whose life expectancy already had been diminished by the early onset of heart disease. The fourth patient of Dr. Cohen’s presented to Brandon’s E.R. at 8:30, the morning of August 29, 1999. A fifty-four-year-old male, he had been having chest pain for a month and had ignored it. An EKG showed a complete heart block with atrial fibrillation and change consistent with acute myocardial infarction. Thrombolytic therapy was administered. He continued to have symptoms including increased episodes of ventricular arrhythmias. He required dopamine for blood pressure support due to his clinical instability and the lack of effectiveness of the thrombolytics. The patient refused a transfer and catheterization at first. Ultimately, he was convinced to undergo an angioplasty. The patient was transferred by helicopter to UCH. The patient was having a “giant ventricular infarct . . . a very difficult situation to take care of . . . and the majority of [such] patients succumb to [the] disease . . .”. (Tr. 2703). The cardiologist was unable to open the blockage via angioplasty. Dr. Bloom was called in but the patient refused surgical intervention. After interaction with his family the patient consented. Dr. Bloom conducted open heart surgery. The patient had a difficult post-operative course with arrythmias because “[h]e had so much dead heart in his right ventricle . . .”. (Id.) The patient received an excellent outcome in that he was seen in Dr. Bloom’s office with 40 percent injection fraction. Dr. Bloom “was just amazed to see him back in the office . . . and amazed that this man is alive.” (Tr. 2704). Most of the delay in receiving treatment was due to the patient’s reluctance to undergo angioplasty and then open heart surgery. The fifth patient of Dr. Cohen’s presented at Brandon’s E.R. on March 22, 2000. He was 44 years old with no prior cardiac history but with numerous risk factors. He had a sudden onset of chest discomfort. Lab values showed an elevation consistent with myocardial injury. He also had an abnormal EKG. Dr. Cohen performed a cardiac cath on March 23, 2000. The procedure showed a totally occluded left anterior descending artery, one of the three major arteries serving the heart. Had open heart capability been available at Brandon, he would have undergone angioplasty and stenting immediately. As it was, the patient had to be transferred to UCH. A transfer was requested at 10:25 that morning and the patient left Brandon’s cath lab at 11:53. Daniel D. Lorch, M.D., is a specialist in pulmonary medicine who was accepted as an expert in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine and critical care medicine, consistent with his practice in a “five-man pulmonary internal medicine critical care group.” (Brandon Ex. 42, p. 4). Dr. Lorch produced medical records for one patient that he testified about during his deposition. The patient had presented to Brandon’s E.R. with an MI. He was transferred to UCH by helicopter for care. Dr. Lorch supports Brandon’s application. As he put it during his deposition: [Brandon] is an extremely busy community hospital and we are in a very rapidly growing area. The hospital is quite busy and we have a large number of cardiac patients here and it is not infrequently that a situation comes up where there are acute cardiac events that need to be transferred out. (Brandon Ex. 42, p. 20). Transfers Following Diagnostic Cardiac Catheterization Brandon transfers a high number cardiac patients for the provision of angioplasty or open heart surgery in addition to those transferred under emergency conditions. In 1996, Brandon performed 828 diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures. Of this number, 170 patients were transferred to existing providers for open heart surgery and 170 patients for angioplasty. In 1997, Brandon performed 863 diagnostic catheterizations of which 180 were transferred for open heart surgery and 159 for angioplasty. During 1998, 165 patients were transferred for open heart surgery and 161 for angioplasty out of 816 diagnostic catheterization procedures. For the first nine months of 1999, Brandon performed 639 diagnostic catheterizations of which 102 were transferred to existing providers for open heart surgery and 112 for angioplasty. A significant number of patients are transferred from Brandon for open heart surgery services. These transfers are consistent with the norm in Florida. After all, open heart surgery is a tertiary service. Patients are routinely transferred from most Florida hospitals to tertiary hospitals for OHS and PCTA. The large majority of Florida hospitals do not have OHS programs; yet, these hospitals receive patients who need OHS or PTCA. Transfers, although the norm, are not without consequence for some patients who are candidates for OHS or PCTA. If Brandon had open heart and angioplasty capability, many of the 1220 patients determined to be in need of angioplasty or open heart surgery following a diagnostic catheterization procedure at Brandon could have received these procedures at Brandon, thereby avoiding the inevitable delay and stress occasioned by transfer. Moreover, diagnostic catheterizations and angioplasties are often performed sequentially. Therefore, Brandon patients determined to be in need of angioplasty following a diagnostic catheterization would have had access to immediate angioplasty during the same procedure thus reducing the likelihood of a less than optimal outcome as the result of an additional delay for transfer. Adverse Impact on Existing Providers Competition There is active competition and available patient choices now in Brandon's PSA. As described, there are many OHS programs currently accessible to and substantially serving Brandon's PSA. There is substantial competition now among OHS providers so as to provide choices to PSA residents. There are no financial benefits or cost savings accruing to the patient population if Brandon is approved. Brandon does not propose lower charges than the existing OHS providers. Balanced Budget Act The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 has had a profound negative financial impact on hospitals throughout the country. The Act resulted in a significant reduction in the amount of Medicare payments made to hospitals for services rendered to Medicare recipients. During the first five years of the Act's implementation, Florida hospitals will experience a $3.6 billion reduction in Medicare revenues. Lakeland will receive $17 million less, St.Joseph's will receive $44 million less, and Tampa General will receive $53 million less. The impact of the Act has placed most hospitals in vulnerable financial positions. It has seriously affected the bottom line of all hospitals. Large urban teaching hospitals, such as TGH, have felt the greatest negative impact, due to the Act's impact on disproportionate share reimbursement and graduate medical education payment. The Act's impact upon Petitioners render them materially more vulnerable to the loss of OHS/PTCA revenues to Brandon than they would have been in the absence of the Act. Adverse Impact on Tampa General Tampa General is the "safety net provider" for Hillsborough County. Tampa General is a Medicaid disproportionate share provider. In fiscal year 1999, the hospital provided $58 million in charity care, as that term is defined by AHCA. Tampa General plays a unique, essential role in Hillsborough County and throughout West Central Florida in terms of provision of health care. Its regional role is of particular importance with respect to Level I trauma services, provision of burn care, specialized Level III neonatal and perinatal intensive care services, and adult organ transplant services. These services are not available elsewhere in western or central Florida. In fiscal year 1999, Tampa General experienced a net loss of $12.6 million in providing the services referenced above. It is obligated under contract with the State of Florida to continue to provide those services. Tampa General is a statutory teaching hospital. In fiscal year 1999, it provided unfunded graduate medical education in the amount of $19 million. Since 1998, Tampa General has consistently experienced losses resulting from its operations, as follows: FY 1998-$29 million, FY 1999-$27 million; FY 2000 (5 months)-$10 million. The hospital’s financial condition is not the result of material mismanagement. Rather, its financial condition is a function of its substantial provision of charity and Medicaid services, the impact of the Act, reduced managed care revenues, and significant increases in expense. Tampa General’s essential role in the community and its distressed financial condition have not gone unnoticed. The Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce established in February of 2000 an Emergency Task Force to assess the hospital's role in the community, and the need for supplemental funding to enable it to maintain its financial viability. Tampa General requires supplemental funding on a continuing basis in order to begin to restore it to a position of financial stability, while continuing to provide essential community services, indigent care, and graduate medical education. It will require ongoing supplemental funding of $20- 25 million annually to avoid triggering the default provision under its bond covenants. As of the close of hearing, the 2000 session of the Florida Legislature had adjourned. The Legislature appropriated approximately $22.9 million for Tampa General. It is, of course, uncertain as to what funding, if any, the Legislature will appropriate to the hospital in future years, as the terms which constitute the appropriations must be revisited by the Legislature on an annual basis. Tampa General has prepared internal financial projections for its fiscal years 2000-2002. It projects annual operating losses, as follows: FY 2000-$20.1 million; FY 2001- $20.6 million; FY 2002-$31.9 million. While its projections anticipate certain "strategic initiatives" that will enhance its financial condition, including continued supplemental legislative funding, the success and/or availability of those initiatives are not "guaranteed" to be successful. If the Brandon program is approved, Tampa General will lose 93 OHS cases and 107 angioplasty cases during Brandon's second year of operation. That loss of cases will result in a $1.4 million annual reduction in TGH's net income, a material adverse impact given Tampa General’s financial condition. OHS services provide a positive contribution to Tampa General's financial operations. Those services constitute a core piece of Tampa General's business. The anticipated loss of income resulting from Brandon's program pose a threat to the hospital’s ability to provide essential community services. Adverse Impact on UCH UCH operated at a financial break-even in its fiscal year 1999. In the first five months of its fiscal year 2000, the hospital has experienced a small loss. This financial distress is primarily attributed to less Medicare reimbursement due to the Act and less reimbursement from managed care. UCH's reimbursement for OHS services provides a good example of the financial challenges facing hospitals. In 1999, UCH's net income per OHS case was reduced 33 percent from 1998. Also in 1999, UCH received OHS reimbursement of only 32 percent of its charges. UCH would be substantially and adversely impacted by approval of Brandon's proposal. As described, UCH currently is a substantial provider of OHS and angioplasty services to residents of Brandon's PSA. There are many cardiologists on staff at Brandon who also actively practice at UCH. UCH is very accessible from Brandon's PSA. UCH reasonably projects to lose the following volumes in the first three years of operation of the proposed program: a loss of 78-93 OHS procedures, a loss of 24-39 balloon angioplasties, and a loss of 97-115 stent angioplasties. Converting this volume loss to financial terms, UCH will suffer the following financial losses as a direct and immediate result of Brandon being approved: about $1.1 million in the first year, and about $1.2 million in the second year, and about $1.3 million in the third year. As stated, UCH is currently operating at about a financial break-even point. The impact of the Balanced Budget Act, reduced managed care reimbursement, and UCH's commitment to serve all patients regardless of ability to pay has a profound negative financial impact on UCH. A recurring loss of more than $1 million dollars per year due to Brandon's new program will cause substantial and adverse impact on UCH. Adverse Impact on St. Joseph’s If Brandon's application is approved, St. Joseph’s will lose 47 OHS cases and 105 PTCA cases during Brandon's second year. That loss of cases will result in a $732,000 annual reduction in SJH's net income. That loss represents a material impact to SJH. Between 1997 and 2000, St. Joseph’s has experienced a pattern of significant deterioration in its financial performance. Its net revenue per adjusted admission had been reduced by 12 percent, while its costs have increased significantly. St. Joseph's net income from operations has deteriorated as follows: FYE 6/30/97-$31 million; FYE 12/31/98- $24 million; FYE 12/31/99-$13.8 million. A net operating income of $13.8 million is not much money relative to St Joseph's size, the age of its physical plant, and its need for capital to maintain and improve its facilities in order to remain competitive. St. Joseph’s offers a number of health care services to the community for which it does not receive reimbursement. Unreimbursed services include providing hospital admissions and services to patients of a free clinic staffed by volunteer members of SJH's medical staff, free immunization programs to low-income children, and a parish nurse program, among others. St. Joseph’s evaluates such programs annually to determine whether it has the financial resources to continue to offer them. During the past two years, the hospital has been forced to eliminate two of its free community programs, due to its deteriorating financial condition. St. Joseph’s anticipates that it will have to eliminate additional unreimbursed community services if it experiences an annual reduction in net income of $730,000. Adverse Impact to LRMC The approval of Brandon will have an impact on Lakeland. Lakeland will suffer a financial loss of about $253,000 annually. This projection is based on calculated contribution margins of OHS and PTCA/stent procedures performed at the hospital. A loss of $253,000 per year is a material loss at Lakeland, particularly in light of its slim operating margin and the very substantial losses it has experienced and will continue to experience as a result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In addition to the projected loss of OHS and other procedures based upon Brandon's application, Lakeland may experience additional lost cases from areas such as Bartow and Mulberry from which it draws patients to its open heart/cardiology program. Lakeland will also suffer material adverse impacts to its OHS program due to the negative effect of Brandon's program on its ability to recruit and retain nurses and other highly skilled employees needed to staff its program. The approval of Brandon will also result in higher costs at existing providers such as Lakeland as they seek to compete for a limited pool of experienced people by responding to sign-on bonuses and by reliance on extensive temporary nursing agencies and pools. Nursing Staff/Recruitment The staffing patterns and salaries for Brandon's projected 40.1 full-time equivalent employees to staff its open heart surgery program are reasonable and appropriate. Filling the positions will not be without some difficulty. There is a shortage for skilled nursing and other personnel needed for OHS programs nationally, in Florida and in District 6. The shortage has been felt in Hillsborough County. For example, it has become increasingly difficult to fill vacancies that occur in critical nursing positions in the coronary intensive care unit and in telemetry units at Tampa General. Tampa General's expenses for nursing positions have "increased tremendously." (Tr. 2622). To keep its program going, the hospital has hired "travelers . . . short-term employment, registered nurses that come from different agencies, . . . with [the hospital] a minimum of 12 weeks." (Tr. 2622). In fact, all hospitals in the Tampa Bay area utilize pool staff and contract staff to fill vacancies that appear from time-to- time. Use of contract staff has not diminished quality of care at the hospitals, although "they would not be assigned to the sickest patients." (Tr. 2176). Another technique for dealing with the shortage is to have existing full-time staff work overtime at overtime pay rates. St. Joseph's and Lakeland have done so. As a result, they have substantially exceeded their budgeted salary expenses in recent months. It will be difficult for Brandon to hire surgical RNs, other open heart surgery personnel and critical care nurses necessary to staff its OHS program. The difficulty, however, is not