The Issue The issue is whether the Agency should approve the Certificate of Need applications filed by Manatee Memorial and/or HMA, each of which proposes to establish a new acute care hospital to serve the city of North Port in Sarasota County, Acute Care Subdistrict 8-6.
Findings Of Fact Parties Manatee Memorial Manatee Memorial, the applicant for CON 9767, is a subsidiary of Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS). UHS is a publicly-traded corporation that is headquartered in Pennsylvania. UHS is a financially-sound company. In 2003, its net revenues were approximately $3.6 billion, its net operating income was $355.7 million, and its after-tax net income was $199.2 million. Manatee Memorial is also financially-sound despite a net loss of $2.5 million in 2003. It had net income of $13.9 million in 2002, and its net revenues increased from $164.5 million in 2002 to $180.9 million in 2003. As of December 31, 2003, Manatee Memorial’s total assets exceeded its total liabilities by $56.3 million. UHS operates approximately 100 healthcare facilities in the United States and abroad. The facilities operated by UHS include behavioral health/psychiatric facilities, surgery centers, and 37 acute care hospitals. Three of the acute care hospitals operated by UHS are in Florida. They are Wellington Regional Medical Center in south Palm Beach County, Manatee Memorial Hospital (MMH) in Bradenton, and Lakewood Ranch Medical Center (Lakewood Ranch) in Manatee County, near the Manatee County/Sarasota County border. MMH and Lakewood Ranch are operated under a single license issued by the Agency. Manatee Memorial is the licensee. MMH started as a community hospital in the 1950’s. It was acquired by UHS in 1996 and has undergone significant capital improvements since the acquisition. MMH has 319 beds. It provides tertiary services, including open-heart surgery (OHS) and interventional cardiology services. It has a Level II neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and a full-service emergency department (ED) that operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (24/7). Lakewood Ranch opened in September 2004. It has 120 beds and a 24/7 ED. It offers obstetrical (OB) services, but it does not have any NICU beds. It does not provide any tertiary services. MMH and Lakewood Ranch are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). MMH and Lakewood Ranch accept all patients without regard to their ability to pay. MMH has been recognized as a “Top 100” hospital by Solucent, and it has received other accolades for the quality of care and community support that it provides. There is significant overlap in the medical staffs at Lakewood Ranch and MMH. The Lakewood Ranch CON application projected that the hospital would have an average daily census (ADC) of 46.8 in its first year of operation, which equates to a 39 percent utilization rate. Manatee Memorial’s witnesses acknowledged at the hearing that Lakewood Ranch would likely not meet those projections. The total cost of Lakewood Ranch was $48.7 million, which is $8.1 million more than was projected in the CON application for the hospital. Approximately $2.9 million of the “cost overrun” was attributed to additional IT systems beyond those specified in the CON application. HMA HMA, the applicant for CON 9768, is a subsidiary of Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA, Inc.) HMA, Inc., is a publicly-traded corporation that is headquartered in Naples. It operates 57 hospitals in 16 states. HMA, Inc., is a financially-sound company. Its net revenues increased from $1.1 billion in 1998 to $3.2 billion in 2004. Its net income increased from $137 million to $325 million over that same period. HMA, Inc., operates 14 acute care hospitals and two behavioral health/psychiatric facilities in Florida. It also has CON approval for new acute care hospitals in Brooksville and Naples. Most of the hospitals operated by HMA, Inc., are in non-urbanized areas. According to its 2004 annual report, HMA, Inc., “focuses on non-urban America because many of those communities are underserved medically, have populations that are growing faster than the national average, and offer competitive advantages compared to major urban areas.” The Florida hospitals operated by HMA, Inc., include Charlotte Regional Medical Center (Charlotte Regional) in Punta Gorda, Peace River Regional Medical Center (Peace River) in Port Charlotte, and Venice Hospital in Venice. Charlotte Regional has 208 beds, including 156 acute care beds and 52 psychiatric beds. It has a 24/7 ED and it offers OHS and inpatient psychiatric care. It does not offer OB services. Peace River has 212 beds, but only 170 of the acute care beds were available for use at the time of the final hearing. It has a 24/7 ED and a 20-bed skilled nursing unit. It offers OB services, but it does not have any NICU beds. Venice Hospital has 342 licensed beds. It has a 24/7 ED and a skilled nursing unit. It offers OHS and inpatient rehabilitation services. A majority of the beds at Charlotte Regional, Peace River, and Venice Hospital are in semi-private rooms. Charlotte Regional, Peace River, and Venice Hospital are all accredited by JCAHO, and they all accept patients without regard to their ability to pay. Charlotte Regional has been recognized as one of the top 100 cardiovascular hospitals in the country. Peace River and Venice Hospital were formerly not-for- profit hospitals operated by the Bon Secuors organization. Peace River was formerly known as Bon Secours St. Joseph’s Hospital (BS-St. Joe) and Venice Hospital was formerly known as Bon Secours Venice Hospital (BS-Venice). HMA, Inc., entered into an agreement to acquire BS-St. Joe and BS-Venice in November 2004. The acquisition, which was completed in February 2005, also included a hospital in Virginia, a nursing home in Port Charlotte, and “health parks” in northern Charlotte County, Venice, and North Port. BS-St. Joe and BS-Venice were not profitable at the time that they were acquired by HMA. The financial performance of those hospitals has improved significantly under HMA’s management, primarily through better management of accounts receivable. Englewood Englewood is owned and operated by HCA, Inc. (HCA). HCA is a publicly-traded corporation and the largest for-profit acute care hospital chain in the country. Englewood is located in the city of Englewood, which is in Sarasota County on the Cape Haze Peninsula near the Sarasota County/Charlotte County line. Englewood has 100 beds and a 24/7 ED. It does not offer OB services. Its largest service lines are cardiology, general medicine, orthopedics, and pulmonology. Englewood is accredited by JCAHO. It has received special accreditation for its chest pain center and certification from the American Stroke Association for its stroke care. Englewood accepts all patients without regard to their ability to pay. Englewood’s building has one floor. All of its beds are in semi-private rooms, except for four isolation rooms. Englewood is authorized to use its acute care beds as “swing beds” to provide skilled nursing care. Englewood’s primary service area (PSA) includes the Cape Haze Peninsula. Its secondary service area (SSA) includes south Venice and the mostly-undeveloped portion of North Port to the west of the Myakka River in zip code 34287. Englewood’s census ranges from 30 to 90 patients, depending upon the time of the year. During the “season” in 2005, its census peaked at 93 patients and averaged 73 patients. At the time of the final hearing, Englewood’s census was in the mid-50’s. Fawcett Fawcett is owned and operated by HCA. Fawcett is located in Port Charlotte, directly across the street from Peace River and five miles south of the city of North Port. Fawcett has 238 beds, a 24/7 ED, a 20-bed intensive care unit (ICU), a 20-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR) unit, and a diagnostic cardiac cath lab. Fawcett does not offer OB services. It will be opening an ambulatory surgical center in December 2005. Fawcett is accredited by JCAHO, and it was recently designated as a primary stroke center. Its oncology unit is affiliated with the Moffitt Cancer Center. Fawcett accepts all patients without regard to their ability to pay. Fawcett’s building has four floors. All of its beds are in semi-private rooms, except for the ICU beds and two isolation rooms. Fawcett suffered significant damage during Hurricane Charley in August 2004. The hospital’s fourth floor, which had 78 beds (including 10 ICU beds), was closed as a result of the damage. At the time of the final hearing, Fawcett was still in the process of repairing the damage to the fourth floor, and it had only 165 beds (including the CMR beds and 14 ICU beds) available for use. Fawcett’s PSA includes two of the North Port zip codes, 32486 and 32487. Those zip codes encompass the vast majority of the city’s geographic area. Agency The Agency is the state agency that administers the CON program. It is responsible for reviewing and taking final agency action on CON applications. Application Submittal and Review and Preliminary Agency Action Manatee Memorial and HMA each filed letters of intent and CON applications in the February 2004 batching cycle for hospital beds and facilities. Each application sought Agency approval to establish a new acute care hospital in Subdistrict 8-6 to serve the city of North Port. The fixed need pool published by the Agency for the February 2004 batching cycle identified a need for zero new acute care beds in Subdistrict 8-6. There were no challenges to the fixed need pool. HMA’s letter of intent was filed in the “grace period” established by Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(1)(d) in direct response to Manatee Memorial’s earlier-filed letter of intent. Manatee Memorial’s application was designated CON 9767, and HMA’s application was designated CON 9768. The applications complied with the technical submittal requirements in the statutes and Agency rules, and they were properly accepted for review by the Agency. The Agency comparatively reviewed the CON applications filed by Manatee Memorial and HMA. The Agency’s review of the applications complied with the applicable statutes and Agency rules. The Agency’s review culminated in a State Agency Action Report (SAAR) issued on June 11, 2004. The SAAR recommended denial of Manatee Memorial’s CON 9767 and approval of HMA’s CON 9768. The SAAR was issued prior to HMA’s acquisition of BS- St. Joe and BS-Venice. The Agency’s preference for HMA’s application over Manatee Memorial’s application was primarily based upon its assessment that HMA’s projected utilization was more reasonable and attainable than Manatee Memorial’s projected utilization. The SAAR recommended that the approval of HMA’s application be conditioned upon HMA providing 6.9 percent of the patient days at its North Port hospital to Medicaid patients and 2.9 percent of the patient days to charity patients. Those percentages were derived from the payor-mix assumptions used in the revenue projections in Schedule 7A of HMA’s CON application. The Agency published notice of its decisions on the CON applications in the Florida Administrative Weekly on June 25, 2004. The petitions for administrative hearing were all timely filed. The Agency reaffirmed its support for HMA’s application and its opposition to Manatee Memorial’s application at the final hearing through the testimony of Jeffrey Gregg, the bureau chief over the Agency’s CON program. Mr. Gregg testified that the Agency’s support of HMA’s application is unaffected by HMA's acquisition of BS-St. Joe and BS-Venice even though he acknowledged that the acquisition may have implications on the competition for acute care services in market in and around the city of North Port. Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6 District 8 is comprised of Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Lee, Glades, Hendry, and Collier Counties. There are six subdistricts in District 8, only two of which are relevant to this case. They are Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6. Subdistrict 8-6 is comprised of Sarasota County. There are no other counties in the subdistrict. There are four acute care hospitals in Subdistrict 8-6: Sarasota Memorial Hospital (Sarasota Memorial), Doctors Hospital of Sarasota (Doctors), Venice Hospital, and Englewood. Sarasota Memorial and Doctors are in northern Sarasota County in the city of Sarasota. Venice Hospital and Englewood are in southern Sarasota County. Sarasota Memorial is a not-for-profit, taxpayer supported hospital. Doctors is an HCA hospital. Sarasota County is bordered on the south by Charlotte County, which is the only county in Subdistrict 8-1. There are three acute care hospitals in Subdistrict 8-1: Peace River, Charlotte Regional, and Fawcett. There are a total of 1,776 licensed acute care beds at the seven hospitals in Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6. That number has remained constant since at least 2002. The overall annual occupancy rate for the hospitals in Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6 was 49.53 percent in 2002. In 2003 and 2004, the overall annual occupancy rate was approximately 46.4 percent. Between 2002 and 2004, Charlotte Regional had the highest occupancy rate of any of the hospitals in Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6, but its occupancy rate did not exceed 67 percent in any of those years. In 2004, its annual occupancy rate was only 56.6 percent. The occupancy rates at the existing hospitals is higher during the “season,” but the evidence was not persuasive that any of the existing hospitals are routinely at or over capacity during the “season” or at any other time during the year. In 2002, there were a total of 321,696 patient days at the hospitals in Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6. By 2004, the total number of patient days had declined to 301,099. Some, but not all, of that decline is attributable to Hurricane Charley, which directly hit the Port Charlotte area in August 2004 causing significant damage to Fawcett and disrupting service at the other hospitals in the area. There are no geographic barriers between Sarasota and Charlotte Counties. The service areas of the hospitals in southern Sarasota