Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is responsible for the administration of the Certificate of Need ("CON") program in Florida, pursuant to Section 408.034, Florida Statutes (1992 supp.) AHCA initially published a need for 313 community nursing home beds in the 16 county area encompassing District III on April 17, 1992, which was subsequently corrected and published as a revised total of 321 net bed need for District III. On September 17, 1992, with a cover letter signed by Elizabeth Dudek, AHCA issued notice that it intended to issue: CON No. 6983P to Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. ("Unicare"), for construction of a 60 bed community nursing home in Hernando County; CON No. 6985 to Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. ("Beverly"), for the construction of a 120-bed community nursing home in Hernando County; and CON No. 6986 to Life Care Centers of America, Inc. ("Life Care"), for the construction of a 120-bed community nursing home in Hernando County; and, intended to deny, among others: CON 6983 to Unicare for the construction of a 120-bed community nursing home in Hernando County; CON No. 6989 to Lake Port Properties ("Lake Port") for either the conversion of 60 sheltered nursing beds to 60 community nursing home beds or the conversion of the 60 beds and the construction of an additional 60 community nursing beds to be located in Lake County; CON No. 6991 to Unicare for the addition of 51 community nursing home beds to New Horizon Rehabilitation Center, in Marion County; CON No. 6992 to Ocala Health Care Associates, G.P., for the addition of 60 community nursing home beds to TimberRidge Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Marion County; and CON No. 6993 to Southern Medical Associates, Inc. (Southern Medical) for the addition of 60 community nursing beds to Palatka Health Care Center in Putnam County. Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated that all participants have standing, except Heartland. Additional stipulations, accepted during the hearing, in the absence of a representative for Ocala Health Care Associates, are as follows: subsection 408.035 (1)(m) is not in dispute; proposed project costs and design are reasonable; the applicants' Schedules 1, notes and assumptions, the schematics, and the narrative responses to all of objective 4 in each application are in evidence, not in dispute, and are reasonable. The parties also stipulated to the approval of CON 6991 for Unicare to add 51 beds to its New Horizon Rehabilitation Center in Marion County, and the denial of CONS 6983 and 6983P to Unicare. LIFE CARE Life Care Centers of America, Inc. ("Life Care"), a privately-held corporation established in 1976, by its sole shareholder, Forrest L. Preston, owns, operates or manages 131 nursing homes and 14 retirement centers in 26 states. In Florida, Life Care manages four facilities with superior licenses, located in Altamonte Springs, Punta Gorda, and two in Palm Beach County, Lakeside and Darcy Hall. Life Care also owns, as well as operates, the facility in Altamonte Springs. Life Care owns and operates 28 nursing homes through leases, 6 or 7 of which are capital leases. Under the terms of the capital leases, Life Care is responsible for capital expenditures and projects. Life Care is not responsible for capital expenditures and projects at approximately 91 of its 131 facilities. Life Care proposes to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home in the southwest section of Hernando County, near Spring Hill, and to finance the total project cost of approximately $5 1/2 million from bank loans. Life Care has not identified a specific site for its facility. Life Care has proposed to accept a CON condition to provide 75 percent of its patient days to Medicaid beneficiaries, to establish a separate 20-bed wing for Alzheimers and related dementia ("ARD") residents, and to provide intravenous therapy, inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative therapy, wound care and adult day care. Life Care's proposed Medicaid condition exceeds the 1991 district average of 73.78 percent, and is consistent with its experience in Altamonte Springs of up to 73 percent Medicaid without a CON condition, and over 80 percent Medicaid in West Palm Beach. The Medicaid percentages indicate that Life Care will offer mainly traditional nursing home services. BEVERLY Beverly Enterprises, Inc., the ultimate corporate parent of the applicant, owns 830 nursing homes, with a total of 89,000 beds in 35 states. Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., the applicant in this proceeding, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly California Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Beverly Enterprises-Florida ("Beverly") owns 41 of the total 68 nursing homes owned in Florida by Beverly-related companies. Of the 40 nursing homes owned by Beverly at the time the application was filed, 31 had superior licenses. Three facilities had moratoria within the preceding 36 months, one a facility built in 1929, another with a two-week moratorium which is now licensed superior, and a third which is still conditional while physical plant improvements are underway. See, Finding of Facts 28, infra. Beverly proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Spring Hill, Hernando County, for $5,213,077, with its CON conditioned on the provision