insurmountable. To meet the difficulty, Brandon will move members of its present staff with cardiac and open heart experience into its open heart program. It will also train some existing personnel in conjunction with the staff and personnel at Bayonet Point. In addition to drawing on the existing pool of nurses, Brandon can utilize HCA's internal nationwide staffing data base to transfer staff from other HCA facilities to staff Brandon's open heart program. Approximately 18 percent of the nurses hired at Brandon already come from other HCA facilities. The nursing shortage has been in existence for about a decade. During this time, other open heart programs have come on line and have been able to staff the programs adequately. Lakeland, in District 6, has demonstrated its ability to recruit and train open heart surgery personnel. Brandon, itself, has been successful, despite the on- going shortage, in appropriately staffing its recent additions of tertiary level NICU beds, an expanded Emergency Room, labor and delivery and recovery suites, and new high-risk, ante-partum observation unit. Brandon has begun to offer sign-on bonuses to compete for experienced nurses. Several employees who staff the Lakeland, UCH and Tampa General programs live in Brandon. These bonuses are temptations for them to leave the programs for Brandon. Other highly skilled, experienced individuals who already work at existing programs may be lost to Brandon's program as well simply as the natural result of the addition of a new program. In the end, Brandon will be able to staff its program, but it will make it more difficult for all of the programs in Hillsborough County and for Lakeland to meet their staffing needs as well as producing a financial impact on existing providers. Financial Feasibility Short-Term Brandon needs $4.2 million to fund implementation of the program. Its parent corporation, HCA will provide financing of up to $4.5 million for implementation. The $4.2 million in start-up costs projected by Brandon does not include the cost of a second cath lab or the costs to upgrade the equipment in the existing cath lab. Itemization of the funds necessary for improvement of the existing cath lab and the addition of the second cath lab were not included in Brandon's pro formas. It is the Agency's position that addition of a cath lab (and by inference, upgrade to an existing lab) requires only a letter of exemption as projects separate from an open heart surgery program even when proposed in support of the program. (See UCH No. 7, p. 83). The position is not inconsistent with cardiac catheterization programs as subject to requirements in law separate from those to which an open heart surgery program is subject. Brandon, through HCA, has the ability to fund the start-up costs of the project. It is financially feasible in the short-term. Long-Term Open heart surgery programs (inclusive of angioplasty and stent procedures, as well as other open heart surgery procedures) generally are very profitable. They are among the most profitable of programs conducted by hospitals. Brandon's projected charges for open heart, angioplasty, and stent procedures are based on the average charges to patients residing in Brandon's PSA inflated at 2 percent per year. The inflation rate is consistent with HCFA's August 1, 2000, Rule implementing a 2.3 percent Medicare reimbursement increase. Brandon's projected payor mix is reasonably based on the existing open heart, angioplasty, and stent patients within its PSA. Brandon also estimated conservatively that it would collect only 45 to 50 percent of its charges from third-party payors. To determine expenses, Brandon utilized Bayonet Point's accounting system. It provided a level of detail that could not be obtained otherwise. "For patients within Brandon's primary service area, . . . that information is not provided by existing providers in the area that's available for any public consumption." (Tr. 1002). While perhaps the most detailed data available, Bayonet Point data was far from an ideal model for Brandon. Bayonet Point performs about 1,500 OHS cases per year. It achieves economies of scale that will not be achievable at Brandon in the foreseeable future. There is a relationship between volume and cost efficiency. The higher the volume, the greater the cost efficiency. Brandon's volume is projected to be much lower than Bayonet Point's. To make up for the imperfection of use of Bayonet Point as an "expenses" proxy, Brandon's financial expert in opining that the project was feasible in the long-term, considered two factors with regard to expenses. First, it included its projected $1.8 million in salary expenses as a separate line item over and above the salary expenses contained in the Bayonet Point data. (This amounted to a "double" counting of salary expenses.) Second, it recognized HCA's ability to obtain competitive pricing with respect to equipment and services for its affiliated hospitals, Brandon being one of them. Brandon projected utilization of 249 and 279 cases in its second and third year of operations. These projections are reasonable. (See the testimony of Mr. Balsano on rebuttal and Brandon Ex. 74). Comparison of Agency Action in CONs 9169 and 9239 Brandon's application in this case, CON 9239, was filed within a six-month period of the filing of an earlier application, CON 9169. The Agency found the two applications to be similar. Indeed, the facts and circumstances at issue in the two applications other than the updating of the financial and volume numbers are similar. So is the argument made in favor of the applications. Yet, the first application was denied by the Agency while the second received preliminary approval. The difference in the Agency's action taken on the later application (the one with which this case is concerned), i.e., approval, versus the action taken on the earlier, denial, was explained by Scott Hopes, the Chief of the Bureau of Certificate of Need at the time the later application was considered: The [later] Brandon application . . ., which is what we're addressing here today, included more substantial information from providers, both cardiologists, internists, family practitioners and surgeons with specific case examples by patient age [and] other demographics, the diagnoses, outcomes, how delays impacted outcomes, what permanent impact those adverse outcomes left the patient in, where earlier . . . there weren't as many specifics. (Tr. 1536, 1537). A comparison of the application in CON 9169 and the record in this case bears out Mr. Hopes' assessment that there is a significant difference between the two applications. Comparison of the Agency Action with the District 9 Application During the same batching cycle in which CON 9239 was considered, five open heart surgery applications were considered from health care providers in District 9. Unlike Brandon's application, these were all denied. In the District 9 SAAR, the Agency found that transfers are an inherent part of OHS as a tertiary service. The Agency concluded that, "[O]pen heart surgery is a tertiary service and patients are routinely transferred between hospitals for this procedure." (UCH Ex. 7, pp. 51-54). In particular, the Agency recognized Boca Raton's claim that it had provided "extensive discussion of the quality implications of attempting to deal with cardiac emergencies through transfer to other facilities." (UCH Ex. 7, p. 52). Unlike the specific information referred to by Mr. Hopes in his testimony quoted, above, however, the foundation for Boca Raton's argument is a 1999 study published in the periodical Circulation, entitled "Relationship Between Delay in Performing Direct Coronary Angioplasty and Early Clinical Outcomes." (UCH Ex. 7, p. 21). This publication was cited by the Agency in its SAAR on the application in this case. Nonetheless, a fundamental difference remains between this case and the District 9 applications, including Boca Raton's. The application in this case is distinguished by the specific information to which Mr. Hopes alluded in his testimony, quoted above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting the application of Galencare, Inc., d/b/a Brandon Regional Hospital for open heart surgery, CON 9239. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Thomas W. Konrad, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 North Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 James C. Hauser, Esquire Metz, Hauser & Husband, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505 Post Office Box 10909 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John H. Parker, Jr., Esquire Jonathan L. Rue, Esquire Sarah E. Evans, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs 1500 Marquis Two Tower 285 Peachtree Center Avenue, Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Karen A. Putnal, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's name and address are North Broward Hospital District d/b/a North Broward Medical Center, 201 E Sample Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33604. The North Broward Hospital District is a Special Taxing District created by the Florida Legislature. It currently owns and operates three public, nonprofit hospitals in Broward County including Broward General Medical Center ("BGMC") and North Broward Medical Center Respondent, Department of Heath and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS"), is responsible for the administration of Section 381.493 through 381.499, Fla. Stat. ("the CON statute"), and Fla. Administrative Code Ch. 10-5 ("the CON rules"). Under the foregoing, authorities, HRS reviews applications for CONs to construct, purchase or otherwise implement certain new health care facilities and new institutional health care services, as defined by the CON statute. One of these new institutional health care services subject to HRS' review under the CON statute and CON rules is open-heart surgery service, as defined in Fla. Admin. Code Rule 10-5.11(16)(a). By formal application under the CON statute and CON rules which was deemed complete by HRS effective October 16, 1985, NBMC applied for a certificate of need ("CON") to institute an open-heart surgery service at 201 E. Sample Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33604. Exhibit "A" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of NBMC's application for certificate of need for open-heart surgery. NBMC's application was denied by HRS by letter dated February 28, 1986, received by NBMC open March 10, 1986. Exhibit "B" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of said letter. Publication of the denial appears at Vol. 12; No. 11, Florida Administrative Weekly (March 14, 1986). HRS' basis for denying the application is contained in the "State Agency Action Report". Exhibit "C" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of HRS' State Agency Action Report pertaining to NBMC's application. NBMC has petitioned HRS for formal Section 120.57(1), Fla. Stat., administrative proceedings challenging the denial of its application for open- heart surgery. Exhibit "D" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of that petition. In its application, NBMC stated that one of its sister hospitals, BGMC, currently provided open-heart surgical services. NBMC proposed in its application to utilize the same open-heart surgical team at NBMC as was then practicing at BGMC. Applicants for CONs for open-heart surgery services must satisfy certain regulatory standards prescribed in CON Rule 10-5.11(16). These standards include: (k)1. 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 and 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 (e)4., above will be met by the proposed program. (E.S.) Rule 10-5.11(16)(e)4. provides in pertinent part as follows: There shall be a minimum of 200 adult open- heart procedures performed annually, within three years after initiation of service, an any institution in which open-heart surgery is performed for adults. (E.S.) Exhibit "E" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of CON Rule 10-5.11(16). 10. In 43 Fed. Reg. 13040, 13048 (March 28, 1978) (42 C.F.R. 121.207), the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") set forth the federal CON standards for open-heart surgery, as part of the National Guidelines for Health Planning. The National Guidelines for Health Planning are referenced in HRS's State Agency Action Report. Exhibit "F" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of that portion of the Nation Guidelines for Health Planning which pertain to the implementation of open-heart surgery services. The National Guidelines for Health Planning also provide that approval of new open-heart surgery services should be contingent upon existing units operating and continuing to operate at a level of at least 350 procedures per year. The National Guidelines for Health Planning further provide as follows: In some areas, open-heart surgical teams, including surgeons and specialized technologists, are utilizing more than one institution. For these institutions, the guidelines may be applied to the combined number of open-heart procedures performed by the surgical team where an adjustment is justifiable in line with Section 121.6(B) and promotes more cost effective use of available facilities and support personnel. In such cases, in order to maintain quality care a minimum of 75 open-heart procedures in any institution is advisable, which is consistent with recommendations of the American College of Surgeons. (E.S.) HRS' CON Rule 10-5.11(16); which contains the "350" standard, does not contain any comparable exception for institutions sharing open-heart surgical teams. NBMC's application for CON projects 200 open-heart surgeries by the end of the third year of operations and, when combined with BGMC's open-heart procedures satisfies the exception contained in the National Guidelines for Health Planning, as described above. There are no disputed issues of material fact that will require an evidentiary hearing in this matter. The parties therefore agree that the matter shall be submitted pursuant to legal memoranda and oral argument. The parties' legal memoranda will be due on June 17, 1986, and oral argument will be held on the scheduled hearing date of June 19, 1986. The parties agree to allow responses to the legal memoranda, which responses shall be submitted no later than June 26; 1986.
The Issue At issue in these proceedings is whether there exists a need for a new open heart surgery program in HRS District IX and, if so, whether the applications of St. Mary's Hospital, Inc. (St. Mary's), Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. (Boca), and Martin Memorial Hospital Association, Inc. (Martin), or any of them, for a certificate of need to establish such a program should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Case status In September 1989, Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. (Boca), St. Mary's Hospital, Inc. (St. Mary's), and Martin Memorial Hospital Association, Inc. (Martin), filed timely applications with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department or HRS) for a certificate of need (CON) to establish a new open heart surgery program in HRS District IX. That district is comprised of Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties. Boca's and Martin's applications sought authorization to establish an adult open heart surgery program, whereas St. Mary's application sought authorization to establish an adult and pediatric open heart surgery program. On January 26, 1990, the Department published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to grant Boca's application, and to deny the applications of St. Mary's and Martin. St. Mary's and Martin filed timely protests to the Department's proposed action, and three existing providers of open heart surgery services in the district, NME Hospitals, Inc., d/b/a Delray Community Hospital (Delray), JFK Medical Center, Inc. (JFK), and AMI/Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center, Inc. (Palm Beach Gardens), timely protested the Department's intention to grant Boca's application or intervened to oppose the approval of any new open heart surgery program in the district. The applicants Boca, a 394-bed not-for-profit community hospital, is the southernmost hospital in Palm Beach County and HRS District IX, being located in Boca Raton, Florida, just two miles north of the Broward County/HRS District X line. It was established in the 1960's, and is a comprehensive hospital providing adult cardiac catheterization services, as well as most services available in an acute care facility, with the exception of a designated psychiatric unit, burn unit, and neonatal intensive care. During the period of April 1988 through March 1989, Boca performed 656 adult inpatient cardiac catheterizations, and referred 192 patients for open heart surgery between July 1988 and June 1989. By its application, Boca proposes to establish an adult open heart surgery program to enhance its cardiology services. Boca's primary service area covers a radius of approximately