County and the hospitals in northern Charlotte County overlap, and there is significant cross-migration of patients between the counties. There is significant competition for acute care services in both Charlotte and Sarasota Counties. No hospital organization has a dominant market position. In 2004, for example, Sarasota Memorial had a 47 percent market share in Sarasota County, the HCA hospitals had a 22.8 percent market share, and the HMA hospitals (including the former Bon Secours hospitals) had a 21.4 percent market share. In the combined Sarasota County/Charlotte County “market,” the HMA hospitals (including the former Bon Secours hospitals) had a 33.7 percent market share, Sarasota Memorial had a 31.4 percent market share, and the HCA hospitals had a 25.6 percent market share. City of North Port (1) Generally The city of North Port is located in southern Sarasota County. The southern border of the city is the Sarasota County/Charlotte County line. The city roughly corresponds to the area encompassed by zip codes 34286, 34287, and 34288. Zip code 34289 is also a North Port zip code, but there is no geographic area assigned to that zip code. The city was platted in the 1960’s by General Development Corporation. The plats covered approximately 75 square miles of land and included approximately 70,000 residential lots, only 20 percent of which have been developed. There are also several large "developments of regional impact" under construction or in the planning stages within the city that together are projected to add at least 15,000 more residential units to the city over the next 15 to 20 years. A number of the streets that were constructed when the city was originally platted have fallen into disrepair, which hampers the provision of police, fire, and EMS. The city is currently conducting a comprehensive street inventory to assess the extent of the problem. Additional undeveloped land has been annexed into the city over the years, which has increased the city's size to 103 square miles. Currently, North Port is the fourth largest city in the state in terms of landmass. The Myakka River runs through the western portion of the city. The land to the west of the Myakka River is mostly undeveloped and includes the Myakka State Forest. Residential lots and open space make up approximately 95 percent of the city’s platted land area. The non-residential uses are clustered in five “activity centers” around the city. Major roadways through North Port include Interstate 75 (I-75), which runs east-west in the vicinity of the northern city limit and then north-south in the vicinity of the eastern city limit; U.S. Highway 41 (US 41), which runs parallel to I-75 in the southern portion of the city; Price Boulevard, which runs parallel to I-75 and US 41 through the center of the city; and Toledo Blade Boulevard and Sumter Boulevard, which run north- south near the center of the city. Toledo Blade, Sumter, and Price Boulevards are in need of widening, and there are several intersections on those roads that are operating below their adopted levels of service. It is not clear when the widening will occur, and the city’s concurrency management ordinance may soon require a moratorium on the issuance of building permits in the geographic areas impacting those intersections. The city is also in the process studying how to control its growth. The possibility of a moratorium is part of that study, but no recommendations had been formulated on that issue as of the date of the hearing. As a result, the likelihood of a moratorium on building permits in areas other than those which impact the intersections referenced above is unknown. Two of the activity centers are located on Toledo Blade Boulevard, two are located on Sumter Boulevard, and the other is located US 41. Hospitals are considered a permitted use in the activity centers. There is currently no acute care hospital or 24/7 urgent care facility in North Port. The North Port Health Park, which was acquired by HMA in February 2005 along with BS-St. Joe and BS-Venice, offers a variety of outpatient services and diagnostic procedures (e.g., echocardiography, mammograms, and “CAT scans”). It also includes approximately 20 physician offices and a clinical laboratory. The volume of diagnostic procedures at the North Port Health Park increased significantly between 1999 and 2004. There has also been steady growth in its laboratory volume over that period. Patients frequently come to the North Port Health Park with conditions requiring emergency services or hospitalization, which requires an ambulance to be called to transport the patient to one of the existing hospitals in the area. North Port city officials have been actively pursuing the establishment of a hospital in the city for several years. In 2003, the city engaged health planner Gene Nelson to study the feasibility of a hospital in the city. At the time, the City was considering filing its own CON application. Mr. Nelson presented a report to the City Council in June 2003, in which he concluded that it was “premature” for a hospital in North Port at that time. He projected that a hospital in North Port could “eventually” reach census levels to support a 59-bed to 74-bed hospital, and that even under more “aggressive” or “optimistic” assumptions, there would be a need for only 84 beds in 2010. The city ultimately decided to devote its efforts to encouraging an existing hospital company to build a hospital in the city and, in that regard, the City Commission voted to actively support those efforts through a “locally based campaign to collect letters of support for the hospital.” In January 2004, the City Council adopted a resolution reaffirming its “objective” to get a hospital in the city and expressing its support for Manatee Memorial’s proposal to build the hospital. There is considerable support for the establishment of a hospital in North Port from the residents of the city. The Agency received more than 20,000 letters and petitions from city residents urging the Agency to approve a hospital in the city. A community’s desire for a new hospital does not mean there is a “need” for a new hospital. Under the CON program, the determination of need for a new hospital must be based upon sound health planning principles, not the desires of a particular local government or its citizens. There are approximately 40 physicians who practice in North Port, but only nine of those physicians have full-time practices in the city. The others have part-time practices, meaning that they are in their North Port office for only part of the week. Most of the physicians practicing in North Port are primary care physicians, but there are also specialists in cardiology, oncology, general surgery, radiology, and other fields. Many of the physicians have their offices in the North Port Health Park. Population The city of North Port has grown steadily since 1970. In 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the city’s population was 22,797. Approximately 31 percent of the city’s residents are in the 65 and older (65+) age cohort. The largest percentage of the residents in the 65+ age cohort are in zip code 34287, which is growing at a slower rate than the other zip codes in the city. The median age in the city is declining. In 1990, the median age was 49, and in 2000, the median age was 41. In 2004, according to the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), the city’s population was 35,721. BEBR publishes the “official” population estimates for cities and counties in Florida. It does not project future populations and it does not provide population data by zip code. Claritas is a national demographic research firm. It projects future population by zip code, by age cohort, and with other demographic information. Health planners commonly rely upon the population projections from Claritas in preparing CON applications. Claritas projects future population in five-year increments, and it updates its population projections annually. At the time Manatee Memorial and HMA filed their CON applications, the most current Claritas data was for the period of 2003-2007. Population projections beyond 2007 were extrapolated based upon the annual population increases reflected in the available Claritas data. At the time of the final hearing, the most current Claritas data was for the period of 2004-2008. The North Port Planning and Zoning Department uses its own methodology to project future population for the city. The population projections are used in the city’s capital improvement planning and in the development of its comprehensive plan. The city’s methodology uses Census data as the starting point and then projects the future population by using a “rolling average” of the number of residential building permits issued in the previous five years to develop a projected number of residential building permits for each future year. A factor of 2.48 individuals per household (which is a North Port- specific figure from the U.S. Census Bureau) is then used to project the annual increase in population for each year in the future. A factor of 10 percent is added to the projection for seasonal residents. The evidence was not persuasive that the projections based upon the city's methodology are reliable. The city’s methodology typically results in population projections that are materially higher than the official BEBR estimates. For example, the city’s methodology projected a 2004 population of 39,662, which is approximately 11 percent higher than the official BEBR estimate of 35,721. The city’s methodology is based upon building permits, not certificates of occupancy or some other measure that would indicate that the residence was completed and, more importantly, inhabited. The city’s methodology also assumes continued growth at the historical rate and does not take into account the possibility of a moratorium on the issuance of building permits, which was being studied by the city at the time of the final hearing. The Claritas population projections are not entirely accurate either. Claritas typically under-projects future population in fast-growing areas, such as North Port. For example, the 2003-2007 Claritas data projected that the city’s 2004 population would be 32,487, which was approximately 9.1 percent lower than the official BEBR estimate of 35,721. The variance between the Claritas population projections and the projections based upon the city’s methodology are more pronounced in the later years. In 2010, for example, the city’s projected population based upon an extrapolation of the 2003-2007 Claritas data was 39,446 as compared to 72,066 based upon the city’s methodology. The population projections based upon the 2003-2007 Claritas data are too low and the projections based upon the city’s methodology are too high. On balance, the most reasonable population projections for the city of North Port contained in the record are those in Exhibit EF-10. Those projections, which were based upon the updated Claritas data for 2004-2008 and then extrapolated for 2009 and 2010, are as follows: 36,733 in 2004; 38,613 in 2005; 40,601 in 2006; 42,703 in 2007; 44,928 in 2008; 47,283 in 2009; and 49,777 in 2010. The 2004-2008 Claritas data better takes into account the city’s historically-high growth rate than does the 2003-2007 Claritas data, but it results in a more realistic projection of the city’s 2010 population than does the city’s methodology. Hospital Discharges There were 4,473 non-tertiary patients from the North Port zip codes discharged from a hospital in Florida in 2004.1 Only 1,356 (or approximately 30.3 percent) of the non-tertiary patients from the North Port zip codes were discharged from a hospital in Subdistrict 8-6, which means that almost 70 percent of the patients “out-migrated” from the subdistrict. Approximately 86.9 percent of the patients who “out-migrated” were discharged from a hospital in Subdistrict 8-1, which is adjacent to the city’s southern border. Overall, in 2004, approximately 91 percent of the non-tertiary patients from the North Port zip codes were discharged from a hospital in Subdistrict 8-1 (60.5 percent) or Subdistrict 8-6 (30.3 percent). Those percentages were similar in 2002 and 2003. The average length of stay (ALOS) related to those discharges was approximately 4.5 days, which means that North Port patients generated approximately 20,129 non-tertiary patient days in 2004. If a hospital had captured 100 percent of North Port’s non-tertiary patients in 2004, it would have had an ADC of 56 patients. There were 499 OB patients from the North Port zip codes discharged from a Florida hospital in 2004. Those discharges resulted in 1,172 OB patient days, which means that the ALOS for the OB patients from the North Port zip codes was 2.34 days. Approximately 95 percent of the North Port OB patients were discharged from either Sarasota Memorial (56.5 percent) or BS-St. Joe (38.3 percent), which is now Peace River. If a hospital captured 100 percent of the North Port OB patients in 2004, its OB unit would have had an ADC of 4 patients. The Proposed North Port Hospitals (1) HMA Generally HMA’s proposed North Port hospital (hereafter “North Port HMA”) will be an 180,167 square foot (SF) facility with 80 beds. All of the beds at North Port HMA will be in private rooms. The rooms are large enough to be converted into semi- private rooms, if necessary. The design of North Port HMA is similar to that of other HMA hospitals, but the size of the hospital and scope of the services offered at North Port HMA was tailored based upon North Port's demographics. North Port HMA will have a 9-bed OB unit, a 12-bed ICU, a 24/7 ED, and it will offer some outpatient services. The hospital will not have a cardiac cath lab or a dedicated pediatric unit, and it will not offer tertiary services. The total project cost for North Port HMA will be approximately $78 million, or $975,730 per bed. The project will be funded by HMA, Inc., from its “existing cash, future cash flow, and possible proceeds from the issuance of debt [by HMA, Inc].” HMA’s CON application includes a letter from the Corporate Comptroller of HMA, Inc., confirming that HMA, Inc., “will provide any and all funding or financial resources which may be required for the completion and continued