of 74 percent of annual patient days to Medicaid residents and a $10,000 grant for gerontology research at Hernando-Pasco Community College. Beverly proposes four beds for a ventilator-dependent unit, two beds for respite care, 20 beds on a separate wing for ARD residents, and to establish an adult care program. Beverly commits to group patients with ARD or other losses in cognitive functioning together in a 20-bed area, to offer subacute rehabilitative care in a 24 bed Medicare skilled nursing unit, and to provide intravenous therapy. Beverly also intends to establish a dedicated four-bed ventilator unit staffed with at least one registered nurse with a minimum of two years experience in critical care continuously on duty, a separately staffed adult day care program, and respite care. Beverly's would be the first ventilator beds other than in hospitals and the first licensed adult day care program in Hernando County. One of Beverly's existing Florida nursing homes is Eastbrooke which is also located in Hernando County, approximately 10 miles from the proposed Spring Hill site. Beverly expects its experienced personnel from Eastbrooke to train and assist in establishing Spring Hill. Beverly has identified a site for the Spring Hill facility which is across the street from an acute care hospital. Spring Hill is in southern Hernando County, near Pasco County. UNICARE By stipulation of the parties, the Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. ("Unicare") proposal to add 51 beds to New Horizon Rehabilitation Center in Marion County was recommended for approval on May 12, 1993. Unicare withdrew its requests for the approval of CONs 6983P and 6983 in Hernando County. As a result, the parties agreed that the number of beds needed was reduced from 321 beds to 270 beds. LAKE PORT Lake Port is a 60-bed licensed skilled nursing center, with a superior rating, located at the Lake Port Properties Continuing Care Retirement Community, in Leesburg, Lake County. Lake Port Properties is a partnership, for which Johnson Simmons Company serves as the managing general partner. The Lake Port community includes independent living residences, a 66-bed adult congregate living facility, and the 60 sheltered nursing beds. Among the services provided are post-operative care and orthopedic rehabilitative therapy for patients who have had knee or hip replacement surgery or shoulder injuries, neurological therapies for stroke injuries, pain management, subacute, open wound and respite care, and hospice services. Lake Port currently has 11 Medicare certified beds, and has had from 8 to 22 Medicare certified beds at a time. Lake Port has a contract with Hospice of Lake-Sumter County to provide interdisciplinary services to approximately five hospice residents a year. Rehabilitation services are also provided by contract at Lake Port. Lake Port has a relatively high volume of residents who are discharged home following intensive therapy within an average of three weeks. As an indicator of the intensity of therapeutic services, Lake Port has provided 26 percent Medicare, while the Lake/Sumter planning area average was 7.2 percent. Life Care projected a Medicare rate of 6.7 percent, Beverly projected 10 percent Medicare, and the Hernando County average is 9.3 percent. In this proceeding, Lake Port proposes either to convert the existing 60 skilled nursing beds to 60 community nursing beds at no cost, or the 60 bed conversion and the approval to construct an additional 60 community nursing home beds, for a total 120-bed community facility at a cost of $1.4 million. Lake Port proposes to have either CON, if approved, conditioned on the provision of 29.2 percent and 33.81 percent Medicaid, in years one and two, and respite, subacute, and intense rehabilitative care. Historically, the payer mix has included 25-30 percent Medicare and 30-35 percent Medicaid. All of the proposed services are provided currently at Lake Port. The effect of the change in licensure categories is to eliminate the requirement that the facility serve exclusively the retirement community residents after five years in operation, or after August 1995. Lake Port would still be obligated to provide nursing home care to Lake Port community residents at discounted costs, pursuant to the terms of their continuing care contracts. Occupancy levels at Lake Port exceed 95 percent, with 7 to 8 percent of patient days attributable to retirement community, and the remainder to patients in a service area which includes West Lake and Sumter Counties. Lake Port asserts that its financial viability depends on its ability to continue to serve all residents of its service area. SOUTHERN MEDICAL Southern Medical Associates, Inc. ("Southern Medical") is a Florida corporation which owns two nursing homes, one with 60 beds in Okaloosa County and one with 120 beds in Palatka, in Putnam County. Palatka Health Care Center opened with 60 beds in May 1989, added 60 beds in November 1990. Both nursing homes have superior licenses and are managed and staffed by National HealthCorp, L.P., which was founded in 1971, and manages 86 nursing homes, twenty-nine of those in Florida. The management fee is 6 percent of net revenues. In its application for CON number 6993, Southern Medical proposes to add 60 beds to the existing 120-bed nursing home, known as Palatka Health Care Center. Occupancy levels at the Palatka Center