ten miles around the hospital, and it routinely serves patients from Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, on the north to Pompano Beach, Broward County, on the south. Presently, three providers of open heart surgery services are located proximate to Boca: approximately 11 miles north of Boca, an average drive time of 17 minutes, is Delray, a current provider of open heart surgery services in District IX; approximately 21 miles north of Boca, an average drive time of 32 minutes, is JFK, a current provider of open heart surgery services in District IX; and approximately 15 miles south of Boca, an average drive time of 19 minutes, is North Ridge General Hospital (North Ridge), a current provider of open heart surgery services in District X and the recipient of the vast majority of referrals for open heart services from Boca. St. Mary's, a 378-bed not-for-profit community hospital located in West Palm Beach, Florida, is owned by the Franciscian Sisters of Allegheny, and has served the community for more than 50 years. In addition to the full range of medical surgical services, St. Mary's offers obstetrics, a Regional Perinatal Intensive Care Center (RPICC) -- levels II and III, blood bank, dialysis center, substance abuse center, hospice center, free-standing cancer clinic, adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, and children's medical services clinic. Upon the opening of its 40-bed psychiatric center, which is currently under construction, St. Mary's will be the largest hospital in District IX. During the period of April 1988 through March 1989, St. Mary's performed 254 adult inpatient cardiac catheterziations. By its application, St. Mary's proposes to enhance its existing services by establishing an adult and pediatric open heart surgery program. Currently, there are no pediatric open heart surgery programs in District IX. There are, however, two current providers of adult open heart surgery services located in Palm Beach County and proximate to St. Mary's: approximately 6 miles north of St. Mary's is Palm Beach Gardens, and approximately 11 miles south of St. Mary's is JFK. Martin, a 336-bed not-for-profit community hospital established in 1939, is located in Stuart, Martin County, Florida. As with the other applicants, Martin offers a full range of acute care services, as well as adult inpatient cardiac catheterization services, a non-invasive cardiology laboratory, and cardiac rehabilitation and support services for cardiac patients and their families. No significant data is, however, available on Martin's adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program since it is a new service. By its application, Martin proposes to establish an adult open heart surgery program. Currently, there are no open heart surgery programs located in the four northern counties of District IX (Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties), and Martin is currently the only hospital located in those four counties that provides in-patient cardiac catheterization services. Accordingly, to access open heart surgery services within the district, residents of the northern four counties must avail themselves of the current programs existent in Palm Beach County. The protestants As heretofore noted, open heart surgery services are currently available at three facilities within District IX; Delray, JFK and Palm Beach Gardens, each of which is located in Palm Beach County. Delray is a 211-bed acute care hospital, sited in the southern portion of Palm Beach County, and located in Delray Beach, Florida. It is a comprehensive hospital providing all services normally available in an acute care facility, with the exception of obstetrics, pediatrics and radiation ontology, and is part of a larger medical campus, operated by the same parent company, that includes a 60-bed inpatient rehabilitation hospital that is physically attached to Delray, a 120-bed psychiatric hospital, and a 120-bed skilled nursing facility. In addition to its other services, Delray provides inpatient cardiac catheterization services and has, since 1986, provided adult open heart surgery services. With a recent addition, Delray has two dedicated open heart operating rooms (ORs) and one back up, as well as three separate intensive care units for coronary care, medical intensive care and surgical intensive care. For calendar year 1989 Delray reported to the local health counsel that it performed 338 open heart cases. Delray is located approximately 11 miles north of Boca, an average drive time of approximately 17 minutes. Between Delray and Boca, there is more than a 50 percent overlap in the medical staffs of the two hospitals, and almost 70 percent overlap in the areas of cardiology and internal medicine. Considering the overlap in the facilities' service areas, it is reasonable to conclude that if Boca's application is approved Delray would lose 122 open heart and 84 angioplasty cares in Boca's first year of operation and 130 open heart and 93 angioplasty cases in Boca's second year of operation. Such losses would translate into a after-tax income loss to Delray of approximately $645,000 in the first year of operation alone. Such loss of revenue and patients could adversely impact Delray's existing program. JFK is a 369-bed community hospital located in Atlantis, Florida; a small town just south of West Palm Beach. It provides a full range of medical- surgical services, with the exception of OB-GYN and nursery services, including cardiac, cancer, orthopedic, and medical/surgical intensive care and coronary care. It established its inpatient cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery program in February 1987, and currently has ten operating rooms, two of which are devoted exclusively to open heart surgery, and a 16-bed cardiac care unit (CCU), 10 beds of which are dedicated to open heart patients. For calendar year 1989, JFK reported to the local health council that it performed 262 open heart cases. As sited, JFK is located just south of West Palm Beach and within 10 miles of St. Mary's. Currently, there is an 83 percent overlap in the MDC-5 service areas (the service area closest to the open heart surgery program) of St. Mary's and JFK, and a substantial overlap between cardiologists on the staffs of both facilities. During the period of January 1988 - May 1990, 43 percent of the patients St. Mary's referred for open heart and angioplasty services were referred to JFK. Assuming St. Mary's could achieve the volumes it projected in its application, it is reasonable to assume that JFK would lose 75 open heart and 83 angioplasty cases in St. Mary's first year of operation, and 91 open heart and 100 angioplasty cases in St. Mary's second year of operation. Such lose in the first year of St. Mary's operation would translate into a net reduction of $1,200,000 in JFK's income. Such loss of revenue and patients could adversely impact JFK's existing program. Palm Beach Gardens is a 205-bed acute care hospital sited in north Palm Beach County. It provides inpatient cardiac catheterization services and has, since 1983, provided open heart surgery services. Currently, Palm Beach Gardens maintains two operating rooms dedicated to open heart surgery, and has a third operating room available for open heart surgery should the demand arise. For calendar year 1989, Palm Beach Gardens was the largest provider of open heart surgery services in the district, having reported to the local health council that it performed 491 open heart cases. Palm Beach Gardens is located approximately 10 miles south of the Palm Beach County/Martin County line or a straight line distance of approximately 25 miles south of Martin and approximately 10 miles north of St. Mary's. During the period of July 1988 - June 1989, 229 residents of St. Mary's primary service area had open heart surgery at Palm Beach Gardens, and 142 residents of Martin's primary service area obtained such services at that facility. If Martin's proposal is approved and its utilization projections realized, Palm Beach Gardens would lose approximately 84 cases in year one of Martin's operation and 101 cases in year two. Such losses in year two would translate into a $1,400,000 pretax reduction in Palm Beach Gardens' net revenues. Such reduction in revenues and patients was not, however, considering Palm Beach Garden's financial condition and open heart surgery volume, shown to have any significant adverse impact to Palm Beach Gardens, or any identifiable program within its facility. Likewise, should St. Mary's application be approved, volumes at Palm Beach Gardens would not be reduced below optimal levels, and it would not suffer any significant adverse impact to existing programs. The parties' stipulation The parties have agreed that the following facts are admitted: Boca, St. Mary's, and Martin Memorial timely filed their Letters of Intent and CON applications at issue in this proceeding. Further, the parties stipulate that the Letter of Intent complied with all statutory and rule requirements. The construction costs of $100,000 as set forth in Table 25 of St. Mary's application is a reasonable construction costs estimate for the renovation of one special procedures room to perform open heart surgery as proposed in St. Mary's schematic plans. The parties admit that adult open heart surgery services are currently available within a maximum automobile travel time of two hours under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of HRS Service District IX's population. This stipulation is not meant to preclude other relevant evidence regarding travel times within or without District IX. All existing providers of open heart surgery in District IX are JCAHO accredited; all applicants in this proceeding are JCAHO accredited. Each of the applicants, if approved, have the ability to implement and apply circulatory assist devices such as intra-aortic balloon assist and prolonged cardiopulmonary partial bypass for adult open heart surgery. Each of the applicants, if approved, will be capable of fulfilling the requirements of an adult open heart surgery program to provide the following services: medicine, for example, cardiology, hematology, nephrology, pulmonary medicine and infectious diseases; pathology, for example, anatomical, clinical, blood bank and coagulation lab; anesthesiology, including respiratory therapy; radiology, for example, diagnostic nuclear medicine lab; neurology; adult cardiac catheterization laboratory services; non-invasive cardiographics lab, for example, electrocardiography including cardiographics lab, for example, electrocardiography including exercise stress testing, and echocardiography; intensive care; and emergency care available 24 hours per day for cardiac emergencies. This stipulation relates only to the provision of medical services, not that the applicants have sufficient capacity to provide those services in connection with an open heart surgery program. The redesignation of acute care beds from medical/surgical beds to any type of critical care unit beds, except for neonatal intensive care beds, does not require a certificate of need unless the hospital incurs a capital expenditure in excess of the capital expenditure threshold in accomplishing this redesignation. The Department's open heart surgery and methodology and the "fixed need" pool. On August 11, 1989, the Department, pursuant to Rule 10-5.008(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, published notice of the fixed need pool for open heart surgery programs for the July 1992 planning horizon in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Pertinent to this case, such notice established a net need for zero new adult open heart surgery programs in District IX. There was, however, no publication of any fixed need pool for pediatric open heart surgery. Following publication of the fixed need pool, the Department received protests contending that its calculation of net need was erroneous. Upon review, the Department concluded that its initial calculation was in error, and on September 1, 1989, the Department published a notice of correction in the Florida Administrative Weekly, and established a new net need for one open heart surgery program in District IX. On September 5, 1989, St. Mary's challenged the Department's corrected need assessment, claiming the Department had underestimated the need in District IX for adult open heart surgery services, and on September 8, 1989, Palm Beach Gardens challenged the Department's assessment, claiming the Department had overestimated the need for open heart services in the district. These challenges were forwarded by the Department to the Division of Administrative Hearings, along with a request for the assignment of a hearing officer to conduct all necessary proceedings required under law. Pertinent to the derivation of the fixed need pool, the Department has established by rule an adult and pediatric open heart surgery methodology that must normally be satisfied before any new open heart surgery programs will be approved. That methodology, codified in Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, forms the premise for the Department's calculation of net need in the instant case. Pertinent to this case, Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, provides: 2. Departmental Goal. The Department will consider applications for open heart surgery programs in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new open heart surgery programs in any service area unless the conditions of Sub-paragraphs 8. and 11., below are met. * * * 8. Need Determination. The need for open heart surgery programs in a service area shall be determined by computing the pro- jected number of open heart surgical pro- cedures in the service area. The following formula shall be used in this determination: Nx = Uc X Px Where: Nx = Number of open heart procedures projected for year X; Uc = Actual use rate (number of procedures per hundred thousand popu- lation) in the service area for the 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the Letter of Intent deadline for the batching cycle; Px = 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. * * * 11.a. 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-paragraph 5.d., above, will be met by the proposed program. 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. Sub-subparagraph 5d, referenced in subparagraph 11a(II), provides: Minimum Service Volume. 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. There shall be a minimum of 100 pediatric heart operations annually, within 3 years of initiation of service, in any insti- tution in which pediatric open heart surgery is performed, of which at least 50 shall be open heart surgery. Essentially, the subject methodology contemplates that three conditions must be satisfied before an application for a new adult open heart surgery program in the district would normally be approved: (1) a calculated net numeric need under the Department's mathematical methodology; (2) a determination that "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 open heart surgery cases per year"; and (3) a demonstration that the applicant could perform "a minimum of 200 open heart procedures (cases) annually within 3 years after service is initiated." The first two conditions are utilized by the Department to initially establish the fixed need pool for open heart surgery services. The third condition is, by rule, related to an applicant's ability to provide quality care, and will be discussed infra. As a threshold for calculating need, and the fixed need pool, the Department's mathematical need methodology contains the formula for deriving the gross number of open heart surgical cases anticipated two years into the future. This methodology is based on the actual use rate in the district for the 12- month period beginning 14 months prior to the letter of intent deadline for the batching cycle. The number of cases is then divided by 350, which is consistent with the minimum service volume mandates of subparagraph 11 of the rule, to derive an actual gross need for open heart surgery programs at the horizon year. Existing and approved programs are then substracted to determine if there is a net need for a new open heart surgery program. While there was some dispute among the parties as to what the appropriate underlying data was to drive the Department's numerical need methodology, the parties agreed and the proof demonstrated a fractional need greater than .5, under the formula. 