operation of [North Port HMA].” HMA did not commit in its CON application to build North Port HMA in the city of North Port, but its witnesses testified at the final hearing that the hospital will be built in the city. The precise location of the hospital was not specified. North Port HMA will have three floors. The first floor will include the ED, operating rooms, radiology department, the clinical laboratory, outpatient services, and ancillary space such as kitchen/dining, medical records, and administrative offices. The second floor will include patient rooms and the ICU. The third floor will include patient rooms. North Port HMA is designed and engineered for vertical expansion, and it will be “pre-stressed” for additional floors. North Port HMA will utilize a picture archive communication system (PACS) and other digital IT systems. Patient clinical information will be maintained electronically, updated at the point of care, and will be available to clinicians through a secure network in the hospital. Service Area and Utilization Projections The PSA for North Port HMA is the city of North Port, which is comprised of zip codes 34286, 34287, 34288, and 34289. The PSA is reasonable. A SSA is not geographically defined, but HMA projected in the application that 20 percent of the admissions at North Port HMA would come from outside of the PSA. The projected 20 percent in-migration from the SSA is somewhat optimistic for a non-tertiary community hospital, but it is nevertheless reasonable under the circumstances.2 HMA used Claritas' population projections to project the utilization of North Port HMA. The utilization projections assumed that North Port HMA will have a 55 percent market share in the PSA in its first year of operation and a 70 percent market share in the PSA in its second year of operation. These market share assumptions are reasonable and attainable based upon HMA's historical experience and the considerable community support for a hospital in the city. North Port HMA was projected to open in 2007, and HMA’s CON application includes utilization projections for the hospital’s first two years of operation in 2007 and 2008. The application projected that North Port HMA would have 15,695 patient days in its first year of operation and 20,629 patient days in its second year of operation, which is an ADC of 43 patients and a utilization rate of 53.8 percent in year one (2007) and an ADC of 57 patients and a utilization rate of 70.6 percent in year two (2008). The methodology used to calculate those figures was as follows: first, the projected patients from the PSA were calculated by applying the 2003 age-cohort specific use rates to the PSA’s projected 2007 and 2008 populations; then, the market share assumptions were applied and a factor of 20 percent was added to reflect “in-migration” from the SSA; and finally, an ALOS of 4.6 was used to convert the discharges to patient days. The 4.6 ALOS, which is based upon the actual 2003 discharge data for residents of the PSA, is reasonable even though the 2004 discharge data reflects a slightly lower ALOS of 4.5. Use of age-cohort specific use rates to project future discharges is reasonable. However, application of the 2003 use rates to the projected 2007 and 2008 populations is not reasonable because the median age in the city of North Port is declining, and as the population’s age declines, so does its use rate. Nevertheless, the utilization projections for North Port HMA are reasonable and attainable. The utilization projections in HMA's CON application are more conservative than the projections based upon the updated Claritas population projections, a declining use rate, and the lower 2004 ALOS of 4.5.3 (2) Manatee Memorial (a) Generally Manatee Memorial’s proposed North Port hospital (hereafter “North Port Hospital”) will be a 200,000 SF facility with 120 beds. It will have a mix of private and semi-private rooms. North Port Hospital will have a 20-bed “women’s center,” a 20-bed ICU/critical care unit (CCU), a 24/7 ED, and a diagnostic cardiac cath lab. It will not offer tertiary services. The “women’s center” will be more than an OB unit. It will offer range of services related to women’s health, including general gynecological care, pre-natal and post-natal care, delivery of babies, mammography and other breast cancer services, and gynecological surgery. The total project cost for North Port Hospital will be approximately $59.7 million, or $497,448 per bed. The funding for the project will be provided by UHS from its “net cash flow from operation.” Manatee Memorial’s CON application includes a letter from UHS’s Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer confirming that UHS will finance North Port Hospital. Manatee Memorial committed in its CON application to build North Port Hospital in the city of North Port, but no specific site was identified. Manatee Memorial has not yet acquired or contracted to purchase any property in the city. North Port Hospital will have three floors. The first floor includes the “women’s center,” ED, laboratory, outpatient services, cardiac cath labs, surgery suites, and ancillary space such as medical records, kitchen/dining, and administrative offices. The second floor includes the ICU/CCU, pediatric unit, and patient rooms. The third floor includes patient rooms. The design, space plan, methods of construction, and equipment at North Port Hospital will be similar to that at Lakewood Ranch. Indeed, Manatee Memorial’s witnesses described North Port Hospital as a “mirror image” of Lakewood Ranch, which is also a 120-bed non-tertiary hospital with a 20-bed ICU/CCU and a 20-bed “women’s center.” North Port Hospital is designed for horizontal expansion, which causes less disruption to the ongoing operations of the hospital than does vertical expansion. North Port Hospital will utilize a PACS and other “state of the art” IT systems. Patient clinical information will be maintained electronically, updated at the point of care, and will be available to clinicians through the hospital’s secure wireless network. The mechanical and engineered systems at North Port Hospital are appropriate, as is the hospital's design.4 Manatee Memorial will not fully equip North Port Hospital at start-up. Instead, as it did with Lakewood Ranch, it will minimally equip each patient room with the required equipment (e.g., bed, headwall, etc.) but it will only provide the specialized equipment necessary to serve the projected patient census for the first year of operation. Additional equipment will be incrementally added as census increases. (b) Service Area and Utilization Projections The PSA and SSA for North Port Hospital, which are the same as the PSA and SSA for North Port HMA, are reasonable. North Port Hospital was projected to open in 2008, and Manatee Memorial’s CON application includes utilization projections for the first three years of operation, 2008-2010. The utilization projections assume that North Port Hospital will have a 45 percent market share in the PSA in its first year of operation, a 60 percent market share in its second year of operation, and a 70 percent market share in its third year of operation. These market share assumptions, which are slightly more conservative than those projected for North Port HMA, are reasonable and attainable. Manatee Memorial projected in its CON application that North Port Hospital would have 17,413 patient days in 2008; 25,798 patient days in 2009; and 33,327 patient days in 2010. Those patient days equate to ADCs of 48 patients in 2008, 71 patients in 2009, and 92 patients in 2010, which, in turn, equate to utilization rates of 39.7 percent in 2008, 58.9 percent in 2009, and 76.1 percent in 2010. The methodology used by Manatee Memorial to calculate those figures was as follows: first, the 2008-2010 populations were projected by using the 2003 BEBR estimate as a starting- point and then applying the city’s building permit-based methodology described in Part D(2) above; then a use rate of 142 was applied to the 2008-2010 populations to calculate the discharges from the PSA; then, after applying the market share assumptions, a 20 percent factor was added to reflect “in- migration” from the SSA; and, finally, the discharges were converted to patient days by applying an ALOS of 4.2. The results of this methodology are not reasonable. As discussed in Part D(2), the city’s methodology for projecting future population is not reliable and tends to overstate the future population. Moreover, the use rate is overstated because it is not age-cohort specific and it did not take into account the declining age of the city’s population. The combined effect of applying an overstated use rate to the overstated 2008-2010 populations is a significant overstatement in the projected patient days and utilization rates at North Port Hospital. The most reasonable projections of the discharges from the PSA for 2008-2010 are those in Exhibit EF-10 (pages XI- 1, XII-1, and XII-2): 5,433 in 2008; 5,709 in 2009; and 6,000 in 2010. Those projections are based upon the updated Claritas population projections and a declining use rate. Applying the market share assumptions and ALOS used in the methodology in Manatee Memorial’s CON application to those more reasonable discharge projections results in projected patient days at North Port Hospital of 12,835 in 2008; 17,983 in 2009; and 22,050 in 2010.5 If an ALOS of 4.5 were used (rather than the 4.2 ALOS used in Manatee Memorial’s CON application), the projected patient days would be 13,752 in 2008; 19,268 in 2009; and 23,625 in 2010.6 The utilization rate at North Port Hospital based upon those patient-day projections will be between 29.3 and 31.4 percent in 2008, between 41.1 and 44 percent in 2009, and between 50.3 and 53.9 percent in 2010. Statutory and Rule Criteria There was no credible evidence that there is a need for two new acute care hospitals in the city of North Port or in southern Sarasota County. Therefore, if either of the CON applications at issue in this proceeding is to be approved, it should be the one that best satisfies the applicable statutory and rule criteria. (1) § 408.035(1), (2), and (5), Fla. Stat. (2005),7 and Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. (a) Generally Subsections 408.035(1), (2), and (5), Florida Statutes, are interrelated and require an evaluation of the availability and accessibility of the existing hospitals in the district and the extent to which the proposed new hospital would “enhance access” for residents of the district. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. also requires consideration of those issues, as well as population demographics and dynamics and market conditions. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. is implicated when the Agency does not have a rule methodology or policy for calculating need, which is now the case for acute care beds. The utilization levels at the existing hospitals is a measure of their availability, but the Agency does not focus on utilization levels to the same extent that it did before the recent “deregulation” of acute care bed additions at existing hospitals. North Port Population Growth and Demographics There has been steady population growth in the city of North Port since 2000, and that the growth is projected to continue over the applicable planning horizon. The city's population grew by 56.7 percent between 2000 and 2004, and it is projected to grow by an additional 39.3 percent between 2004 and 2010. These percentage growth rates are misleading, however, because of the city’s small size.8 The actual population figures are a better measure of the city’s projected growth for CON purposes. Those figures reflect an increase of only an additional 14,000 persons between 2004 and 2010, which is a modest amount of growth. In 2010, the city’s population is still projected to be less than 50,000. The percentage of the city’s population in the 65+ age cohort is declining, as is the median age of the city’s population. These declines are significant because the elderly generally utilize hospital services at a higher rate than younger persons. The projected population growth in the city of North Port through 2010 is not in and of itself a basis for approving a new hospital in the city, and the declining elderly population and median age in the city also weigh against the approval of a hospital in the city. Quality of Care and Utilization at the Existing Hospitals and Market Conditions Manatee Memorial and HMA do not contend that there are problems with the quality of care at the existing hospitals currently serving the city of North Port, and the evidence establishes that the existing hospitals, which are all JCAHO- accredited, provide high quality care. There is not a shortage of acute care beds in the existing hospitals serving the city of North Port, and the evidence establishes that there are more than enough available beds at the existing hospitals, even during the “season.” The capacity constraints experienced at several of the hospitals during the 2004-2005 “season” are attributable to the impacts of Hurricane Charley, which resulted in the loss of 78 beds (including a 10-bed ICU) at Fawcett and also caused strains on the other hospitals. Even though the utilization rates at the existing hospitals are not as significant now as they once were, it is still noteworthy that none of the hospitals in Charlotte and Sarasota Counties had a occupancy rate above 57 percent in 2004 and that the number of patient days in those hospitals decreased by approximately 20,000 between 2002 and 2004. Availability and Accessibility of the Existing Hospitals and Enhancing Access The accessibility of the existing hospitals in an area is typically evaluated in terms of geographic, programmatic, cultural, and financial access. Geographic access concerns arise when there are substantial impediments to patients obtaining services at the existing hospitals in a timely manner, and typically involve distance, travel time, geographic barriers, or other similar factors. Programmatic access concerns arise when specific programs or services are not available at the existing hospitals or when the quality of the existing programs or services is inadequate. Cultural access concerns arise when cultural