ranged between 96 and 99 percent in 1992-1993. Total project costs of $2.1 million will be financed by or through National HealthCorp. Southern Medical proposes that its CON be conditioned on the establishment of a 20-bed distinct Alzheimer's wing and the provision of 74 percent of total patient days to Medicaid patients. Southern Medical provides rehabilitation services in a 14-bed Medicare certified unit, antibiotic intravenous therapy, hospice and respite care. It exceeds the 73 percent Medicaid condition of its CON. SUBSECTION 408.035(1)(a) - NEED IN RELATION TO STATE AND LOCAL HEALTH PLANS The Florida State Health Plan includes 12 preferences to consider in reviewing nursing home CON applications, most of which overlap statutory review criteria in Section 408.035, Florida Statutes. Preference 1 encourages more nursing homes beds in subdistricts with 90 percent or higher occupancy in existing beds. District 3 is not subdistricted, but its nursing home bed occupancy rate was 91 percent in 1991. Therefore, all applicants for nursing homes in District 3 meet the preference. District 3 has been divided into planning areas by the local health council. The applications filed in this proceeding coincide with the planning areas for Hernando, Putnam, and Lake/Sumter Counties. In 1991, occupancy rates averaged 92 percent for Hernando, 96 percent for Putnam, and 93 percent for Lake/Sumter planning areas. Each applicant meets preference 1 using planning areas as substitutes for subdistricts. Preference 2 favors applicants whose Medicaid commitments equal or exceed the subdistrict-wide average. In the absence of subdistricts, the district wide average is used, which is 73.78 percent. Beverly's 74 percent commitment, Life Care's 75 percent commitment, and Southern Medical's 74 percent commitment, entitle them to be favored under preference 2. In addition, Beverly cites its 76.9 percent Medicaid patient days in 1991 at Eastbrooke, but it has failed to achieve its Medicaid commitment at one Florida nursing home in Cape Coral. Lake Port committed to provide a minimum of 33.81 percent Medicaid patient days and argued that it meets the exception to the preference for providing multi-level care. As described in the 1989 Florida State Health Plan, multi-level health systems offer a continuum of care which may range from acute care and ambulatory surgery centers to home health and education, including traditional nursing care. Special emphasis is placed on short-term intensive rehabilitation programs. Although Lake Port's proposal includes some of the features of a multi-level system, such as post-operative rehabilitative therapy and respite care, the Medicaid exception is inappropriate for Lake Port, because the same services are also proposed by Beverly and Southern Medical. See, also, Section 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes. Preference 3 relates to providing specialized services, including acquired immune deficiency syndrome ("AIDS") services to residents, ARD residents, and the mentally ill. This preference is met by Beverly, Life Care, and SMA, particularly for ARD patients for which all three applicants proposed to establish separate 20-bed units. The preference is also met by Lake Port, particularly with its emphasis on specialized, intense rehabilitative services. See, also Subsection 408.205(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Preference 4 supports applicants proposing to provide a "continuum of services to community residents," including respite and adult day care. Beverly and Life Care propose to offer both respite and adult day care. Lake Port and Southern Medical propose to provide respite and hospice care. Preference 5, for the construction of facilities which provide maximum comfort and quality of care, was stipulated as being met by all the parties. The applicants also stipulated that project costs and construction plans are reasonable. See, also, Subsection 408.035(1)(m),(2)(a) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes. Preference 6 is met by all of the applicants: . . . proposing to provide innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functional level and which emphasize restorative care. Life Care, Beverly and Southern Medical propose to offer specialized services to ARD residents. Lake Port and Southern Medical emphasize physical rehabilitation. All of the applicants meet the requirements for preference 6. Preference 7 is for applicants whose charges do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict, which, for District 3, is $74.05, or $93.49 inflated at 6 percent to 1996. Life Care Care's proposed Medicaid charges are $93.69 for year 1, and $94.46 for year 2. Beverly projected that the average Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict will be $93.49 in 1996, its charge will be $95.00, but it will expect Medicaid reimbursement to be $93.30 for that year. Lake Port projected proposed charges to Medicaid patients as $90 to $93.92 in year one and $93 to $97.37 in year two, for the full 120 beds or the partial 60 beds, respectively. Southern Medical's Medicaid charges will be $90.22 in year one and $94.28 in year two. Preference 8 applies to applicants with a history of providing superior resident care programs, as indicated by licensure ratings. Of Beverly's 40 Florida facilities, 31 held superior licenses at the time the application was filed. Of the