1/ The second step in establishing a need for open heart surgery programs, and the fixed need pool, is a determination, as required by subparagraph 11(2)I of the rule, of whether "each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service areas is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year." Here, based on the data available to the Department when it established the fixed need pool, the three existing providers had operated at the following case levels for the preceding year: Palm Beach Gardens - 494 cases; Delray - 328 cases; and JFK - 275 cases. Consequently two of the three existing providers were not operating at 350 cases per year. 2/ Based on the foregoing data, the Department initially published a net need for zero new open heart surgery programs in District IX. However, following the receipt of protests to the fixed need pool it had established, the Department, based on the same data, concluded its initial decision was erroneous, and published a notice of correction which established a net need for one new open heart surgery program in the district. This decision was timely challenged. The Department's ultimate decision to publish a need for one new program was based on two factors. First, the Department had historically rounded the numerical need up where fractional need, as calculated by its methodology, was .5 or higher. Second, although of questionable validity at the time, the Department had for several years "interpreted" the 350 case level, referred to in subparagraph (11) of the rule, to require that the average of the existing programs be at 350 before a new program would be approved, as opposed to the literal rule requirement that "each existing and approved open heart surgery program ... [be] ... operating at ... a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year." Accordingly, with differing views then pending in the Department, it elected to recalculate the utilization level by applying the averaging approach, as opposed to applying the rule as written which it had done in initially determining zero need, and therefore published a corrected need for one new program. On January 23, 1990, the Department issued final orders in three cases, each of which involved CON applications for open heart surgery services filed in the September 1988 batching cycle, Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 785 (1990), Humana of Florida, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 823 (1990), and Mease Health Care v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 853 (1990). In each final order the Department's Secretary stated, with regard to the Department's averaging interpretation, that: I conclude that the rule should be applied as written and that numeric need should be found only where each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service district is operating at a minimum level of 350 open heart cases per year .... I am not unmindful that the conclusion reached here departs from an established practice of interpreting subparagraph 11 of the need rule by averaging the number of cases done by the existing providers and finding subparagraph 11 to be satisfied if the average was 350 cases or more. As previously stated, I am now satisfied that application of the rule as written is more consistent with sound health planning .... Consequently, the averaging practice that resulted in the Department's corrected notice of need for the September 1989 batching cycle at issue in this case was specifically rejected by the Department as being contrary to the rule as written before it published its notice of intent to grant Boca's application. Even though the corrected need published by the Department was erroneous, as being derived contrary to the express language of the rule methodology, the Department and the applicants contend that such error is not subject to correction in this case because of the Department's fixed need pool rule and the Department's incipient policy regarding when it will correct errors in a fixed need pool that has already been published. Such contentions are, however, unpersuasive as a matter of law, discussed infra, and as not supported by any compelling proof. The Department's fixed need pool rule, codified at Rule 10- 5.008(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides: Publication of Fixed Need Pools. The depart- ment shall publish in the Florida Administra- tive Weekly, at least 15 days prior to the letter of intent deadline for a particular batching cycle the fixed need pools for the applicable planning horizon specified for each service ... These batching cycle specific fixed need pools shall not be changed or adjusted in the future regardless of any future changes in need methodologies, popu- lation estimates, bed inventories, or other factors which would lead to different projections of need, if retroactively applied. In this case there has been no change in the Department's need methodology that leads to a different projection of need, as proscribed by the fixed need pool, but, rather, an identified failure of the Department to properly apply its rule when it assessed need. While the Department may have consistently misapplied its rule in the past, such consistency does not cloth it past action with any propriety where, as here, such action is properly challenged or, stated differently, because the rule was misapplied in the past does not lead to the conclusion that its proper application constitutes a change in need methodologies. Accordingly, it is found that the fixed need pool rule does not, under the circumstances of this case, preclude correction of the need established through the Department's publication of its notice of correction. 3/ The Department and the applicants also contend that the Department's policy on how it will treat corrections to a fixed need pool that has already been published, and errors in a published fixed need pool which are discovered after the cycle has begun, precludes any correction of the need published for this batching cycle. Pertinent to this point, the Department points to its policy, which was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly contemporaneously with its initial assessment of zero need, that provides: Any person who identifies any error in the fixed need pool numbers must advise the agency of the error within ten (10) days of publica- tion of the number. If the agency concurs in the error, the fixed need pool number will be adjusted prior to or during the grace period for this cycle. Failure to notify the agency of the error during this ten day period will result in no adjustment to the fixed need pool number for this cycle and a waiver of the person's right to raise the error at subsequent proceedings. Any other adjustments will be made in the first cycle subsequent to identification of the error including those errors identified through administrative hearings or final judicial review. Any person whose substantial interest is affected by this action and who timely advised the agency of any error in the action has a right to request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. In order to request a proceeding under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, your request for an administrative hearing must state with specifi- city which issues of material fact or law are in dispute. All requests for hearings shall be made to the Department of Health and Rehab- ilitative Services and must be filed with the agency clerk at 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building 1, Room 407, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. All requests for hearings must be filed with the agency clerk within 30 days of this publication or the right to a hearing is waived. According to the Department, its policy is to correct computational errors in the fixed need pool only if they are brought to its attention during the grace period which is triggered by the filing of a letter of intent, and if there is sufficient time to publish a corrected fixed need pool prior to the CON application deadline so that all potential competing providers will have notice of the changes. Errors brought to the Department's attention after the grace period will only be considered in the development of the subsequent batching cycle's fixed need pool, regardless of the nature or magnitude of the error. Errors brought to the Department's attention during the grace period, but not reviewed by the Department until after the grace period would only be corrected for subsequent batches. Errors identified in administrative hearings or upon judicial review, even though predicated upon a timely notice of error to the Department, would be corrected in subsequent batches, but not for the batch in which the error occurred. The Department's enunciated rational for the foregoing policy is to instill "predictability" in the CON process, which it suggests promotes competition and affords the Department an opportunity to select from a broader field the best qualified applicants to "meet the need." Such rationale lacks, however, any reasonable basis in fact where, as here, there is no need to be met, and affronts sound health planning principles. The 350 minimum procedure level established for existing providers, before a new program can be approved, is an important threshold bearing on quality of care. In this regard, it has been demonstrated that there is a direct relationship between volume of procedures and mortality, with better results being obtained at facilities operating at a minimum level of 200-350 procedures annually. Accordingly, precision in assessing the need for new open heart surgery programs is crucial to assure that any new program could reasonably be expected to achieve a sufficient level of service, and to assure that the level of service provided by existing facilities would not fall below the optimum threshold. The Department's policy ignores this relationship, would recognize a need where none exists and thereby adversely impact existing programs, and would impinge on future planning horizons. As importantly, the Department's policy would supplant its own rule methodology for calculating need, and render illusory any decision based on a balanced review of statutory criteria. Accordingly, it is concluded that the Department has failed to explicate its policy choice in the instant case, and that numeric need under the Department's methodology is a viable issue in these proceedings. The need for the services being proposed in relationship to the district plan and state health plan. Applicable to this case is the 1989 Florida State Health Plan, which contains the following preferences to be considered in comparing applications for open heart surgery programs: Preference shall be given to applicants estab- lishing new open heart surgery programs in larger counties in which the percentage of elderly is higher than the statewide average and the total population exceeds 100,000. Preference for new open heart surgery programs shall be given to applicants clearly demonstra- ting an ability to perform more than 350 adult procedures annually within three years of initiating the program. Quality of care has been demonstrated to be directly related to volume; thus, facilities are expected to perform a minimum of 350 adult procedures annually. Preference shall be given to applicants who will improve access to open heart surgery for persons who are currently seeking the service outside of their HRS district. This will improve accessibility and reduce travel time for the residents in the district. Preference shall be given to an applicant with a history of providing a disproportionate share of charity care and Medicaid patient days in the respective acute care subdistrict. Qualifying hospitals shall meet Medicaid disproportionate share hospital criteria. Priority should be given to an applicant who provides services to all persons, regardless of their ability to pay. Preference shall be given to an applicant that can offer a service at the least expense yet maintain high quality of care standards. The physical plant of larger facilities can usually accommodate the required operating and recovery room specifications with lower capital expendi- tures than smaller facilities. Larger facilities also have a greater pool of the specialized personnel needed for open heart surgical procedures. Preference shall be given to an applicant that performs percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, streptokinase, or other innovative techniques as alternatives to surgery for low-risk patients. The applicant shall include in its application a protocol regarding the selection of patients for surgery or alternative non-surgical therapeutic cardiac procedures. All three applications are reasonably consistent with the state health plan's preference for establishing open heart surgery programs in counties in which the percentage of elderly is higher than the statewide average and the total population exceeds 100,000. In 1989, Palm Beach County had a population of 873,347, 23.4 percent of which were age 65 and over, which was higher than the statewide average of 17.9 percent. The next most populous counties in the district fell within Martin's primary service area, and were St. Lucie County, with a population of 142,440, 18.3 percent of which were age 65 and over, and Martin County, with a population of 96,336, 25.1 percent of which were age 65 and over. In all, the northern four counties had a population of 360,644, 21.2 percent of which were age 65 and over. The state health plan also accords a preference to applicants who clearly demonstrate an ability to perform more than 350 adult procedures within three years of initiating the program. Of the three applicants, Boca is in the best position to achieve the preference based on the number of diagnostic cardiac caths performed at this facility, and the number of patients it has referred for open heart surgery. Comparatively, Martin and St. Mary's are unlikely to achieve such level of service within three years of initiating a program. The third objective of the state health plan accords a preference for the applicant that will more clearly improve access to open heart surgery for persons who are currently seeking the service outside the district. Currently, while there is no access problem in the district, it is apparent that many district residents leave the district for open heart surgery. During the period of July 1988 - June 1989, open heart procedures were performed on 782 people residing in Boca's primary service area. Of those, 316 received treatment in a District IX facility, 383 received treatment in a District X (Broward County) facility, and the balance received treatment elsewhere, but predominately in Dade County (District XI). While there was a substantial outmigration from Boca's primary service area for open heart services, the vast majority of such outmigration, 325 people, was serviced at North Ridge, a mere fifteen mile/nineteen minute trip from the Boca area. With regard to St. Mary's primary service area, the proof demonstrated that during the same period 566 people sought open heart services, with 455 of those people receiving treatment within District IX. Of the 111 who sought service outside the district, 41 received treatment in Broward County and 61 received treatment in Dade County. Finally, with regard to Martin's primary service area, 316 people sought open heart services, with 148 of those people receiving treatment within the district. Of the 168 who sought service outside the district, 90 received treatment in Broward County, 29 in District VII hospitals, and 39 in Dade County. As heretofore noted, access is not a problem within District IX. However, to the extent this preference seeks to address the issue of outmigration, the proof demonstrates that Martin is the superior applicant. Clearly, the 15 mile/19 minute trip from the Boca area to North Ridge is not a barrier to access, and the number of people from St. Mary's primary service area seeking services outside the district are small in comparison to the other applicants. The residents of Martin's primary service area who seek treatment outside the district are, however, disproportionately large when one considers the aggregate travel time they incur when accessing services in the Orlando or Melbourn areas, or Dade and Broward Counties. The fourth objective of the state health plan accords a preference for the applicant with a history of providing a disproportionate share of charity care and Medicaid patient days in the district. Among the applicants, St. Mary's is the only disproportionate share provider and provides the largest number of Medicaid patient days in the district. As between Boca and Martin, the proof demonstrates that Martin is more committed to, and has historically been a greater provider of, care to the medically indigent. The fifth objective of the state health plan accords a preference to the applicant that can offer a service at the least expense yet maintain high quality of care standards. Here, each of the applicants are large facilities, with demonstrated commitments to maintaining high quality of care standards. Martin has, however, demonstrated that it can offer the proposed service at the least expense. 