factors, such as race, ethnicity, and/or national original, impede patients from obtaining services at the existing hospitals. Financial access concerns arise when indigent patients are denied or have difficulty in obtaining care because of policies or practices in place at the existing hospitals. Manatee Memorial and HMA did not contend in their CON applications, nor is the evidence persuasive that a hospital in North Port is needed to address programmatic, cultural, or financial access concerns. Manatee Memorial and HMA contend that a hospital is needed in North Port to address existing geographic access problems and/or to enhance geographic access to acute care and emergency services for North Port residents. Geographic Access, Generally There are no significant geographic barriers between North Port and the existing hospitals, although it is necessary to cross a drawbridge over the Intracoastal Waterway to get to Venice Hospital. There are five acute care hospitals within 20 miles of North Port. Two of the hospitals, Peace River and Fawcett, are less than five miles south of the city’s southern border. As discussed in Part D(3) above, there is significant "out-migration" of patients from North Port in Subdistrict 8-6 to hospitals outside of the subdistrict. "Out-migration" of patients from one subdistrict to hospitals in another subdistrict can be an indication of an access problem. The proximity of North Port to Peace River and Fawcett explains the significant level of “out-migration” of patients from the city to those hospitals in Subdistrict 8-1. Indeed, in 2004, approximately 72.2 percent of the North Port patients who were discharged from a hospital outside of Subdistrict 8-6 were discharged from either BS-St. Joe (now Peace River) or Fawcett.9 Thus, the significant level of “out- migration” of patients from the city to hospitals outside of Subdistrict 8-6 does not, in and of itself, indicate an access problem. The CON applications indicate that there are as many as six hospitals within a 30-minute drive of North Port, and that four are within a 17-minute drive. Those drive times were corroborated by several of the witnesses who testified at the hearing. A 30-minute drive time is the generally accepted standard for access to acute care services. There was anecdotal testimony that the drive times can be significantly longer if there is an accident on US 41 or I-75, but the more persuasive evidence was that the “typical” drive times are those reflected in the CON applications. The evidence was not persuasive that the current drive times will be longer in the future even though the city’s population is expected to increase. Indeed, although there was testimony that the city is considering a moratorium on development due, in part, to the congestion on the city’s roads, there was also testimony that there are planned or ongoing capital improvements to expand the capacity of the roads. A hospital in North Port is not necessary to address a geographic access problem. As recognized by Mr. Nelson in his report to the city regarding the need for a hospital in North Port, “[t]he proximity of two hospitals within 10 miles negates a geographic access argument.” It cannot be determined whether, or to what extent, a hospital in North Port will enhance geographic access because it is unknown where the hospital will be located. Indeed, it is possible that because of the city’s large landmass some North Port residents will be as close to one or more of the existing hospitals even if there is a hospital within the city limits. Access to Emergency Care Another “access” argument advanced by Manatee Memorial and HMA focuses on perceived problems with access to emergency care in the existing hospitals. One measure of access to emergency care is the length of time that patients stay in the ED from the time of their arrival to the time of their discharge (hereafter “ED-LOS”). A related measure of access to emergency care is the number of patients who leave the ED without treatment or against medical advice (collectively “LWOTs”). A longer ED-LOS does not directly correlate to a “delay” in access to emergency care because the ED-LOS includes not only the time that the patient is waiting to be seen, but also the time that the patient is being assessed and treated, which can vary based upon the complexity or severity of the patient’s medical condition. A two to three-hour ED-LOS is a reasonable standard. HMA has established a two-hour “goal” for ED-LOS at its hospitals. Charlotte Regional, Peace River, and Venice Hospital have been unable to meet the two-hour goal. ED-LOS fluctuates throughout the year. It is higher between December and April, which generally corresponds to the “season” in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties. The number of LWOTs also fluctuates throughout the year and, like ED-LOS, LWOTs are typically higher during the “season.” This indicates that, as would be expected, there is a correlation between longer ED-LOS and LWOTs. The ED-LOS at Charlotte Regional has increased over the past several years. For example, its average annual ED-LOS increased from two hours and 46 minutes in 2003 to three hours and 16 minutes in 2005 (through March), and its average ED-LOS in March 2005 was three hours and 45 minutes. The ED-LOS at Venice Hospital has also increased over the past several years. In 2003, its average annual ED-LOS was 2.94 hours and, in 2005 (through March), its average ED-LOS was 3.55 hours. The average ED-LOS in February 2005 was 4.18 hours. The record does not reflect the average ED-LOS at Peace River, although there was anecdotal testimony that the ED- LOS can be as long as six to eight hours during the “season.” The number of LWOTs at Charlotte Regional has been increasing over the past several years, as has the number of LWOTs at Venice Hospital. LWOTs have also been a problem at Peace River. The ED-LOS at Fawcett was approaching two hours prior to Hurricane Charley, but it has increased since the hurricane. The anecdotal testimony that the ED-LOS at Fawcett is “routinely” six-to-eight hours during the “season” was not persuasive. The ED-LOS at Englewood is two-to-three hours. Charlotte Regional’s ED has 12 beds and had approximately 19,000 visits in 2004. The ED has long been in need of expansion and/or renovation, but there are no current plans to expand the ED. Expansion of the ED would be difficult because of the age of the hospital, its location in a floodplain, and limited space on the current site. Peace River’s ED was expanded in December 2003 to include 24-beds and a 10-bed observation unit. Its patient volume has grown from 16,000 visits in 1990 to 32,000 visits in 2004, and despite the expansion, Peace River’s ED continues to be overburdened during the “season.” Fawcett’s ED is 5,700 SF and has 13 treatment “rooms,” some of which are separated by curtains. The ED has not been expanded since 1992 despite increasing volumes. In 2004, Fawcett’s ED had 21,000 visits. In April 2005, Fawcett received approval from HCA for a $7.3 million expansion to its ED. The expansion will increase the size of the ED to 12,500 SF and 20 treatment rooms. Architectural plans for the expansion had not been prepared at the time of the final hearing, but it was expected that construction on the expansion would begin by the end of 2005 and be completed by December 2006. The expansion of Fawcett's ED will help to enhance access to emergency care at Fawcett. Englewood’s ED has eight beds and two “fast track” beds. It had approximately 17,000 visits in 2004. Englewood’s ED is approximately the same size as Fawcett’s ED, but with fewer beds. There are no plans to expand the ED at Englewood because, as noted above, ED-LOS has not been a problem at Englewood. Another measure of access to emergency care is the frequency that the existing hospitals are on “diversion.” A hospital goes on diversion when it is unable to receive any additional emergency patients and the EMS providers are instructed to take additional patients to another hospital. There are a number of reasons that a hospital may go on diversion. Common reasons include an overcrowded ED, a lack of ICU beds or inpatient beds to move ED patients into, or a piece of equipment (such as a CT scanner) being unavailable. A hospital may be on “full” diversion status, meaning that it is unable to accept any patients, or it may be on diversion status for only certain types of patients, such as OB patients or patients in need of CT scans. Diversion has not been a significant problem in Charlotte County, but it is becoming more common for one or more of the hospitals in the county -– Charlotte Regional, Peace River, and Fawcett -– to be on diversion, particularly during the “season.” When one of the hospitals goes on diversion, there is often a “domino” effect at the other hospitals resulting in all three of the hospitals being on diversion at the same time. When all of the hospitals are on diversion at the same time, EMS requires each hospital to take patients on a rotational basis. The most common reason that Charlotte Regional goes on diversion is a lack of inpatient beds to receive patients admitted through the ED, which results in a “bottleneck” of patients in the ED. The length of time that Charlotte Regional remains on diversion typically ranges from two to 12 hours. The most common reason that Fawcett goes on diversion is a lack of inpatient beds to move patients into from the ED. This problem was exacerbated by the damage to the hospital caused by Hurricane Charley and, as a result, Fawcett has been on diversion considerably more since the hurricane than it was prior to the hurricane. For example, in February 2005, Fawcett was on diversion for a total of 260 hours, as compared to 13 hours in February 2004 and 62 hours in February 2003. Fawcett also has gone on diversion when its CT scanner is unavailable. Fawcett recently received approval from HCA to add a second CT scanner, which should alleviate the need to go on diversion based upon the unavailability of its CT scanner. The expansion of Fawcett's ED will help to reduce Fawcett's need to go on diversion, as will the completion of the repair work to the fourth floor of the hospital. Englewood rarely has to go on diversion. In 2005, it was only on diversion three times and, in 2004, it was only on diversion twice. The primary reason that Englewood goes on diversion is when its CT scanner is unavailable. Emergency patients from North Port do not significantly contribute to the ED overcrowding issues faced by the Charlotte County hospitals. The only persuasive evidence regarding the number of emergency patients from North Port who utilized the EDs at the existing hospitals was the transport data compiled by North Port EMS. That data reflects that between March 1, 2004, and March 1, 2005, 706 patients were transported by North Port EMS to BS-St. Joe/Peace River and 701 patients were transported by North Port EMS to Fawcett, which is less than two patients per day to each hospital and only a small fraction of the total ED visits at Peace River (32,000 in 2004) and Fawcett (21,000 in 2004). On average, a North Port EMS ambulance is “out of service” for 86 minutes when it is transporting a patient to an area hospital. That time starts when the ambulance is dispatched on a call and ends when the ambulance returns to the city. The average “out of service” times for transports to Peace River and Fawcett (which are the two closest hospitals to the city) are 67 minutes and 82 minutes, respectively. The only variable portion of the “out of service” time is the time that the ambulance is in transit from the location where the patient is picked up to the hospital and the time that it is in transit from the hospital back to the city. The remainder of the “out of service” time is fixed in the sense that it will occur no matter where the patient is ultimately transported. As reflected in Exhibit HMA-14 (page 14-22), the fixed portion of the out of service time can be 31 to 36 minutes, and includes the time between dispatch and arrival at the patient’s location, the time that it takes the paramedics to deliver the patient to the hospital’s nursing staff and exchange report information, and the time that it takes the paramedics to clean and restock the ambulance. The North Port EMS system is strained when one of its ambulances is out of service because the city only has three ambulances. North Port EMS is expected to get another ambulance in 2005. A hospital in North Port may reduce the strain on the North Port EMS system by reducing the variable component of the “out of service” time for its ambulances. However, the evidence was not persuasive as to the extent of the reduction since it is unknown where the hospital would be located in the city. Approval of a hospital in North Port would not eliminate the strain on the North Port EMS. Even if one of the proposed hospitals at issue in this proceeding were approved, trauma patients and patients in need of tertiary services would still need to be transported to another hospital in the area. Even though the EDs at the existing hospitals are heavily utilized and, at times, overcrowded, the evidence was not persuasive that there is a significant access problem for emergency services in the area. The evidence was also not persuasive that the approval of a hospital in North Port would materially enhance access to emergency services. Access to OB Service The evidence was not persuasive that there are access problems for North Port residents with respect to OB services, and, to the contrary, the evidence establishes that OB services are available and reasonably accessible at Peace River and Sarasota Memorial. A hospital in North Port would provide more convenient access to OB services for North Port residents, at least those who are closer to the North Port hospital than they are to Peace River. OB patients would also benefit from having more convenient pre-natal care and other OB/GYN services that are proposed as part of the “women’s center” center at Manatee Memorial’s North Port Hospital. However, it is not necessary to provide many of those services in a hospital setting, and the inclusion of those services does not justify the approval of a hospital in North Port. More convenient or enhanced