nine Beverly nursing homes with conditional ratings, six are now superior. Renovations or, in the case of one facility built in 1929, construction of a replacement building, are underway at the three others. Life Care, Southern Medical and Lake Port have histories of consistently superior license ratings. See, also, Subsection 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Preference 9 favors applicants proposing staffing levels exceeding minimum standards. Due to the ventilator, intravenous and rehabilitative services proposed, Beverly will staff in excess of that required by the state, with at least one registered nurse with a minimum of two years experience on all shifts and a full-time physical therapist. It intends to rely on its current Hernando County facility, Eastbrooke's relationship with Hernando-Pasco Community College, for recruitment and training of staff, although Beverly has not opened a new nursing home in Florida since 1987. Life Care similarly intends to rely on a CON approved facility in adjacent Citrus County. Southern Medical employs St. Augustine Vocational College students who are certified nurse assistants training to become licensed practical nurses, and licensed practical nurses training to become registered nurses are employed at Palatka, which also has internships for health sciences students from the University of North Florida. Its occupational, speech and physical therapists are full-time employees. Lake Port's staffing ratios will also exceed the minimums, in order to provide intensive rehabilitative therapies. See, also Subsection 408.035(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Each applicant meets preference 10 based on their proposed or current use of a variety of professional disciplines. See, Finding of Fact 29. Preference 11 seeks to ensure resident rights and privacy as well as implementing plans for quality assurance and discharge planning. All of the applicants were shown to follow well established residents' rights and privacy policies, and to have effective quality assurance programs. Pre-admission screening programs include discharge planning. Beverly has the most highly standardized corporate structure of incentives to maintain quality. Preference 12 relates to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the District. Average costs in District III are expected to be $54.79 for resident care and $13.97 for administrative overhead by 1996. Life Care expects resident care costs of $51.97 a day and administrative costs of $17.43 a day. Beverly projects its resident care to cost $61.89, with administrative costs of $8.86. Southern Medical proposes administrative costs of $19.88 per patient day and patient care costs of $46.23 per patient day. Lake Port's administrative costs are expected to be $27.80 for 60 beds or $22.12 for 120 beds, with patient care costs of $43.04 for 60 beds or $45.08 for 120 beds. Beverly, best meets the preference and expects enhanced economics and efficiency from combining some overhead for the operation of two nursing homes in Hernando County. Life Care, however, notes that its proposal enhances competition in view of the existence of one Beverly facility in Hernando County. See, Subsection 408.035(1)(e),(1)(h) and (1)(l), Florida Statutes, which also relate to costs, resources, and competition. District III includes 16 west central Florida counties, from Hamilton, Columbia, Union Bradford and Putnam in the North to Hernando, Sumter and Lake in the south. The allocation factors in the plan for District III are prepared by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, the local health council for the district. The district has not been subdivided by agency rule. Using its planning areas, the local health council has given priority rankings for applicants in certain areas of the district. Dixie, Lafayette and Union Counties, which have no nursing homes, are favored by the local plan. If, as in this case, there are no applicants from these counties, Hernando should be favored, followed by Putnam County. No priority was given to Lake County. The council also quantified bed need by planning area for the January 1995 planning horizon, with additional beds needed, ranging from 120 to 180 in Hernando, and up to 60 in Putnam. The parties agree generally that the council may establish planning areas in the discharge of its duties, but they disagree whether the establishment of upper limits, or caps in numeric need by planning area is authorized by law. Section 408.034, Florida Statutes, requires a uniform need methodology, which the agency has established by enacting the nursing home rule, Rule 59C-1.036(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Once the agency determines numeric need for a district and the district driving time standard, the local plan cannot alter these determinations. The local plan also includes certain fundamental principles for the allocation of new beds: (1) to promote geographic access, (2) to consider the locations of at-risk population need factors, and (3) to increase supply based on demand. In order of importance, the local plan lists three allocation factors (1) for counties without nursing homes, (2) for new nursing homes 20 miles or 25 minutes drive from existing or approved beds, and (3) for locations without approved beds and with existing nursing homes averaging occupancy levels at least 95 percent for