4/ The last objective of the state health plan accords a preference to the applicant that will perform percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, strepokinase, or other innovative techniques as alternatives to surgery. Here, all applicants propose to offer such services. District IX's 1988 Health Plan was in effect at the time the CON applications were at issue in this case were filed; however, that plan had not been adopted as a rule. Accordingly, such plan is not pertinent to this proceeding. Venice Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case Nos. 90-2383R, et seg., (DOAH 1990). The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the district. Open heart surgery is a specialized, tertiary health care service. A tertiary health service is defined by Section 381.702(20), Florida Statutes, as: ... 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.... As a tertiary service, planning for open heart surgery services is done on a regional basis and concentrated in a limited number of hospitals to insure the quality, availability and cost effectiveness of the program. Essentially, the concept of regionalization creates a distinction between hospitals; some hospitals offer routine acute care services, while special high risk services are concentrated in a limited number of hospitals. Encompassed within such concept is the expectation that patients will be transferred from one facility to another to obtain tertiary care services. As a touchstone for assessing need within a service district, the Department has adopted the open heart surgery need methodology, discussed supra, that must normally be satisfied before a new open heart surgery program will be approved. Under that methodology, further need for adult open heart surgery programs is determined based on the projected increase in the number of open heart surgery procedures two years into the future and the open heart surgery volume of existing providers. The rule provides that, regardless of the projected growth in the number of open heart procedures, no additional adult open heart programs are granted unless each existing adult open heart program performs a minimum of 350 procedures annually. Application of the rule methodology to the facts of this case projects a growth in the projected number of open heart procedures sufficient to support a fractional need greater than .5, which the Department reasonably rounded to 1. However, two of the existing three providers were not performing a minimum of 350 procedures annually. Therefore, there is no need under the Department's methodology for a new open heart surgery program in District IX. While no need under the Department's methodology, the applicants have advanced several factors which they contend reflect negatively on the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization or adequacy of existing open heart programs in the district, and which they suggest warrant a finding of need based on special or not normal circumstances. Foremost among the factors pressed by the applicants as indicitive of an abnormal circumstance is the high number of District IX residents who seek open heart surgery services outside the district; referred to in this case as outmigration. Outmigration is, however, simply an observation of patient flow patterns and does not, in and of itself, constitute an abnormal circumstance that would demonstrate need in the district. Rather, to demonstrate a not normal circumstance, such outmigration must be demonstrated to be a consequence of some failing of existing programs, i.e., accessibility or quality of care, to be pertinent to any abnormal need assessment. 5/ In this case, there is no such failing in the existing programs. The three existing adult open heart surgery programs in the district are currently available to 90 percent of the population of the district within a maximum automobile travel time of two hours. Under such circumstances there is no geographic access problem within the district. Moreover, only Martin would actually enhance accessibility, were it a problem, because the residents of the four northern counties it proposes to serve must currently travel to Palm Beach County to access services within the district. In contrast, Boca is within approximately 30 minutes travel time of two existing providers in the district and an additional provider in District X. Likewise, St. Mary's is located less than 10 miles from two of the existing providers in the district. As with geographic access, there is likewise no economic access problem in the district. While the Medicaid use rate within the district for calendar year 1989 was .1 percent, well below the statewide average of approximately 2 percent, such raw statistic does not demonstrate that there is a Medicaid access problem in the district. To persuasively demonstrate such fact from use statistics would require a demonstration that Palm Beach County's use rate was significantly lower than counties with similar demographics. Here, there was no such showing. Moreover, St. Mary's, the largest provider of Medicaid services in the district, was only shown to have transferred three Medicaid patients for open heart or angioplasty services from January 1988, through May 1990. Finally, each of the existing providers have contracted with the Palm Beach County Health Care District to provide care to indigent patients, and have not refused service to anyone regardless of their ability to pay. Accordingly, it is concluded that there is no economic access problem within the district. With two of the three existing providers operating below 350 procedures when this cycle commenced, there is clearly excess capacity within the district when one considers the fact that a single operating room has the capacity to handle at least 500 cases annually. In reaching this conclusion, the applicants' assertion that delays may have been encountered in gaining admission to some facilities during the season because of a lack of critical care beds has not been overlooked. However, any such delays were not reasonably quantified in terms of number or duration, and were not shown to be significant. As importantly, existing facilities have increased their critical care bed capacity, and can increase it further by merely redesignating acute care beds from medical/surgical beds to any type of critical care beds needed as the exigency arises. Although two of the three existing providers offer relatively new programs, the proof is compelling that each provides a quality surgical and post surgical open heart surgery program, appropriately staffed, and that there is no want of quality care within the district. The use of agency nurses, as suggested by one applicant, was not persuasively demonstrated to reflect adversely on quality of care. Succinctly, simply because one is an agency nurse does not suggest substandard performance, and the use of agency nurses, as needed, to staff a facility does not, of itself, aversely impact patient care. Here, the staffs of existing facilities are appropriately trained and supervised, and offer their patients a quality program. While there is certainly a significant outmigration from the district for open heart surgery services, such outmigration was not shown to be related to any infirmity in existing programs. Rather, such outmigration is most reasonably attributable to physicians' established referral patterns or patient preference. 6/ Finally, regarding special circumstances, St. Mary's suggests that its designation as a trauma center and the lack of pediatric open heart services to 90 percent of the population within a maximum automobile travel time of two hours warrant approval of its application. Such suggestions are, however, not supported by compelling proof. While it is true that St. Mary's has been selected by the Palm Beach County Health Care District, along with Delray, for designation as a Level II trauma center, such designation has not been contractually finalized and St. Mary's has not applied for such designation with the Department. As importantly, on October 1, 1990, a new law regarding trauma centers became effective which will reopen the county trauma center designation process, and require facilities to be designated by the state as trauma centers. Under such circumstances, it is speculative whether St. Mary's will become a trauma center, and until such event actually occurs such factor is not significant to these proceedings. St. Mary's quest for a pediatric open heart surgery program is premised on special circumstances, not numeric need, and finds it basis on the fact that no pediatric open heart surgery program exists in the district and that such pediatric services are not available to 90 percent of the population within two hours travel time. While such may be the case, St. Mary's application, on balance, fails to support such an award for a number of reasons. First, St. Mary's application projects that it will perform 10 pediatric open heart surgery cases in its first year of operation, and 20 in its second year of operation. It contains no projection for the third year of operation, but St. Mary's consultant, Michael Schwartz, opined that St. Mary's would perform 50 pediatric open heart surgery cases by the third year based on his belief that St. Mary's would capture 80 to 100 percent of the potential pediatric referrals from District IX and the northern portion of District X. Mr. Schwartz's opinions are not, however, credible. During the period July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1989, there were 40 pediatric open heart surgery cases performed on patients residing throughout District IX, with 22 receiving treatment at Jackson Memorial (Dade County), 14 at Miami Children's Hospital, and 4 at Shands in Gainesville. During the same period, there were 24 open heart pediatric patients in northern District X, an area equi-distant in travel time from the Miami facilities and St. Mary's, with 15 receiving treatment at Jackson Memorial, 8 at Miami Children's Hospital and 1 at Shands. Each of these facilities are either teaching hospitals or specialty pediatric hospitals, are among the top four facilities in the state that perform over 100 pediatric open heart surgery cases each year, and each enjoys an excellent reputation for providing quality pediatric care. Given existent referral patterns and the quality of existing pediatric programs, it is improbable that St. Mary's could reach its projected utilization for years one and two, much less attain a level of 50 pediatric open heart surgery cases during its third year of operation. In 1994, the third year of St. Mary's program, there would be approximately 53 pediatric open heart surgery cases performed on patients residing throughout District IX. To attain a level of 50 cases in its third year, St. Mary's would have to attract almost 100 percent of all cases arising within the district, an improbable occurrence. Equally improbable is St. Mary's ability to penetrate the pediatric open heart surgery market in northern Broward County, an area defined by Mr. Schwartz as being equi-distant in travel time from the Miami facilities and St. Mary's, given existent referral patterns and physicians' satisfaction with existing programs. In sum, the proof demonstrates that St. Mary's could not reasonably be expected to perform 50 pediatric open heart surgery cases within three years of initiating service. In addition to its inability to generate sufficient volume to maintain service quality in a pediatric open heart surgery program, St. Mary's also lacks a pediatric cardiac cath program which is required of any facility proposing pediatric open heart surgery services. Notably, with regard to pediatric cardiac services, Rule 10-5.011(1)(e), which relates to cardiac catheterization services, and Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), which relates to open heart services, are mutually dependent. The cardiac catheterization rule, as it relates to pediatrics, provides: 6. Coordination of Services. * * * Pediatric cardiac catheterization programs must be located in a hospital in which pediatric open heart surgery is being performed. * * * 8. Need Determination. * * * f. Pediatric cardiac catheterization programs shall be established on a regional basis. A new pediatric cardiac catheterization program shall not normally be approved unless the numbers of live births in the service planning area, minus the number of existing and approved programs multiplied by 30,000, is at or exceeds 30,000. (Emphasis added) Also pertinent to this issue, the open heart surgery rule provides: 3. Service Availability. * * * c. The following services must be provided in the health care facility within which the open heart surgery program is located and must be capable of fulfilling the requirements of an open heart surgery program: * * * (VI) Cardiac catheterization laboratory.... The Department reasonably interprets the foregoing provisions as mandating that a pediatric cardiac catheterization program or pediatric open heart surgery program may not be approved independent of the other but, rather, they must coexist. Since the proof is clear that St. Mary's only operates and is only approved by the Department to operate an adult cardiac cath program, and it has not applied for a pediatric cardiac cath program, its proposal is deficient. 7/ In view of the foregoing, it is concluded that, while pediatric open heart services are not currently available within District IX and are not available to 90 percent of the population within two hours travel time, that St. Mary's application to initiate such services should be denied. It is further found that the provisions of the open heart surgery rule relating to the two- hour access standard, which does not specifically state whether such standard applies to adult, pediatric or both, is not applicable to pediatrics. Rather, the Department interprets such rule provision to apply only to adult programs, because such standard is not necessarily pertinent to pediatric open heart surgery since it is more specialized or tertiary in nature than adult open heart surgery programs. Given the close relationship between the cardiac cath rule and the open heart surgery rule, the Department's position is reasonable. In this regard, the cardiac cath rule establishes a travel standard for adult programs, but not pediatric. Rather, it provides for establishment of such programs on a "regional basis," and provides that a new pediatric cardiac cath program should not normally be approved unless the number of live births exceeds 30,000. Here, there were only 16,500 live births in District IX in 1988, a number that is insufficient to warrant a pediatric cardiac cath program. Given such fact, and the relationship between the two rules, the Department's interpretation is reasonable and the two-hour travel time standard does not apply to pediatric open heart surgery. Finally, as to adult open heart surgery services, it is concluded that there exist no special circumstances within the district that would warrant approval of a new open heart surgery program, and that existing facilities are providing appropriate quality care that is accessible to all residents of the district regardless of their ability to pay. The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. Each of the applicants in this case has established an excellent record for providing quality care to their patients, and would be generally expected to provide high quality care for open heart surgery patients notwithstanding some failings in their applications. During the course of the proceeding, some protestants contended that because an applicant failed to detail some particular item of equipment essential to an open heart program, that such failing reflected adversely on their ability to provide quality care. While such could be the case in the abstract, it does not, where, as here, the applicants have sound records, with a demonstrated ability to attract quality personnel to staff their programs. Such failings are, however, germane to the feasibility of the applicant's proposals, discussed infra. Other failings pointed to by the protestants, included: St. Mary's proposal to utilize a call team composed of nurses who customarily assist at thoracic surgery and to recover its open heart patients in a mixed intensive care unit; St. Mary's inability to achieve a 200 and 350 case level per year; Martin's inability to achieve a 350 case level per year; and Martin's failure to document in its application the manner in which it could rapidly mobilize an open heart surgery team 24-hours a day, or how it would treat emergency patients within a two-hour period. Again, considering the quality of the applicants, and the quality personnel they will attract, as well as the parties' stipulation, these failings are minor and do not reflect adversely on their proposals with but one exception. 