access to OB services resulting from a hospital in North Port does not, in and of itself, justify the approval of the CON applications. In 2010, there are projected to be only 686 OB discharges from the North Port zip codes, which, based upon the 2004 ALOS of 2.34, will generate 1,606 patient days. If a North Port hospital captured 100 percent of those patients, its OB unit would have an ADC of only five patients in 2010. There is more than enough capacity at the existing hospitals that offer OB services to accommodate those patients, and it is unlikely that a hospital in North Port would get 100 percent of the OB patients from the city because the high-risk patients will likely go to a hospital that has a NICU. Summary In sum, the evidence was not persuasive that there is a “need” for a hospital in North Port due to the projected population growth in the city or that there are significant problems in accessing emergency or other care at the existing hospitals in the area that would be materially enhanced through the approval of a hospital in North Port. As a result, and in light of the relatively low utilization rates at the existing hospitals, the criteria in Subsections 408.035(1), (2), and (5), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C- 1.008(2)(e)2. strongly weigh against the approval of either CON application. (2) § 408.035(3), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(3), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicants’ ability to, and record of, providing quality of care. Manatee Memorial and HMA each has a history of providing a high quality of care at its existing hospitals, and it is reasonable to expect that each would provide a high quality of care at its proposed North Port hospital. All of the existing hospitals that currently serve North Port are JCAHO-accredited, and it is undisputed that they provide a high quality of care. The evidence was not persuasive that the quality of care provided at either of the proposed North Port hospitals would be materially higher than that provided at the existing hospitals currently serving North Port.10 In some respects, the quality of care provided at the proposed North Port hospitals will be lower than that provided at the existing hospitals. For example, neither hospital will offer interventional cardiology services, which is (or is becoming) the standard of care for treating heart attack patients, and neither hospital will have any NICU beds to provide “back-up” for high-risk deliveries. The evidence was not persuasive that the quality of care provided at North Port HMA will be materially higher than that provided at Manatee Memorial’s North Port Hospital, or vice versa.11 In sum, Manatee Memorial and HMA each satisfies the criteria in Subsection 408.035(3), Florida Statutes, and that statute does not materially weigh in favor of either CON application over the other. (3) § 408.035(4), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(4), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the availability of staff, funds, and other resources necessary to establish and operate the proposed hospitals. It was undisputed that, with the assistance of their parent companies, Manatee Memorial and HMA have the financial and managerial wherewithal to establish and operate their respective North Port hospitals. Schedule 6 of Manatee Memorial's CON application projects that North Port Hospital will have 252.93 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in its first year of operation and 399.96 FTEs by its third year operation. The number of “nursing” FTEs –- registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical nurses, nursing aides, etc. -- in each of those years are 124.01 and 225.48. Schedule 6 of HMA's CON application projects that North Port HMA will have 307.7 FTEs in its first year of operation and 352 FTEs in its second year operation. The number of “nursing” FTEs in each of those years are 158.8 and 180.07. The staffing projections, including the number of “nursing” FTEs, in each of the CON applications are reasonable. The salary projections in each of the CON applications are reasonable.12 There has been an adequate supply of RNs and other clinical staff in Charlotte and Sarasota Counties despite the nursing shortage in Florida. Although some of the existing hospitals in the area experienced increased vacancy rates after Hurricane Charley, they generally have had relatively low vacancy and turnover rates. For example, the pre-Hurricane Charley vacancy rate at Fawcett was only four percent and, even after the hurricane, the vacancy rate at Englewood was only three percent. Manatee Memorial and HMA will each be able to attract the nurses and other personnel necessary to staff their proposed North Port hospitals at the FTE and salary levels identified in their respective CON applications. The evidence was not persuasive regarding the extent to which a hospital in North Port would draw staff from or otherwise impact the operations of the existing hospitals from a staffing perspective. The testimony offered by Englewood and Fawcett witnesses on these issues was imprecise and largely speculative. With respect to attracting physicians to the proposed North Port hospitals, it is significant that there are a number of specialists and other physicians who already have offices in the city of North Port and who have expressed support for a hospital in the city. It is reasonable to expect that many of those physicians will obtain staff privileges at a North Port hospital and, indeed, several testified that they would do so. HMA is in a better position to attract physicians to its proposed North Port hospital with minimal impact on the existing hospitals than is Manatee Memorial because HMA already employs physicians at the three hospitals it operates in the area from which it can draw medical staff (as Manatee Memorial did from MMH when Lakewood Ranch opened), and HMA also owns the North Port Health Park where a large number of the physician offices in the city are located. In sum, Manatee Memorial and HMA each satisfy the criteria in Subsection 408.035(4), Florida Statutes, and between the two competing applications, the criteria in that subsection marginally weigh in favor of HMA. (4) § 408.035(6), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(6), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the short-term and long-term financial feasibility of the proposed hospitals. Generally A CON project is financially feasible in the short- term if the applicant has the ability to fund or secure the funding for the capitalized project costs and initial working capital needs of the project in conjunction with the applicant’s other ongoing and planned capital projects. A CON project is financially feasible in the longterm if it will at least break-even in the second year of operation. If the project continues to show a loss in the second year of operation, it is not financially feasible in the longterm unless it is nearing break-even and it is demonstrated that the hospital will break even within a reasonable period of time. HMA It is undisputed that North Port HMA is financially feasible in the shortterm. Schedule 8A of HMA's CON application projects that North Port HMA will have an after-tax net profit of approximately $3.05 million in its second year of operation. The reasonableness of the revenue and cost projections that resulted in that projected net profit was not contested and, as discussed in Part E(1)(b) above, the underlying patient days and utilization are reasonable and attainable. Therefore, North Port HMA is financially feasible in the longterm. Manatee Memorial Manatee Memorial’s North Port Hospital is financially feasible in the shortterm. Even if the construction and other start-up costs for North Port Hospital are materially higher than projected in the CON application (see Part F(6) below), UHS has the financial wherewithal to fund the project. With respect to long-term financial feasibility, Schedule 8A of Manatee Memorial's CON application projects that North Port Hospital will generate a net profit of approximately $3.5 million in its second year of operation (2009), and that by its third year of operation (2010), the hospital will generate a net profit of approximately $12.3 million. It is not unreasonable to look at North Port Hospital’s third year of operation (rather than its second year) in evaluating the hospital’s long-term financial feasibility because, unlike North Port HMA, North Port Hospital is not projected to “mature” until its third year of operation. For example, North Port Hospital is not projected to obtain a 70 percent share of the North Port market until its third year of operation, whereas North Port HMA is projected to have a 70 percent market share by its second year of operation. The projected net profits in Schedule 8A of Manatee Memorial’s CON application are overstated because, as discussed below, the underlying revenues have been overstated and the underlying expenses have been understated in several material respects. First, the revenues are based upon unreasonable and overstated utilization projections. The 2010 ADC at Manatee Memorial’s North Port Hospital will likely be no more than 64.7 patients (see Part E(2)(b) above), rather than the ADC of 76.1 projected in the CON application. The financial impact of the overstated utilization is an overstatement of the hospital’s projected 2010 net profit by at least $4.7 million.13 Second, the revenues attributable to the cardiac cath lab are based upon significantly overstated projections of cardiac cath volume. The cardiac cath lab at North Port Hospital is projected to have 10,359 inpatient and outpatient “procedures” in 2010, which, according to an expert in the administration of cardiac cath labs, is an “unheard of” number for a single cardiac cath lab at a non-tertiary hospital. The projections of cardiac cath procedures are based upon the experience at MMH. For example, the ratio of inpatient to outpatient procedures at MMH is 2.43, which is the same ratio projected for North Port Hospital. It is not reasonable to base the projected volume of cardiac caths and/or cardiac cath “procedures” at North Port Hospital on the experience at MMH because MMH has an OHS program and hospitals with OHS programs perform considerably more cardiac caths than hospitals without OHS programs. In 2004, for example, the District 8 hospitals without OHS programs averaged only 190 cardiac caths, as compared to an average of 1,476 cardiac caths for hospitals with OHS programs. Manatee Memorial acknowledges in its PRO that the projected cath procedures in the CON application are “on the high side,” but it contends that it is “not materially out of line” with the lab’s capacity because MMH did 24,629 inpatient and outpatient procedures in its two cardiac cath labs in 2003. In 2003, MMH did 17,467 inpatient "procedures" and had 1,387 cardiac cath cases, which is a ratio of 12.6 procedures per case. Manatee Memorial’s North Port hospital will likely have a ratio closer to 4.5 procedures per case, which is the ratio at Englewood and Fawcett and, as reflected in Exhibit HMA-59, is more in-line with the experience at the other hospitals in the area that do not offer OHS. The most reasonable projection of the number of cardiac cath procedures at North Port Hospital is contained in Exhibit EF-12 (at pages 6-7) which projects that the hospital will have a total of 1,473 inpatient and outpatient cardiac cath “procedures” in 2010. Indeed, that projection is likely slightly overstated because it is based upon the overstated population projections in Manatee Memorial’s CON application. The financial impact of the overstatement of cardiac cath procedures is an overstatement of the 2010 net income at North Port Hospital by approximately $5.5 million. Third, the revenues attributable to the OB unit are based upon overstated projections of OB patient days. The application projects that Manatee Memorial’s North Port hospital will have 3,770 OB patient days in 2010, which equates to 1,573 births. The record does not reflect how those figures were calculated. The health planner who prepared Manatee Memorial’s CON application testified that she did not project the number births and/or OB patient days that would likely be generated by North Port residents between 2008-10. The most reasonable projections of the number of births and OB patient days generated by North Port residents in 2010 are those referenced in Part D(3) above, which were derived from the data in Exhibit EF-10, at pages XV-1 through XV-3. The overstatement of OB patient days in Manatee Memorial’s CON application results in an overstatement of OB “charges” by approximately $1.81 million.14 The record does not reflect the degree to which net profit is overstated as a result of the overstatement in OB charges because the OB costs referenced in Manatee Memorial’s CON application are not projected on a patient-day basis. Finally, depreciation expenses are understated due to the significant understatement of the total project cost for North Port Hospital discussed in Part F(6) below. The understatement of the total project cost directly impacts North Port Hospital’s net profit by understating the depreciation expense by approximately $3.9 million per year. North Port Hospital will more likely than not generate a net loss in its third year of operation as a result of the overstated revenue projections and understated depreciation expense. Therefore, North Port Hospital is not financially feasible in the longterm. Summary In sum, the criteria in Subsection 408.035(6), Florida Statutes, weighs in favor of HMA because its proposed North Port hospital is financially feasible. (5) § 408.035(7), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(7), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of “[t]he extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost effectiveness.” The market for acute care services in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties is competitive, as is the North Port market. There are multiple hospitals (and hospital companies) serving the area, none of which has a dominant share of the market. The 2004 market shares of the acute care discharges from the North Port zip