the most recent six month or 90 percent for the most recent 12 months. With respect to the specific allocation factors, Life Care, Beverly, Southern Medical and Lake Port are in areas with over 90 percent average occupancy within a 20 mile radius. Life Care, Beverly and Southern Medical are proposing to establish facilities in areas of greater need than that in the area of Lake Port. Hernando and Putnam Counties also have lower ratios of nursing home beds to population than Lake County. The local health council's determination of the greatest need in Hernando County, was confirmed by expert testimony, based on analyzing licensed and approved beds, occupancy rates, distribution of population ages 65 and older, and 75 and older, and most importantly, projected growth of population 65 and older, and of 75 and older. The bed to population ratio for Hernando was, in 1992, 15.5 percent for 65 and older, and 44.9 percent for the population 75 and older, both of which are below the ratios for any other planning areas in the District. The projected increase in population 75 and older for the state is 12 percent, in contrast to the projected increase of 38 percent for Hernando County. Expert testimony for Beverly supported the addition of up to 300 beds in Hernando County to bring Hernando County's bed distribution in line with that of the entire district. The only approved provider in the county, Hernando Health Care, has surrendered its CON to add 18 nursing home beds in Hernando County. On the contrary, Heartland's expert calculated numeric need of only 119 additional beds in Hernando County. AHCA, however, gave no consideration to the effect on occupancy, fill- up rates, or financial feasibility of it preliminarily approving all new beds in Hernando County. The experience was compared, by Southern Medical's expert, to that in Clay County, in which 555 beds were 95 percent occupied, prior to the opening of two 120-bed facilities, one in December 1989, and the other in April 1990. At the end of the first year of operation, the facility that opened first was 48.5 percent occupied, the second was 21.7 percent occupied, and district occupancy was 77.7 percent. At the end of the second year, the rates were 81 percent, 55.6 percent, and 85.6 percent. However, by 1992, the nursing homes in that subdistrict averaged 93 percent occupancy. Opponents to the AHCA proposal to locate all new facilities in Hernando County, contend that the bed-to- population ratio or "parity" approach used to support the approval of 240 beds in that county does not take into account demographic variables among the counties in the district. While the bed-to-population ratio is not reliable in and of itself, alternative analyses for the determination of the location of greatest need within the district support the same conclusions. Those analyses relied upon current nursing homes occupancy levels, poverty, and population migration trends and available alternatives to distinguish among the various proposed locations. Based on occupancy levels, the District III counties of greatest need for additional beds are Putnam, Lake and Sumter, and Hernando, in that order. Putnam County residents are being placed in facilities outside the county due to the lack of available nursing home beds. In terms of poverty level and mortality levels, the figures for Putnam and Marion Counties indicated their populations were less healthy than those in Hernando and Lake. Hernando had 6.05 percent of its over 65 population, which is 85 and older, as compared to 9.34 percent in Lake, 8 percent in Putnam, and 8.28 percent as the district average. Hernando and Putnam Counties also had lower percentages of people 75 and older than did Lake and Marion Counties. ALTERNATIVES AND EXISTING NURSING HOMES IN DISTRICT 3 Subsections 408.035(1)(b) and (d) require consideration of other like and existing facilities in the district, as well as health care services which are alternatives to nursing homes. Currently, there are 4 nursing homes in Hernando County, and 12 in Lake County. In Putnam County, there are 3 nursing homes and 15 additional "swing beds," which may be used for acute care or long term care, approved for Putnam Community Hospital. Those beds are not available to serve Medicaid patients and are not included on the inventory of community nursing home beds. In the 511 existing nursing home beds in Hernando, there is an average daily census of 45 beds occupied by residents originating from other counties, while 23 Hernando residents constituted the average daily census leaving the County. Hernando cannot expect to retain in-migrating patients with the development of nursing homes in those residents' counties of origin, particularly, Citrus and Pasco. Given the decrease in nursing home patient days form 1991 to 1992, there is also no reason to expect any significant increase in use rate for the population in Hernando. The most compelling support for need in Hernando County is that the rate of growth of its over 75 population, which is more than three times that of the State. Putnam County has the lowest migration and a greater demand for nursing home services for the population age 85 and older. Putnam County nursing homes exceed 95 percent occupancy. Lake County area nursing homes were 93 percent occupied for the same period of time, and with the relinquishment of an approved CON for 60 beds by Leesburg