8/ The only significant factor presented that could bear on an applicant's ability to provide quality care is its ability to achieve optimal utilization levels. In this regard, it has been demonstrated that a relationship exists between the volume of open heart surgical procedures performed at a hospital and the quality of care rendered at those facilities, as measured by patient outcomes. Overall, facilities performing more than 350 cases per year experienced the lowest in-hospital death rate, with those performing more than 200 cases per year being next in line. Pertinent to this issue, the Department has adopted Rule 10-5.011(f)5, Florida Administrative Code, which addresses service quality for open heart surgery programs. That rule, as heretofore noted under the findings related to the Department's need methodology, requires that a minimum of 200 adult open heart surgery cases be performed annually within 3 years of initiating the service, and that at least 50 pediatric open heart surgery cases be performed within 3 years of initiating such service. Here, St. Mary's has failed to demonstrate that it can achieve such level of utilization, and its ability to offer a quality program is therefore suspect. As importantly, Rule 10- 5.011(f)11.a.(II) precludes the approval of St. Mary's application under such circumstances. Boca and Martin could reasonably expect to perform at least 200 cases within 3 years. The need in the service district of the applicant for special equipment and services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas, and the needs and circumstances of those entities which provide a substantial portion of their services or resources to individuals not residing in the service district in which the entities are located. As heretofore noted, North Ridge is located in northern Broward County, a mere 15 mile/19 minute drive time from Boca. North Ridge is a 395-bed hospital that provides all services with the exception of obstetric and radiation therapy, and has for 15 years provided open heart surgery services. It currently has two cardiac catheterization laboratories, and two dedicated and two backup open heart operating rooms. At an average of 750 cases per year, over the last few years, North Ridge has additional capacity, and could comfortably accommodate 1,000 cases per year. North Ridge's primary service area is, and has been for sometime, northern Broward County and southern Palm Beach County, although prior to the initiation of other services in Palm Beach County it serviced the entire area. North Ridge markets extensively in southern Palm Beach County, has follow-up activities for its Palm Beach County residents, and has strong ties with the physician community in southern Palm Beach County. Accordingly, North Ridge has an established presence in southern Palm Beach County, with approximately 30-40 percent of its patients coming from that area. North Ridge's mortality statistics, along with its utilization and reputation, mark it as an excellent facility with a quality open heart surgery program. Moreover, its charges for open heart surgery services are significantly below those of Palm Beach County facilities, as well as those proposed by Boca. North Ridge's location makes it easily accessible to the patients of southern Palm Beach County, and physicians have not experienced any significant problems gaining access to that facility. Moreover, Boca's patients have been accorded first priority at North Ridge. With new technology and the development of various drug therapies, it is extremely rare for a patient to have such an urgent need for open heart surgery that transportation becomes a significant issue. When urgently needed, North Ridge, as well as Delray, can adequately serve the needs of southern Palm Beach County. In sum, there is a viable alternative for residents of southern Palm Beach County to Boca's application, and that is their continued referral to North Ridge. That program is easily accessible, reasonably priced, and historically sound. On the other hand, to approve Boca's application would significantly adversely impact North Ridge, since their service areas in southern Palm Beach County and northern Broward County overlap in most material respects. The availability of resources, including health manpower, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operations. Each applicant has demonstrated that it either has or can obtain all resources, including health manpower, management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures. Boca and Martin each have the funds on hand for project accomplishment, and St. Mary's has demonstrated its ability to acquire such funds through donations, as needed, for project accomplishment. Each applicant is a quality provider of acute care services, and has demonstrated through its existing programs its ability to attract and retain appropriate management and health manpower for project accomplishment, notwithstanding the current nursing shortage being experienced locally and nationally. Accordingly, while the cost of skilled personnel to staff their open heart surgery programs may exceed their initial estimates in some cases, any of the applicants should be able to appropriately staff their program through the use of existing staff, national or local recruitment, or a combination thereof. While each applicant has adequate resources, the viability of Boca's application has been challenged based on its failure to provide a complete list of all capital projects in its application, as required by Section 381.707(2)(a), Florida Statutes. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the only item listed in its application was for an "expansion/upgrade" of the physical plant at a proposed cost of $6.2 million. That information was an accurate financial description of that project at the time, but did not include other items relating to other construction and equipment purchases to which Boca was committed. In this regard, as of September 1989, Boca had committed itself to an additional $1,261,400 for projects relating to its 1989 fiscal year and $1,380,039 for projects relating to its 1990 fiscal year, for a total of $2,641,439. All of these items will be capitalized by Boca, and it could have provided a list or summary of such projects at the time of filing its application in September 1989. Boca's failure to do so, failed to comply with section 381.707(2)(a), and prevented the Department from having a complete picture of Boca's financial resources to complete the project. The extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district, and the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care service to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Of the proposed programs, only those advanced by St. Mary's and Martin would be reasonably accessible to all residents of the service district. In this regard, the geography and population densities of the district demonstrate that Palm Beach County, at 1,993 square miles, is the single most populous county in the district, with a 1989 population of 873,347. The northern four counties are geographically larger than Palm Beach County, at 2,404 square miles, and contained a 1989 population of 360,664, nearly one-third of the total population of the district. The most dense population in the northern four counties is the Martin County/Port St. Lucie area. The district itself measures 100 miles in length, north to south, in a straight line. Martin is located approximately 60 miles from the southern boarder of the district, St. Mary's is approximately 30 miles, and Boca is 2.1 miles Considering Boca's geographic location, it would not be readily accessible to all residents of the district. Martin and St. Mary's are, on the other hand, sited such that they could, geographically, address the needs of the district as a whole. However, St. Mary's, like Boca, is proximate to a number of open heart surgery providers and would not improve geographic accessibility within the district, as would Martin. Further bearing on the issue of accessibility, is the applicants' commitment to service Medicaid and the medically indigent. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that Boca has not been an historic provider of Medicaid or indigent care, and for its fiscal 1989 dedicated less than 1 percent of its total admissions to Medicaid and indigent care. On the other hand, St. Mary's patient mix has included 15 percent Medicaid and 5 percent indigent, and it is the highest Medicaid provider in the district. Martin has, although to a lesser degree than St. Mary's, also demonstrated a commitment to the underserved by historically serving 5 1/2 percent Medicaid and indigent patients. In its application, Boca "committed" to provide at least 2 percent of gross revenue generated by the open heart surgery program for the provision of charity or indigent care on an annual basis. Considering Boca's nominal historic commitment to indigent care, its location in an affluent area of Palm Beach County, and its closed staff, Boca could not reasonably achieve such level of care, and would not increase accessibility for underserved groups. Comparatively, St. Mary's and, to a lesser extent, Martin, would increase accessibility for underserved groups should the need exist. Here, St. Mary's has projected that 7 percent of its total patient days will be devoted to Medicaid patients and 3 percent to indigent patients, and Martin has projected 5 percent Medicaid and indigent. The costs and methods of the proposed construction. In its application, Boca estimated a total project cost of $7,499,856 to construct and equip a new addition to house its open heart surgery program. That figure included a $6,147,900 construction fund and $783,056 for equipment costs to complete the two operating suites, recovery areas and ten-bed surgical intensive care unit proposed. Its estimates were, however, deficient. Boca's equipment budget, as it appeared in its application, was prepared by an individual who had no expertise in this area, and was deficient in terms of the actual equipment listed and its cost. To properly equip and furnish the two operating room suites, recovery room areas and a ten-bed surgical intensive care unit proposed by Boca would require an expenditure in excess of $1,690,000. Adding necessary instrumentation and a backup pump could add an additional $50-60,000. At hearing, Boca sought to minimize the significance of its underestimation by offering the testimony of an expert in medical equipment planning, cost estimating and procurement. That expert, Richard Drinkwine, was most credible and found, upon review of the Boca proposal that it was wanting in both equipment and cost. In his opinion a more reasonable cost to purchase moverable equipment would be $1,027,267, and a reasonable estimate for the furniture needs of Boca would be $92,257. This estimate was based on the assumption that Boca would not initially equip its second operating room, exam rooms or recovery rooms. To do so, would add an additional cost of $411,329 (movable and fixed equipment) for the second operating room and $160,000 to equip the recovery areas. Adding needed instrumentation and a back up pump would bring Boca's equipment costs to over $1,740,000. 9/ While Boca underestimated its equipment costs, the proof demonstrates that its construction estimate of $6,147,900 was overstated. The major factor which accounts for the overstatement by Boca in its application was an over estimate of the cost to construct the first floor of its addition, which is a covered parking area. In fact, Boca will be able to construct its proposed addition for approximately $5,226,397, or $921,503 less than it estimated in its application. Although Boca could realize a significant savings on construction costs, and those savings would be adequate to almost offset the deficiencies in its equipment budget, the restructuring of its application at this time is not appropriate under the Department's Rule 10-5.010(2)(b). Notably, while the total cost figures might be the same, the additional equipment that is needed to equip Boca's program, and that was omitted from its application, is significant. In addition to Boca's failure to demonstrate the reasonableness of its cost proposal, it is also found that Boca's proposal is oversized and overpriced to meet any demands Boca could reasonably expect to fulfill at any time in the foreseeable future. First, each of the two operating rooms proposed by Boca are over 1,100 square feet in size. Such size is more than twice the size reasonably needed to accommodate open heart surgery. Second, areas in the central core and lounges are also larger then needed. More significantly, Boca is proposing a four-bed recovery area and ten dedicated SICU beds. Even assuming there is a need for an additional open heart surgery program in the district, Boca could never reasonably expect to capture sufficient market share to justify the capital expenditure necessary to warrant a 10-bed SICU. Ten SICU beds could handle between 900 and 1400 open heart patients in a year. There are no programs anywhere in South Florida, no matter how mature or well respected, that have achieved utilization close to that level, and it is not reasonable for Boca to expect to achieve such volumes. Significantly, a portion of the capital cost for Boca's project would, under the present system, be passed along to the federal government by the capital cost pass through. By this mechanism, over $3,500,000 of Boca's project would ultimately be reimbursed to the hospital in the form of Medicare payments. Compared to Boca's cost proposal, St. Mary's is modest. Here, the schematics submitted by St. Mary's with its application and omissions response depict the existing surgical suites at St. Mary's and the minor renovations necessary to convert an existing room into the proposed open heart surgery suite. As proposed, St. Mary's program would have a dedicated open heart surgery suite, as well as a backup operating room. Recovery would be accommodated in its existing 16-bed ICU. In its application, St. Mary's estimated a maximum project cost of $850,000 to remodel its existing facility and equip its proposed open heart surgery program. That figure included up to $100,000 for remodeling costs, and up to $700,000 for equipment costs. St. Mary's estimates are reasonable and cost effective whether its program is dedicated to adult and pediatric open heart surgery service or simply adult services. Significantly, the equipment needed to perform open heart surgery on adults and pediatrics is the same except for some special instruments. That cost, at less than $25,000, is nominal and does not affect the reasonableness of St. Mary's estimates. As proposed in its application, Martin would construct 2,800 square feet of new space at its facility for the purpose of implementing an open heart surgery program. The location of the project is the hospital's first floor adjacent to both the cardiac catheterization laboratory and the existing surgical suites. This location will provide rapid access for cardiac catheterization emergencies requiring open heart intervention and will share common areas with the existing surgical suites, minimizing additional construction and project cost. It is also proximate to a 9-bed surgical intensive care unit. Of the eight existing operating rooms at Martin, two are large enough to serve as backup open heart operating rooms in the event of an emergency, but Martin has not proposed to establish, or budgeted the necessary equipment to establish, a backup operating room. Martin, like St. Mary's, proposes a modest expenditure, compared to Boca, for the initiation of its open heart surgery program. In this regard, Martin's application estimates its total project cost at $1,239,029. That figure includes a total construction cost budget of $796,669, and an equipment budget at $375,360. Martin's costs and methods of proposed construction are reasonable. While the proof demonstrates that approximately $411,000 is a reasonable cost to equip an open heart surgery suite, it also demonstrated that Martin currently has on hand some necessary equipment, such as cell-savers and heating-cooling machines. Under such circumstances, Martin could reasonably equip its program within its $375,360 budget. It could not, however, equip a backup operating room within such budget, and without a backup operating room could not reasonably expect to be able to handle 500 open heart cases a year, as required by rule 10-5.011(f)3d, given the need to back up its cardiac cath program. The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal. To assess the financial feasibility of the project, Boca's pro forma of income and expense, contained within its application, projects 192 patients during the first year of operation of its open heart surgery program and 211 patients during the second year. Projected charges for both years are based on $55,430 for DRG 104 and $41,942 for DRG 106 with an average length of stay of 10 days. Payor class mix is estimated to be as follows: Medicare 70 percent, Medicaid 0 percent (nominal), insurance 25 percent, other 3 percent, and indigent 2 percent. Net revenue over expenses for year one is projected to be $1,303,312, and for year two to be $1,597,959. Boca's proposed charges, utilization levels, and payor mix are reasonable. However, its pro forma contained unreasonable assumptions regarding average length of stay, total deductions and expenses. 