codes were as follows: BS-St. Joe (26.9 percent); Fawcett (20.19 percent); Sarasota Memorial (14.7 percent); BS-Venice Venice (13.78 percent); Charlotte Regional (6.94 percent); Englewood (5.9 percent); Doctors Hospital (2.39 percent); all other providers (9.19 percent). Thus, in 2004, the Bon Secours hospitals had a 40.68 percent market share, HMA had a 6.94 percent market share, HCA had a 28.48 percent market share, and Sarasota Memorial had a 14.7 percent market share. The hospitals’ respective market shares were similar in 2002 and 2003, which reflects a relatively stable market for acute care services. HMA now has the largest market share of the North Port market (approximately 47.6 percent) as a result of its acquisition of the Bon Secours hospitals in February 2005. The stated purpose of HMA’s acquisition of the Bon Secours hospitals was to create a “strategic southwest Florida network encompassing Collier County, Lee County, Charlotte County, and Sarasota County.” According to HMA, “these strategic networks will provide patients and communities with an improved continuity of care and access to even more quality health care close to home.” The evidence was not persuasive that the addition of North Port HMA to this “strategic network” will give HMA inordinate leverage with physicians or payors, although the possibility will exist. The approval of North Port HMA will increase HMA’s share of the North Port "market" from 47.6 percent to 82.7 percent. It will also increase HMA’s share of the Sarasota County "market" (from 21.4 to 29.1 percent) and HMA's share of the Sarasota County/Charlotte County "market" (from 33.7 to 39 percent). The evidence was not persuasive that the approval of North Port HMA would be anti-competitive even though it would result in HMA becoming a dominant provider in North Port. Indeed, there will still be healthy competition for acute care services in the broader Sarasota County or Sarasota County/Charlotte County "markets". Nevertheless, the approval of North Port HMA will certainly not “foster” competition. The approval of North Port Hospital would add a new competitor to the market and, to that end, it would “foster” competition. However, the evidence was not persuasive as to how or to what extent the competition fostered by Manatee Memorial’s entry into the market would promote cost effectiveness. In sum, the criteria in Subsection 408.035(7), Florida Statutes, marginally favors Manatee Memorial over HMA, but this criteria is not given significant weight because of the significant competition that currently exists in North Port and the surrounding areas and that will continue to exist in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties even if a hospital is approved in North Port. (6) § 408.035(8), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(8), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction. It was stipulated that the site development costs contained in the CON applications are reasonable and appropriate even though neither of the applicants has identified a site for its proposed North Port hospital. It was undisputed that the construction costs ($39.8 million or $221 per SF) and the total project costs ($78 million) for North Port HMA are reasonable. The reasonableness of the construction costs and the total project costs for North Port Hospital is in dispute. Schedule 1 of Manatee Memorial’s CON application reflects that the construction costs for North Port Hospital will be $32.9 million, which equates to $165 per SF. The $165/SF construction cost includes “bricks and mortar only.” Manatee Memorial’s architect unequivocally testified that the cost does not include any equipment costs. The $165/SF construction cost is not reasonable, and as described by one construction cost expert, it is “way off the Richter scale.” The $165/SF construction cost would be even more unreasonable if, as suggested by several Manatee Memorial witnesses, that figure includes fixed equipment costs, notwithstanding the unequivocal testimony of Manatee Memorial’s architect that the $165/SF construction cost does not include such costs. The $165/SF cost is only slightly higher than the construction cost of Lakewood Ranch, as reflected on the Final Project Cost Report (Cost Report) for that hospital, even though Lakewood Ranch was completed in 2004 and the construction of North Port Hospital will not begin until 2008. The Cost Report reflects that the actual construction costs for Lakewood Ranch were $33,111,591 and that the facility had 185,000 SF. The Cost Report indicates that that the $33 million figure includes fixed equipment costs, but it does not itemize those costs. The fixed equipment costs were estimated in the Lakewood CON application at $4 million, and using that figure, the “bricks and mortar” construction costs at Lakewood Ranch were approximately $157/SF.15 Inflating the $157/SF cost of Lakewood Ranch to 2008 would result in construction costs of approximately $180/SF. A construction cost of $180/SF is more reasonable than the $165/SF estimate in Manatee Memorial’s CON application, but it is still lower than would be expected for a hurricane-hardened hospital in southwest Florida. A more reasonable construction cost for North Port Hospital is between $200/SF and North Port HMA’s $221/SF. Thus, North Port Hospital’s construction costs are understated by $7.1 million to $11 million. Schedule 1 of Manatee Memorial’s CON application estimates $12 million of equipment costs for North Port Hospital. That cost includes fixed and movable equipment costs. The $12 million figure does not include all of the IT systems and other “state-of-the-art” equipment identified in Manatee Memorial’s CON application. Manatee Memorial’s equipment expert testified that the total budget for the IT equipment alone will be $10 million to $14 million. The $12 million figure only includes the cost of the equipment necessary for the hospital’s first year of operation because UHS typically does not fully equip its hospitals before they open. Manatee Memorial followed a similar approach -– i.e., incrementally equipping the hospital as census increased -– at Lakewood Ranch. The reasonableness of that approach is not specifically addressed in the Lakewood Ranch Recommended or Final Orders. This approach has the effect of understating the total cost of the project by including only a portion of the equipment costs that will be necessary to fully equip the hospital. A more reasonable estimate of the equipment costs for North Port Hospital is between $23 million to $29 million, which includes the costs of movable equipment, the IT systems, and the other “state of the art” equipment described in Manatee Memorial’s CON application. Thus, Manatee Memorial’s equipment costs are understated by as much as $17 million. Schedule 1 of Manatee Memorial’s CON application projects pre-opening expenses of $250,000. Lakewood Ranch had pre-opening expenses of approximately $3.2 million. It is reasonable to expect similar pre-opening expenses at North Port Hospital since it was modeled after Lakewood Ranch. When Lakewood Ranch's pre-opening expenses adjusted for inflation, the pre-opening expenses at North Port Hospital will likely be $3.5 million. As a result, the pre-opening expenses for North Port Hospital have been understated by approximately $3.25 million. In sum, the total cost of Manatee Memorial’s proposed North Port hospital is understated by as much as $32 million. Each of the proposed hospitals has certain design features that are better than the other hospital. For example, North Port HMA has a full complement of private rooms and shorter hallways, whereas North Port Hospital has a better separation of its various patient entrances. The evidence was not persuasive that either hospital is materially superior to the other from a design perspective.16 In sum, the criteria in Subsection 408.035(8), Florida Statutes, weighs in favor of HMA because its project costs are more reasonable than those projected by Manatee Memorial. (7)_ § 408.035(9), Fla. Stat. and Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.030(2) Subsection 408.035(9), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicants’ past and proposed commitment to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Similarly, Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C- 1.030(2) requires consideration of the impact of the proposed projects on the ability of low-income persons and other medically underserved groups to access care. The statutory reference to “the medically indigent” encompasses what are typically referred to as charity patients. HMA, Inc., and Manatee Memorial each provide a significant level of care to Medicaid and charity patients at their existing hospitals. HMA, Inc., provided approximately $101 million in uncompensated charity care at its Florida hospitals for the 12- month period ending September 30, 2004, which is approximately four percent of its gross patient revenues. For that same period, approximately 7.6 of the gross patient revenues at those hospitals were attributable to Medicaid patients. Manatee Memorial provides more than 90 percent of the charity care in Manatee County, which is not surprising since MMH is the largest and one of the oldest hospitals in the county. In 2004, Manatee Memorial provided approximately $16.6 million in charity care, which is approximately three percent of its gross charges. That figure was offset by a $2.8 million subsidy that Manatee Memorial received from Manatee County for indigent care. Neither HMA nor Manatee Memorial conditioned the approval of its CON application on the provision of a particular level of care to Medicaid or charity patients. HMA offered to condition the approval of its application on a commitment to “accept all Medicaid and indigent patients that are clinically appropriate for services offered by [North Port HMA].” Similarly, Manatee Memorial offered to condition the approval of its application on a commitment that “[a]ll Medicaid & indigent patients will be accepted as are clinically appropriate for services.” The Agency reasonably construed those proposed conditions to be offering nothing more than the law currently requires. Moreover, it is unclear how the proposed conditions could be monitored by the Agency. The Agency did not accept the condition proposed by HMA. Instead, in the SAAR, it conditioned the approval of HMA’s application on the provision of 6.9 percent of the patient days at North Port HMA to Medicaid patients and 2.9 percent of the patient days to charity patients. Those figures were derived from Schedule 7A of HMA’s CON application and the notes thereto. HMA did not challenge those conditions and, therefore, is bound by them if its CON application is ultimately approved notwithstanding the recommendation herein. Mr. Gregg testified that if Manatee Memorial’s application is ultimately approved, the approval should include conditions similar to those imposed in the SAAR on the approval of HMA’s application. The revenues projected in Schedule 7A of Manatee Memorial’s CON application were calculated based upon the assumption that 7.25 percent of the patient days at North Port Hospital will be attributable to Medicaid patients. The percentage of patient days at North Port Hosptial attributable to charity care is not specified on Schedule 7A or the notes thereto,17 but it appears that the percentage is approximately 2.6 percent.18 Thus, if contrary to the recommendations herein, the Agency ultimately approves Manatee Memorial’s CON application, it should condition the approval North Port Hospital providing 7.25 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients and 2.6 percent of its patient days to charity patients. A new hospital in North Port is not necessary to address any financial access problems in the area. There was no persuasive evidence that there is an access problem for Medicaid, charity, or other traditionally medically underserved patients at the existing hospitals in south Sarasota County and north Charlotte County. To the contrary, the evidence reflects that all of the existing hospitals in the area provide access to patients without regard to their ability to pay. As a result, the criteria in Subsection 408.035(9), Florida Statutes, is given minimal weight in determining whether a hospital is needed in North Port. The criteria in Subsection 408.035(9), Florida Statutes, do not materially weigh in favor either CON application over the other. Each applicant has a history of providing Medicaid and charity care and each has proposed to provide approximately 9.8 percent of its patient days to Medicaid and charity patients combined. (8) § 408.035(10), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(10), Florida Statutes, which requires consideration of the applicant’s designation as a Gold Seal Program nursing facility, is not applicable because HMA and Manatee Memorial are not proposing to add nursing home beds. Impact of the Proposed North Port Hospitals on the Existing Hospitals in the Area North Port is in the PSA of both Fawcett and Englewood, if, as is common, the PSA is defined as the zip codes from which the hospital receives 75 percent of its admissions. In 2004, approximately 12 percent of Fawcett’s non- tertiary patients came from the North Port zip codes, and approximately 6.6 percent of Englewood’s non-tertiary patients came from the North Port zip codes. The approval of either of the proposed North Port hospitals will have an adverse impact on Englewood and Fawcett because they will lose patients to the new hospital. The impact on Englewood and Fawcett will be materially the same, no matter which application is approved because, as discussed above, Manatee Memorial is unlikely to achieve its more aggressive utilization projections. If Manatee Memorial somehow achieved its utilization projections, its North Port Hospital would have a significantly greater impact on the existing providers than would North Port HMA. The existing providers’ shares of the North Port market have remained relatively stable since at least 2002 and, therefore, it is reasonable to expect that they would have similar market shares in the future absent a significant change of circumstances, such as the approval of a new hospital in the area. As a result, it is reasonable to use the current market shares when assessing the impact of the proposed North Port hospitals on the existing providers. The approval of North Port HMA will result in a loss of 227 patients (1,046 patient days) at Englewood and a loss of 772 patients (3,553 patient days) at Fawcett in 2008, which will be the North Port hospital’s second year of operation. The financial impact of that lost patient volume is approximately $807,000 at Englewood and $3.1 million at Fawcett. The approval of North Port Hospital will result in a loss of 259 patients (1,191 patient days) at Englewood and 883 patients (4,064 patient days) at Fawcett in 2010, which will be the North Port hospital’s third year of operation.19 The financial impact of that lost patient volume is approximately $917,000 at Englewood and $4 million at Fawcett.20 Those figures only take into account the patients in the North Port zip codes that Englewood and Fawcett will “lose” to the new North Port hospital. They do not take into account additional patients that Englewood and Fawcett are likely to “gain” through growth in the population in the other zip codes in their service areas. The population growth in Englewood and Fawcett’s service area will largely off-set the patient volume that the hospitals would lose from the North Port zip codes. For example, if North Port HMA is approved, Englewood is projected to have only 16 fewer patients in 2008 than it did in 2004, and Fawcett will have only 28 fewer patients in 2008 than it had in 2004. Fawcett is a profitable hospital. Its earnings before depreciation, interest, taxes, and amortization (EBDITA) was approximately $14 million in 2004, and its operating income was $7.7 million in 2002, $5.1 million in 2003, and $1.7 million in 2004. The lower operating income in 2004 was due to the impacts of Hurricane Charley. Englewood is a less profitable hospital than Fawcett. It had operating losses of $1.7 million in 2002, $2.8 million in 2003, and $1.3 million in 2004. Its highest net income before taxes in any of those years was $631,000 in 2004. However, Englewood’s EBDITA (which is the financial indicator that its chief financial officer “really concentrate[s] on”) was approximately $3.6 million in 2004 and was budgeted to be “a little over 3 million” in 2005. The financial impact of the lost patient volume from the North Port zip codes on Englewood and Fawcett is not significant when compared to the EBDITA at those hospitals. The financial impact is even less significant when the population growth in the other zip codes in Englewood and Fawcett’s service area are taken into account. Indeed, the projected net loss of 28 patients at Fawcett equates to a reduction in net income of only $126,700, and the projected net loss of 16 patients at Englewood equates to a reduction in net income of only $56,624. The approval of a hospital in North Port would also impact Peace River and Venice Hospital. In terms of lost patient volume, the impact on Peace River would be slightly greater than the impact at Fawcett and the impact on Venice Hospital would be slightly less than the impact at Fawcett and slightly more than the impact on Englewood. The record does not reflect the financial impact of that lost patient volume at Peace River or Venice Hospital, which experienced significant operating losses prior to their acquisition and financial turn- around by HMA. In sum, the approval of a hospital in North Port will adversely impact the existing hospitals serving the area, including Englewood and Fawcett. The impacts are significant enough to give Englewood and Fawcett standing in this proceeding, but the impact on Englewood and Fawcett (and the other existing hospitals) is not so significant that it independently warrants denial of the CON applications. Stated another way, the adverse impact on the existing hospitals is a factor weighing against approval of the applications, but that factor is given minimal weight.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order denying Manatee Memorial’s CON 9767 and also denying HMA’s CON 9768. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 1st day of December, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether respondent should have a $10,000 administrative fine imposed for allegedly refusing to provide emergency services and care to a person requiring emergency medical assistance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Lake Shore Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Lake Shore Hospital (LSH or respondent), was licensed to operate as an acute care hospital with emergency services at 560 East Franklin Street, Lake City, Florida. As a licensee, respondent is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). Around 10:50 p.m. on July 16, 1993, M. N., an eighteen year old white female, arrived at the Branford, Florida emergency medical service (EMS) station requesting medical assistance. She was at full-term pregnancy and complained of abdominal and back pains. After being examined by James Aikman, a certified paramedic, she was advised to go to an emergency room. Although standard protocol called for Aikman to transport the patient to the closest hospital with an emergency room, which was Lake City Medical Center (LCMC) in Lake City, Florida, Aikman did not follow standard protocol and opted instead to carry M. N. to respondent's facility, which was also located in Lake City. He did so because he believed there was no obstetrician on duty at LCMC. While en route to the hospital, Aikman initiated radio contact with LSH emergency room personnel for the purpose of advising them of the patient's condition. However, he does not recall the name or gender of the person to whom he spoke by radio. Aikman recalls that an unidentified person in the emergency room responded with words to the effect that the LSH emergency room had no obstetrician on the staff, and that the patient should be diverted to Shands Hospital in Gainesville. Aikman recalls asking "are you refusing this patient?" and he received an "affirmative" reply. This version of events is corroborated by a contemporaneous written report prepared by Aikman on the evening of the incident. The patient was then carried without event to LCMC and was found not to be in labor. Since the incident occurred some two years ago, Aikman conceded his recollection of the events has faded. For example, he could not recall the physical appearance of the patient, including whether she was Caucasian or African-American, and he could not remember whether the patient was alone or with relatives when he provided assistance. Despite these lapses in memory, Aikman's testimony, as corroborated by his written report, is deemed to be credible and is hereby accepted in resolving this issue. Although medical professionals, including paramedics, are required to report to AHCA any incident of alleged denial of emergency medical care within thirty days of the occurrence of the incident, Aikman never reported the matter to AHCA or law enforcement authorities. His report indicates, however, that he disclosed the incident to LCMC personnel. Several months later, LCMC filed a complaint with AHCA alleging that respondent had refused to accept M. N. as a patient. State law and an agency rule require that such a complaint be filed within thirty days following its occurrence. On September 10, 1993, an AHCA registered nurse specialist, Sharon Lauter, was requested by her supervisor to conduct an investigation of the incident within five days. Thereafter, Lauter interviewed personnel at LCMC but never interviewed the emergency room staff at LSH, or otherwise advised them of the complaint. This was contrary to state law which requires that where the act under investigation is not considered to be a criminal offense, the agency is required to notify the licensee in writing of the investigation. In this case, AHCA never considered the act under investigation to be a criminal offense. Lauter did make an unannounced visit to LSH for the purpose of reviewing the emergency room policies and procedures but found no flaws in the recordkeeping or other hospital policies. On February 7, 1994, or almost five months later, Lauter prepared and forwarded a written report to the Tallahassee office for review and consideration. The report concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the alleged denial of access to emergency medical care. After reviewing the report, in mid-March 1994 an AHCA health services and facilities consultant, Lynn Agliato, requested that Lauter conduct an additional follow-up investigation including an interview with the EMS paramedic to determine whether a violation had occurred. On July 16, 1994, or some four months later, Lauter scheduled a follow-up interview with Aikman. At no time, however, did Lauter interview LSH emergency room personnel since she believed their recollection of events would be irrelevant to her investigation. After completing her follow-up investigation, Lauter forwarded a second report to Agliato on August 1, 1994. Agliato then recommended the issuance of an administrative complaint and the imposition of a $10,000 administrative fine, which is the maximum statutory fine. Although state law requires that the agency "expeditiously investigate each complaint," the investigation of the incident consumed more than a year. On December 15, 1994, LSH received a copy of the complaint and learned for the first time that it had allegedly violated state law. Claiming that it had been prejudiced by the delay in processing the complaint, and alternatively alleging that the fine was too harsh, LSH requested a hearing to contest the charges. When a complaint is issued by AHCA against a licensed hospital for refusing to accept a patient, it always seeks to impose the maximum statutory fine, or $10,000. Since AHCA has no rules or guidelines governing the amount of fine to be assessed for the type of violation at issue here, a determination of the final penalty amount is done on a case by case basis after considering all the facts of the case. According to Agliato, in addition to any factors that may be considered under the applicable statute, the following factors are taken into account by AHCA in determining the amount of penalty in this type of case: whether death or serious injury resulted, whether the hospital has previous violations for refusing access to emergency care, and whether the hospital took any voluntary corrective measures such as providing written notice to all emergency room staff of the obligation to accept all patients in the emergency room. In this case, death or serious injury did not occur, respondent has no prior history of violations of emergency access requirements, and, immediately upon being informed of the allegation, LSH took mitigating action by issuing a policy memorandum reiterating the requirement to accept all patients at the emergency room and to refuse nobody. Under AHCA informal policy, then, there are mitigating circumstances which call for reducing the amount of, or eliminating altogether, the proposed fine. For the years 1989 through 1994, AHCA maintains an index to emergency access cases which reflects a description of the complaint and the amount of civil penalty imposed. More often than not, the civil penalty amount imposed has been less than the maximum allowable fine of $10,000. Indeed, the complaining hospital here, LCMC, was charged with two violations of the emergency access requirements in 1993 but was fined only $3,000. In some instances, hospitals charged with the same violation as was LSH were not fined but were simply required to implement a plan of correction. At the time the incident occurred, respondent had in place emergency room written policies which specifically mandated that no person will be refused emergency medical treatment regardless of ethnic, social or economic status. As to obstetric patients, its policy provided that any obstetric patient presenting to the emergency room would be evaluated by a physician, and if in labor, would be given the highest classification of seriousness for emergency patients, "emergent, Level V." Immediately after receiving the administrative complaint, the medical director issued a memorandum to all members of the emergency room staff reiterating the hospital's policy of compliance with requirements for access to emergency care. Respondent contends it was substantially prejudiced due to AHCA's delay in investigating and prosecuting this case. Specifically, LSH alleges that because of this delay, and AHCA's failure to timely advise it of the charges, it was deprived of the opportunity to conduct its own timely investigation. Further, it alleges that those personnel on duty on the evening of July 16, 1993, have no current recollection of the events which occurred that evening. Not surprisingly, at final hearing, each of the persons on duty that evening testified they could not recall the specific incident. They uniformly agreed that such a refusal to provide emergency access would be contrary to the hospital's policy. The personnel acknowledged that in some cases the paramedic would be told that LSH had no obstetrician on staff, but rather than refusing access, they would simply advise the paramedic of the hospital's capabilities. Even so, the contemporaneous report of the paramedic (and his testimony) is deemed to be the most credible evidence on this issue. Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that paramedic Aikman was anything more than a disinterested witness or that he had reason to fabricate his report. Accordingly, there was no prejudice caused by LSH's inability to conduct a timely investigation of the incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order assessing respondent an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for violating Subsection 395.1041(3), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 19th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX Petitioner: Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 3. 4-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Respondent: Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Covered in preliminary statement. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 6-7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 8-9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3 and 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Rejected as being unnecessary. 14-15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 16-18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 19-21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Rejected as being unnecessary. 24-25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 26-27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7-11. 31-32. Covered in preliminary statement. 33-34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 35-36. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 39. Covered in preliminary statement. 40-42. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 43. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 44. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 46. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 47-48. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 49. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary to a resolution of the issues, not supported by the evidence, cumulative, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED TO: Thomas W. Caufman, Esquire 7827 North Dale Mabry Highway Suite 100 Tampa, FL 33614-3222 Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, FL 32302-3068 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, FL 32303 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, FL 32303