10/ At hearing, Boca made no effort to defend the unreasonable assumptions it had presented to the Department through the pro forma contained in its application. Rather, conceding the unreasonableness of its assumptions, it sought to minimize their import through the testimony of Rufus Harris, an expert in health care finance and accounting. Such objective was not, however, attained. Mr. Harris, employed during the course of these proceedings, actually prepared a completely new pro forma for the Boca program. That pro forma significantly changed Boca's average length of stay from 10 to 16 days; significantly reduced the number of full time equivalents (FTEs) in open heart surgery, recovery and the surgical intensive care unit (SIC) from 39.3 to 24.1; increased the number of support FTEs from 25 to 30 or 32; increased the cost per FTE in the open heart surgery program by $800; increased the cost for each support FTE by $14,000; included the indigent care assessment ($68,000), utility cost ($108,000) and malpractice insurance cost ($17,000) that had been omitted from the application; increased the supply cost by $618,000; and reduced deductions from revenue by $186,000. But for the charges, utilization levels, and payor mix, Mr. Harris' pro forma is a complete revision of Boca's application pro forma, and demonstrates that such pro forma was not based on reasonable assumptions. Although not based on reasonable assumptions, Mr. Harris opined that such failing is not material since Boca's pro forma, like his pro forma, calculated a profit. Mr. Harris' opinion is rejected. The bottom line profit he derived was based on a substantial change in Boca's proposed program. Such slight of hand does not address the financial feasibility of the program Boca proposed in its application. Boca's proposal, developed through the testimony of its construction, equipment and financial experts, bears little resemblance to its initial application, and must be rejected as an impermissible amendment. Boca's application proposed two operating rooms. As such, Boca could facially handle at least 500 open heart surgery cases per year. As amended, with one operating room, Boca could not reasonably expect to attain such level of operations, given the need to back up its cardiac catheterization program, contrary to Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)3d. As proposed, Boca's open heart surgery program would include recovery areas and a 10-bed SICU, fully staffed. As amended, the SICU would be staffed with one FTE and other staffing substantially reduced. Through downsizing, Boca would presume to significantly alter its proposal, and thereby demonstrate the reasonableness of its cost and financial feasibility projections. Such was not, however, the proposal submitted to the Department for review, and it cannot be permitted, at this stage of the proceedings, to amend its proposal in such material respects. Accordingly, based on the record, Boca has failed to demonstrate the financial feasibility of its proposal. 11/ St. Mary's pro forma of income and expenses projects 200 adult and 10 pediatric open heart surgery cases during its first year of operation, and 240 adult and 20 pediatric during its second year of operation. Separate pro formas describe the adult and pediatric parts of St. Mary's proposal. Actual charges proposed by St. Mary's will vary by DRG, as will average length of stay. The weighted average charges are, however, projected to be $38,000 for adult services and $43,025 for pediatric services during its first year of operation, and $39,900 for adult services and $45,176 for pediatric services during its second year of operation, based on a 10 day average length of stay. Payor class mix for adults is estimated as follows: Medicare 50 percent, Medicaid 7 percent, self pay/commercial 40 percent, and indigent 3 percent. Payor class mix for pediatrics is estimated to be as follows: Medicare 0 percent, Medicaid 50 percent, self pay/commercial 40 percent, and indigent 10 percent. Net revenue over expenses for its adult program is projected, on an incremental cost basis, to be $2,297,566 for year one, and $2,885,102 for year two. Net revenue for its pediatric program is projected, on an incremental cost basis, to be $62,326 for year one, and $224,797 for year two. St. Mary's proposed charges, average length of stay, utilization levels, payor mix, as well as its assumptions regarding total deductions and expenses are not reasonable. St. Mary's proposed charges were not shown to be reasonably achievable. Rather, where, as here, a facility's charge structure is based on consumption of services, the increased costs associated with an open heart program, discussed infra, would translate into significantly higher charges than those proposed by St. Mary's. St. Mary's application contains no data to reasonably support its conclusions that it will achieve 200 adult cases in year one and 240 adult cases in year two, nor did the proof it offered at hearing demonstrate such potential. Rather, the persuasive proof demonstrated that St. Mary's could not reasonably expect to attract more than 80 adult open heart cases in its first year of operation, and that it would not even be able to attract 200 open heart cases during its third year of operation. Notably, the area St. Mary's proposes to serve is currently adequately served by two open heart surgery programs. St. Mary's pro forma contains several other serious flaws. First, its gross patient revenues are driven by an average length of stay of 10 days. Such assumption is unreasonable, and St. Mary's could more reasonably expect an average length of stay of 15-17 days, with significantly higher expenses associated with the greater consumption of resources occasioned by such increased length of stay. Second, St. Mary's payor mix is significantly understated for Medicare. Here, the proof demonstrates that St. Mary's could reasonably expect to achieve a 68-70 percent Medicare utilization rate, as opposed to the 50 percent it projected. Such increase would significantly reduce its self pay/commercial, assuming its Medicaid and indigent utilization levels are to be accorded any credence, and significantly increase its deductions from revenue. Third, St. Mary's pro forma significantly understated expenses, primarily with regard to supplies and FTEs. Had St. Mary's reasonably calculated its average length of stay at 15-17 days, its expenses for supplies and FTEs would have been substantially higher. Additionally, St. Mary's application only addresses the need to tap incremental FTEs in the nursing area, whereas initation of an open heart program would have a tremendous impact on all services in the hospital, such as lab, pharmacy and social services, with attendant higher costs. Based on the opinion of Richard Cascio, an expert in health care finance, which is credited, St. Mary's proposal is not financially feasible in the long term. 12/ Regarding St. Mary's pediatric open heart program, the proof, as heretofore found, fails to support is utilization projection of 10 cases in year one and 20 cases in year two. Therefore, St. Mary's has failed to demonstrate the long term financial feasibility of that program operated, as proposed, concurrently with an adult program. As a stand alone program, neither St. Mary's application nor the proof at hearing reasonably address such a prospect. However, since the pediatric program was not shown to be financially feasible with the adult program bearing a significant portion of operating expenses, it must also be concluded that the pediatric program would not be financially feasible were it to carry all operating expenses. Martin's pro forma of income and expenses is predicated upon 148 adult open heart surgery cases during its first year of operation, and 195 cases during its second year of operation. Actual charges proposed by Martin will vary by DRG, as will average length of stay. Projected average charges are, however, projected to be $41,000 during its first year of operation and $43,080 during its second year of operation, based on a 15.7 day average length of stay. Payor class mix is estimated as follows: Medicare 63.0 percent, Medicaid 2.5 percent, private pay/commercial insurance 32.5 percent, and free care 2 percent. Net revenue over expenses is projected to be $260,000 for year one and $337,000 for year two. Martin's utilization levels, proposed charges, payor mix, and average length of stay are reasonable. Martin's pro forma did, however, contain some unreasonable assumptions regarding expenses, primarily staffing costs. 13/ Martin's pro forma estimates staffing costs based on the manpower requirements (FTEs) and salaries set forth in Table 11 of its application. It further calculates fringe benefits at 20 percent of salaries. Notably, however, the number of people needed to staff a program at a given FTE level is significantly higher than the raw FTE number. Accordingly, since Martin projected its salary expense and fringe benefits based on FTE's, its expenses associated with those items are understated. Further, the salaries Martin proposed in Table 11 for its operating room nurses are entry level salaries and Martin could not reasonably expect to recruit experienced open heart surgery personnel at such rates. Nor is its projected salary for a perfusionist, at $59,551 reasonable. A more reasonable figure would be in excess of $75,000. Even though the proof offered in opposition to Martin's application did demonstrate that Martin's assumptions regarding salary expenses were understated, it failed to demonstrate that Martin could not meet current market demands and still be profitable. Rather, Martin's proposal, while generating a lower bottom line, will still be profitable if such increased expenses are considered, and it is financially feasible in the long term. While each of the applicant's have demonstrated the immediate financial feasibility of their projects, by demonstrating the availability of funds for project accomplishment and operation, only Martin has demonstrated the long term financial feasibility of its proposal. Other criteria bearing on capital expenditure proposals for the provision of new health services to inpatients. In cases of capital expenditure proposals for the provision of new health services to inpatients, Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes, requires that the Department reference each of the following in its findings of fact: That less costly, more efficient, or more appropriate alternatives to such inpatient services are not available and the development of such alternatives has been studied and found not practicable. That existing inpatient facilities pro- viding inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. In the case of new construction, that alternatives to new construction, for example, modernization or sharing arrangements, have been considered and have been implemented to the maximum extent practicable. That patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed, in the absence of the proposed new service. In the instant case, none of the foregoing criteria can be answered in the affirmative. Rather, the proof demonstrates that less costly, more efficient or more appropriate alternatives currently exist through increased utilization of existing facilities. It further demonstrates that two of the existing three providers have not yet attained a 350 case per year level of operation, and that their services are therefore not yet being used at an appropriate level. Existing utilization levels and capacity further demonstrate that patients will not experience any serious problems in accessing such services. Finally, the applicants further failed to demonstrate that they had considered alternatives to new construction and had implemented them to the maximum extent possible. In the case of all applicants' there is no proof of any effort to initiate sharing arrangements. On the matter of Boca's complaints regarding delays experienced in effecting patient transfers by ambulance, as well as the inadequacy of such ambulances and their breakdowns, it offered no proof that it had investigated other ambulance services or its ability to operate its own service and found them impractable. Notably, such services are an item over which Boca has significant control, and its failure to investigate alternatives in this regard evidences the insignificance of any such problem. The criteria on balance. In evaluating the applications at issue in this proceeding, none of the criteria established by Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, or Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, has been overlooked. The applicants' failure to demonstrate need, either numeric or not normal circumstances, as well as their failure to demonstrate compliance with Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes, is, however, dispositive of their applications, and such failure is not outweighed by any other or combination of any other criteria. Further, even were the fixed need pool accorded the deference suggested by the Department, the other indicators of need subsumed within other criteria would dispel such illusion, and again compel the conclusion that there is no need in this case. Had numeric need been demonstrated, and the need requirements encompassed within section 381.705(2) satisfied, the proof would still fail to support an award to Boca or St. Mary's. Rather, among the competing applicants, Martin was shown to best satisfy the pertinent review criteria on balance and would, under such circumstances, be the favored applicant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered denying the applications of Boca, St. Mary's and Martin for a certificate of need to establish an open heart surgery program in District IX. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of March 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March 1991.
Findings Of Fact Lawnwood Regional Medical Center is a 225 bed community hospital in Ft. Pierce, Florida. It currently holds a CON to add an additional 50 beds. Lawnwood is owned and operated by Hospital Corporation of America, (HCA). On October 14, 1985, Lawnwood submitted a CON application for authorization to provide cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery programs at the facility. The project for both services would involve a total of approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of construction consisting of both new construction and renovation of the present facility, with a project cost of approximately $3.6 million. Lawnwood developed the project because it found a need therefor as a result of various visits to the administrator by physicians practicing in the area who indicated a growing demand for the services. The physicians in question indicated they were referring more and more patients to facilities out of the immediate area and the services in question were very much needed in this locality. The main service area for Lawnwood consists of the northern four counties of DHRS District IX, including St. Lucie, Martin, Okeechobee, and Indian River Counties. The majority of the cardiology practitioners in this service area find it necessary, because of the lack of cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery programs, to transfer patients to facilities either in Palm Beach County, which are from one to two hours away, or to facilities outside the District, primarily in Miami or the University of Florida area, which are even further. While many heart patients are not severely impacted by this, one specific class of patient, the streptokinase patient is. This procedure, involving the use of a chemical injected by catheter to dissolve a clot causing blockage must he done within a relatively short period of time after the onset of the blockage to be effective. However, this can he done outside a cardiac cath lab. A representative sampling of doctors testifying for Lawnwood indicated that during the year prior to the hearing, one doctor, Kahddus, sent 140 patients outside the district for catheterization procedures and 90 additional patients for open heart surgery. Other physicians referring outside District IX included Dr. Hayes - 4; Dr. Marjieh - 240; and Dr. Whittle - 12. Doctors indicated that the situation was so severe that some physicians practicing in the Palm Beach area, who have cardiac catheter and open heart surgery services available to them in the immediate locale are nonetheless referring patients outside the District for these procedures. No physician who does this testified, however. St. Mary's Hospital is a 358 bed not for profit hospital located in Palm Beach County. It has been issued a CON for a cardiac catheterization lab expected to come on line in April, 1987. Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center is a 204 bed acute care hospital which currently operates a cardiac catheterization laboratory and an open heart surgery program. It, too, is located in Palm Beach County. A second cardiac catheterization laboratory was scheduled to open at this facility in February, 1987. An additional cardiac catheterization laboratory is operating at Delray Community Hospital and this facility, as well as the currently existing facility at PBGMC are the only two currently operating cardiac catheterization laboratories within DHRS District IX. There are, however, other cardiac catheterization labs approved for District IX. These include the aforementioned second PBGMC lab, the aforementioned St. Mary's lab, one at JFK Hospital and one at Boca Raton Community Hospital. These latter four facilities are not yet operational. As to open heart surgery programs, only PBGMC and Delray Community Hospital have open heart surgery programs on line. JFK has been approved for an open heart surgery program. DHRS has promulgated rules for determining the need for cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery programs. These rules are found in Section 10-5.11(15) and (16), F.A.C. and establish methodologies based on use rates to determine need. The use rate for the applicable time period here, July, 1984 through June, 1985, is to be multiplied by the projected population for the District in the planning horizon, (July, 1987) which figure is then divided by 600 procedures per laboratory to determine the need for catheterization labs or 350 open heart procedures to determine the need for additional open heart surgery programs. The difficulty in applying this methodology to the current situation is in the calculation of the "use rate" used to measure the utilization of a service per unit of population. For the rule here, it is expressed as the number of procedures per 100,000 population. There is more than one way to calculate a use rate and the DHRS rules do not specify the method of calculation. An "actual use rate" is determined by applying the actual number of procedures performed within a particular geographical area in a particular time period. Data to determine an actual use rate for catheterization services or open heart surgery is not currently available in District IX, however. Applying the formula cited above to the existing figures, however, reflects a use rate of 62.3 procedures per 100,000 population in District IX. This is far below the 409.7 procedures per 100,000 population statewide. Lawnwood proposes to apply the statewide use rate rather than the District IX use rate because District IX is currently in a start up phase and does not have sufficient historical information available to provide an accurate use rate for the purpose of the need methodology. The lower the use rate, the lower the need will be shown to be. If the lower District IX rate is applied, in light of the numerous other laboratories coming on line approved already, there would clearly be no need for any additional services in either the catheterization or open heart surgery areas. Some experts offer as a potential substitute for the actual use rate a "facility based use rate" which involves determining the number of procedures performed in all hospitals within a particular geographic area for the applicable time period and dividing that number of procedures by the population of that area. DHRS evaluators employed this "facility based use rate" in their need calculations. At least one expert, however, contends that the "facility based use rate" is appropriate only when certain conditions exist. These include an adequate supply of facilities or providers in the area; historical, long-standing experience rather than start-up programs; and a lack of a high number of referrals outside of the particular area. Since these three conditions are not met here, it would seen that the "facility based use rate" would not be appropriate. In determining the statewide use rate of 409.07, Mr. Nelson, consultant testifying on behalf of Lawnwood, derived that figure by compiling utilization data for all hospitals in the state providing cardiac catheterization during the time period in question divided by the statewide population as of January 1, 1985. The resulting figure was thereafter converted into a rate per unit of population. A statewide figure such as this includes patients of all ages and it would appear that this is as it should be. Catheterization and open heart surgery services would be open to all segments of the state population and it would seem only right therefore that the entire population be considered when arriving at figures designed to assess the need for additional services. On the other hand, experts testifying on behalf of the intervenors utilized statistical manipulation which tended to indicated that the need, reflected as greater under Mr. Nelson's methodology, was in fact not accurate and was flawed. He that as it may, it is difficult to conclude which of the different experts testifying is accurate and the chances are great that none is 100 percent on track. More likely, and it is so found, the appropriate figure would be one more extensive than the population figures and resultant use rate for District IX alone and closer to the statewide rate across a broad spectrum of the population. When the fact that the older population of the District IX counties, the age cohort more likely to utilize catheterization and open heart surgery services, is greater in the District IX counties than perhaps in other counties north of that area, the inescapable conclusion must be reached that a use rate significantly higher than 62.3 would be appropriate. This may not, however, require the use of a statewide rate of 409.7. Utilizing, arguendo, the statewide use rate of approximately 409 procedures per 100,000 population results in a projected number of procedures of 4,576 in District IX if the projected population figure of slightly more than 1.1 million holds true. When that 4,576 figure is divided by the minimum number of procedures required by rule prior to the addition of further cardiac catheterization labs, (600),a need for 7.63 labs in District IX is shown. With six labs existing or approved, a net need of two additional labs would appear to exist since DHRS rounds upward when the number is .5 or higher. A similar analysis applied to open heart surgery, using a statewide use rate of 120.94 per 100,000 population results in a procedure number of 1,353 for the same population. Utilizing the DHRS rule minimum of 350 procedures per lab for open heart surgery procedures, a net yield of 3.87 programs would be needed in District IX in January, 1988. Subtracting the three existing or approved programs now in the district, and rounding up, would show a need of one additional open heart surgery program. These are the figures relied upon by Lawnwood. Accepting them for the moment and going to the issue of financial feasibility, DHRS apparently has agreed that the project costs for this facility are reasonable. Lawnwood has shown itself to be a profitable hospital and HCA is a large, well run corporation not known for the establishment of non- profitable operations. If one accepts that the actual utilization will approximate the projected utilization figures, then the operation would clearly be financially feasible. Both intervenors challenged the Petitioner's pro forma statement of earnings, but their efforts were not particularly successful. If Lawnwood can perform a sufficient number of procedures, then it should be able to break even without difficulty. Turning to the question of the impact that the opening of Lawnwood's facilities would have on the other providers or prospective providers in the area, both PBGMC and St. Mary's contend that there would be a substantial adverse impact on their existing services as well as on the prospective units already approved. Lawnwood proposes to service a portion of the indigent population with its two new operations. Were this to be done, indeed an impact would be felt by St. Mary's which is currently a substantial provider of indigent and Medicaid treatment and St. Mary's will be particularly vulnerable since it is in the start-up phase of its cardiac catheterization lab. Currently, PBGMC draws patients in both services from Martin and St. Lucie counties as well as from Palm Beach County. The percentage of patients drawn from these more northern counties is, while not overwhelming, at least significant, being 14 percent from Martin County and 9 percent from St. Lucie. Taken together, this constitutes 23 percent of the activity in these areas. St. Mary's anticipates a loss of 25 percent of its potential catheterization cases and if this happens, it will lose approximately $719,000.00 of its gross revenue in catheterization cases alone. St. Mary's further predicts that if Lawnwood's facility is opened, it will have difficulty recruiting and maintaining qualified personnel. PBGMC, figuring it's loss to be approximately $492,000.00, estimates that a layoff of nursing and other staff personnel or the redirecting them into other areas of the hospital would be indicated. PBGMC also refers to the cumulative impact not only of Lawnwood's proposal but of the other cardiac programs in the District which have been approved but are not yet on line. If all come into operation, PBGMC estimates it could lose as much as 69 percent of its activity in these areas. These negative predictions are not, however, supported by any firm evidence and are prospective in nature. From a historic perspective, it is doubtful that any lasting significant negative impact would occur to either PBGMC or St. Mary's overall operation by the opening of Lawnwood's facility. Turning to the question of staffing and its relationship to the issue of quality of care, there is little doubt that Lawnwood could obtain appropriate staffing for both its services if approved. Of the physicians already on staff at the facility, many are now certified and the hospital and the medical community plans training programs for those who are not. As to nurses and other support personnel, Lawnwood is satisfied that it can recruit from other HCA facilities and will recruit from the open market. It has a full time recruiter on staff. Quality of care is of paramount concern to the administration of Lawnwood. It has a current three year accreditation from the Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation. It also has a quality control committee made up of both physicians and other staff members and the laboratory is approved by appropriate accrediting agencies. These same types of quality control programs would be applied to both new requested services as well. The rules in question governing the approval of cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgery programs set down certain criteria for the approval of additional services which, as to the question of cardiac catheters states at subparagraph 15(o)1a that there will be no additional adult cardiac catheterization laboratories established in a service area unless the average number of catheterizations performed per year by existing and approved laboratories performing adult procedures in the service area is greater than 600. Much the same qualification relates to open heart surgery programs except that in that latter case, the minimum number would be 350 open heart procedures annually for adults and 130 for pediatric heart procedures annually. Ms. Farr, consultant for DHRS, feels that Petitioner's application would be inconsistent with the minimum standards set forth in the rule because she does not believe the Petitioner would do enough procedures in either cardiac catheterization or open heart surgery to meet the 600/350 criteria. She also contends that the proposal is not consistent with the District Health Plan, because the District plan requires the rule which addresses need be followed. Since, in her opinion, the application of the rule shows no need, there would be a violation of the District Health Plan if these proposals were approved. In the area of cardiac catheterization laboratories, of the six licensed and approved labs in District IX, only that existing currently at PBGMC is presently performing more than 600 procedures per year. Substantial testimony tending to indicate that a well organized cardiac catheterization lab can handle between 1500 and 2000 procedures per year, the 600 figure would tend to be a minimum and was so recognized by the drafters of the rule. No evidence was introduced by any party to show the numbers of open heart surgery procedures currently being performed in the three existing or approved open heart surgery programs in the District. Again, however, it would appear that DHRS criteria of 350 would be a minimum rather than an optimum or maximum figure. The parties have stipulated that as to the travel time criteria set forth in the rule for both procedures, 90 percent of the population of District IX is within two hour automobile travel time from availability to either or both procedures. It would further appear from an evaluation of the evidence, that while difficulty is experienced in arranging treatment for indigent transfer patients outside the District, little if any difficulty is experienced in arranging transfer treatment for those who can pay for the service. Little difficulty is experienced in securing treatment for these individuals in either Miami, Orlando, or elsewhere, and aside from inconvenience, there was no showing that a real, substantial health risk existed as a result of the transfer process. All things taken together, then, though the numerical evaluation under the rule process, applying a statewide use rate, tends to indicate that there is a "need" for this additional service, the subparagraph "o" criteria of 600/350 procedures requirement prior to authorization of additional service is not met.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Lawnwood's application for a CON to add a cardiac catheterization laboratory and open heart surgery program at its facility in Ft. Pierce, Florida, be denied. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1987 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 16th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1539 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By Petitioner - Lawnwood 1 & 2. Accepted and incorporated. 3 & 4. Accepted and incorporated. 5. Accepted and incorporated. 6. Accepted and incorporated. 7. Accepted and incorporated. 8. Accepted and incorporated. 9. Accepted and incorporated. 10. Accepted and incorporated. 11. Accepted and incorporated. 12. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 13. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 14. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as indicating a need for 2 additional cath labs. Rejected as calling for determination of "not normal status for District IX. Accepted in general but rejected insofar as there is an implication that non-indigent patients experience "significant" difficulty securing treatment. Accepted. 19 & 20. Accepted as to the streptokinase patients specifically. Accepted but not considered to be of major significance. Accepted and incorporated. 23 & 24. Accepted and incorporated. 25 & 26. Accepted and incorporated. 27 & 28. Accepted and incorporated. 29. Accepted. 30 & 31. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 32. Rejected as not supported by the best evidence. 33-36. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Accepted. 39-42. Accepted. By Intervenor - St. Mary's 1 - 4. Accepted and incorporated. 5 & 6. Accepted and incorporated. 7 - 9. Accepted and incorporated. 10. Rejected as not supported by the best evidence. 11 & 12. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not supported by the best evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 19-21. Merely a summary of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact. 22-24. Summary of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact. Accepted as ultimate Finding of Fact. Rejected. Rejected as a summary of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Subordinate. 32-36. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not Finding of Facts. 37-40. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 41 & 42. Accepted. 43-46. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. By Intervenor - PBGMC 1 & 2. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted except for last sentence which is irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated. 6 & 7. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted. 9. Accepted and Incorporated. 10 & 11. Accepted and incorporated. 12. Accepted. 13-16. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected ultimately as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected. Accepted. 23 & 24. Accepted. 25 & 26. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 27. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Sheehan, III, Esquire 9th Floor, Barnett Centre 625 North Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 R. Bruce McKibben, Esquire 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building 1, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eleanor A. Joseph, Esquire Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire 2700 Blairstone Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire 306 North Monroe Street Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