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the SSDB's proposal to construct a freestanding ambulatory surgery center in Volusia County, Florida, should be approved or denied. SSDB and the Department contend that the proposal meets statutory criteria and comports with the Department's rules. SSDB and the Department contend that there is a need for the facility and that SSDB is fully competent to construct and operate the facility. OBMH and HHMC contend that there is no need for the proposed facility, that the facility is not likely to be an economically viable venture, that the facility would injure existing businesses, and that the application should be denied because SSDB did not file a letter of intent with the local health council in a timely manner.
Findings Of Fact SSDB is a corporation that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Surgical Inc. Eighty percent of the stock of Surgical Services, Inc., is owned by American Medical International, Inc., a large, multinational health care corporation which owns and operates hospitals and other health care services. American Medical International is the third largest health care provider in the United States. The remaining 20 percent of Surgical Services, Inc., stock is owned by Randall L. Phillips, the company's president. SSDB is proposing to construct and operate a freestanding ambulatory surgery center in Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida. The service area for the proposed facility would be Volusia County. This facility would house four operating rooms and would be designed to handle all types of surgical procedures that can be performed on an outpatient basis. SSDB has entered into a contract to purchase land that provides a suitable site for the facility. It is located at the intersection of Clyde Morris Boulevard and Mason Avenue in Daytona Beach. The contract price for the property is $270,000. In addition to the cost of land acquisition, the preopening costs of the project would total $2,080,000. That amount would cover legal and accounting fees, architectural and engineering fees, a site survey, consulting fees, construction costs, movable equipment costs, and other engineering expenses. The preopening cost estimates are less than the $2,500,000 estimated in the original Certificate of Need application. The reduction is attributable to cost efficiencies primarily in selection and purchase of equipment. The costs estimated by SSDB are adequate to cover all preopening expenses and to provide an adequate facility. Financial support for the facility will be provided by American Medical International. This will include an equity contribution, a loan, and all necessary working capital. American Medical International has committed to provide financing adequate to construct and operate the facility. American Medical International has the financial resources to fulfill this commitment. The facility proposed by SSDB would be 15,500 square feet in size. The design is adequate for the proposed use and satisfies applicable health care facility standards and state and federal laws. The equipment proposed for the facility is sufficient to allow the handling of anticipated types of procedures. The facility will be open to all physicians qualified to perform the types of surgery that can be tone within an ambulatory setting. The facility will accept Medicare patients. The facility will admit any patient scheduled by surgeons, and ability to pay will not be a criterion for admission. SSDB has developed a marketing program to attract physicians and patients to the facility. SSDB has proposed adequate staffing for its facility and will be able to fulfill its staff requirements. SSDB is fully competent, given its backing by American Medical International, to construct and operate the proposed facility. OBMH is a Florida nonprofit corporation. It operates a 205-bed hospital in Volusia County, Florida, and renders medical services to residents of Volusia County and surrounding areas. OBMH presently renders ambulatory surgical services on an outpatient basis in connection with its surgery department. MEMO is a special taxing district. It operates a 345-bed hospital in Volusia County, Florida, and services residents of Volusia County and surrounding areas. HEM has a same-day surgery program and renders ambulatory surgical services through this procam on an outpatient basis. Ambulatory surgical services can be performed either in a hospital- based setting such as operated by OBMH and HHMC, or in a freestanding facility such as proposed by SSDB. HHMC presently has 12 general-purpose operating rooms. The HHMC same-day surgery program utilizes these rooms, but has a separate admitting area and waiting room that is utilized for inpatient surgery cases. OBMH has four general-purpose operating rooms. Outpatient or ambulatory surgeries are regularly performed in these rooms. There are presently 41 general-purpose operating rooms in Volusia County's eight hospitals. Outpatient or ambulatory surgical procedures are performed in these rooms. The Florida Health Care Plan is a health maintenance organization located in Volusia County. It has three operating rooms here inpatient or ambulatory surgery procedures are performed for members of the organization. The Neuman Dye Institute is a freestanding ambulatory surgical center licensed by the Department. It is located in DeLand, Volusia County, Florida. It has two operating rooms which are used for treatment of eye disorders. Approximately 15 percent of the surgeries performed in hospitals in Volusia County during the year August 1, 1982, through July 31, 1983, were done on an outpatient basis. The total number of surgical procedures performed in Volusia County has increased only slightly during the past three years. The number of impatient procedures has decreased, while the number of outpatient procedures has increased rather dramatically. This increase reflects a national trend which increasingly favors ambulatory or outpatient surgeries. It is likely that the number of outpatient cases as a percentage of total surgeries will continue to increase in Volusia County. The 15 percent figure for outpatient surgeries relates only to those procedures conducted in a hospital setting. It does not include procedures performed at the health maintenance organization, the Neuman Eye Institute, or in physicians offices. One major source of patients for ambulatory surgery programs is elective plastic surgery procedures. Two of the plastic surgeons who practice in Volusia County have their own operating rooms where ambulatory surgical procedures can be conducted. These physicians are not likely to use a separate, freestanding facility. The remaining plastic surgeons in Volusia County have utilized the same-day surgery facility at HHMC and have expressed satisfaction with that program. Existing facilities in Volusia County are adequate to accommodate the anticipated growth and the number of outpatient or ambulatory surgeries that will be performed during the next three years in Volusia County. Hospital surgical facilities in Volusia County are significantly underutilized at present. Existing facilities have the capacity to accommodate a more dramatic increase in total surgical procedures and in outpatient surgical procedures than is anticipated over the next three years. Given the existence of the hospital facilities, the Neuman Eye Institute, the health maintenance organization, and operating rooms located in physicians' offices, adequate facilities exist to accommodate the increased demand for outpatient surgeries that is anticipated in Volusia County. SSDB is proposing to offer its services to the public during the first year of operation for an average charge of $490 per procedure. The cost would increase to $540 for the second year. The average per-case cost for outpatient surgeries at HHMC is $393. The average per-case cost at OBMH is $439. Given the fact that one case can Involve multiple procedures, it is evident that existing facilities in Volusia County are charging less for ambulatory surgical services than SSDB proposes to charge. While some increases in present charges are likely, given general trends, it is not likely that HHMC or OBMH will charge as much for outpatient surgical procedures as SSDB proposes to charge. It has been asserted that HHMC's charges for outpatient surgeries are inadequate to cover HHMC's costs and that the charges are being kept low artificially. The evidence is to the contrary. HHMC's charges for outpatient surgeries are adequate to meet the facility's expenses. The facility proposed by SSDB does not present any cost savings to patients. Services at the proposed facility would be more expensive than the same services at existing facilities in Volusia County. Freestanding surgical centers have generally presented some advantages to physicians no consumers. In many places, outpatient surgeries are difficult to schedule in a hospital setting because they are susceptible of being bumped by surgeries that are considered more urgent. Furthermore, in many locations, physicians have had difficulty scheduling their outpatient surgeries in blocks of cases so that they can perform them more efficiently. Those problems have not occurred in Volusia County. Physicians who regularly perform outpatient surgeries in hospitals in Volusia County have been able to schedule their cases in blocks and have experienced no difficulties with bumping. SSDB has projected that its proposed facility would experience an acceptable loss during its first year of operation, but that it would show a net profit during its second and third years of operation. These estimates are based upon projections that 2,160 procedures would be performed at the facility at an average rate per procedure of $490 during the first year and 2,640 procedures at an average rate of $540 during the second year. These projections are unrealistic. The projections contemplate that approximately one-third of all outpatient surgeries in Volusia County would be performed at the proposed facility. The projections also contemplate a very dramatic increase in the number of outpatient surgeries and that more than 60 percent of the increased outpatient procedures would be done at the proposed facility. While it is likely that the number of outpatient surgeries performed in Volusia County and elsewhere will continue to increase as a percentage of total surgeries and that eventually as much as 30 percent of all surgeries performed in Volusia County will be done on an outpatient basis, the increase is not-likely to occur in a single year. Even if It did, it is unlikely that local physicians and consumers cold so dramatically reject present facilities as SSDB projects. Indeed, there is no evidence from which it could be concluded that there is any dissatisfaction on the part of physicians or consumers in Volusia County with present facilities. The evidence is to the contrary. A second reason why the projections are inaccurate is that in making the projections SSDB ignored the existence of the Neuman Eye Institute, the health maintenance organization, and operating rooms that have been established in physicians' offices. A third reason is that SSDB proposes to provide services at a higher cost than at existing facilities. A fourth reason is that SSDB has underestimated the proportion of Medicaid and Medicare cases that are likely to be performed at the facility at a cost that is less than the average cost per procedure proposed by SSDB. It is unlikely that SSDB could operate at a profit during its first three years of operation. At the time that SSDB filed its letter of intent and application with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, there was no local health council in existence Volusia County, Florida. SSDB did not file a copy of its letter of intent or application with the local health council and would have had no place to file it if it attempted to do so.
Recommendation That a final order be entered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services denying the Application for Certificate of Need filed by Surgical Services of Daytona Beach, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Baggett, Esq. Michael J. Cherniga, Esq. Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jay Adams, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Orfinger, Esq. 619 North Grandview Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018 Harold C Hubka, Esq. Post Office Box 5488 Daytona Beach, Florida 32018 Mr. David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification from working with residents or patients of nursing homes, home health agencies, homemaker-companion-sitter services, or nursing registries, because of the matters set out in the Agency’s letter of denial dated June 29, 1998.