Regional Hospital, that occupancy rate rises to approximately 95 percent. The award to Leesburg Regional established a need for 60 beds in Lake County, but there is also an approved CON for a 120-bed facility in Mount Dora. According to Lake Port's expert witnesses, the Mount Dora nursing home will not alleviate the need for beds in western Lake County. That facility, owned by the Adventist health group, is expected to be a referral facility from the nearby Adventist Hospital in Orlando and Sanford. Based on the alternative considerations of occupancy levels, poverty and morality rates, the need for additional beds in Putnam County is greater than the need in Lake County. Projected population increases and the limited alternatives also support the conclusion that a greater need exists in Hernando than in Lake County. Heartland of Brooksville ("Heartland"), is an existing 120-bed community nursing home in Brooksville, which is licensed superior. Heartland contends that the virtually simultaneous establishment of both Beverly and Life Care will adversely impact Heartland, and make it difficult for the new nursing homes to meet their projected utilizations. The trend of twice as many people migrating to, as there are leaving Hernando County for nursing home services, will be reversed as more nursing homes are established in surrounding counties. See, Finding of Fact 45. Heartland reasonably expects gradually to lose up to 30 percent of its residents who came from the Spring Hill area, where Beverly and Life Care intend to build new nursing homes. Heartland also reasonably expects to lose Medicare patients among the group from Spring Hill. Medicare residents average 9.3 percent of the total mix in the county, but account for 15 percent of the patient mix at Heartland. Heartland will be adversely affected for at least the first two years if both Life Care and Beverly are approved. See, Finding of Fact 40, supra. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Heartland, Southern Medical and Lake Port assert that Beverly will be successful in Hernando County, but that Life Care will not. Beverly is already established in the county, will provide services not currently available in nursing homes, and will open its facility seven months before Life Care. Life Care projected a net loss of $589,042 in year one, and a net gain of $254,991 in year two of operation. Life Care's projections fail to consider the company's 6.5 percent management fee, income taxes, and Medicaid reimbursement rate ceilings. By contrast to the other proposals and to the Hernando County average of 9.3 percent, Life Care is relying on a payor mix of only 6.7 percent Medicare, the group for which competition will be most intense. That mix parallels its Florida experience, which has historically allowed it to achieve a profit margin of 16 to 22 percent of net revenues in the third year of operation. Life Care's experience and audited financial statements support its contention that it can borrow essentially 100 percent of the funds necessary to support the project and complete the proposed project, a debt arrangement it has successfully used in the past, without defaulting on loans. Life Care's resources are also potentially subject to a $12 to $18 million judgment, due to litigation which is on appeal. Life Care has a contingency fund of $8 million to satisfy the judgment and has sufficient equity in its properties to pay the balance through refinancing. The deficiencies in Life Care's pro forma and its potential liabilities are off-set by the size and strength of the company, and its Hernando County project is financially feasible in the short and long terms. Beverly projects opening at Spring Hill 15 1/2 months after issuance of a CON, reaching 90 percent utilization within 15 months of opening. Beverly reasonably expects an after tax profit of $239,489 in the second year of operation. Beverly estimates project costs of $5.2 million, financed by the parent corporation, Beverly-California. Beverly-California has from $35 to 45 million available to contribute a 40 percent ($2 million) equity investment, and a $35 million loan commitment from which it will draw the balance to finance the project. Southern Medical has a letter of interest for financing of the total project costs of $2.1 million at 12 percent rate of interest by National HealthCorp. During the construction period, Southern Medical estimates that the existing 120 beds will remain 94 percent full, and that the new beds once open will fill at a rate of 10 percent a month, which is consistent with the experience of the management company, National HealthCorp. Southern Medical's actual experience in Palatka was, in fact, better. The first 60 beds were filled after 5 months while the additional 60 beds were filled in 7 to 8 months. Projected revenues of $290,000 during construction, $323,000 after year one, and $488,000 after year two are reasonable. Southern Medical's balance sheet shows short term debt of approximately $1.4 million attributable to the construction of the Okaloosa nursing home. Although Southern Medical secured a $3 million loan commitment for the Okaloosa facility, it has drawn from that account $473,000. That debt will be refinanced and recategorized as long term debt. Southern Medical's project is financially feasible in the short and long term, based on its actual experience in the existing 120-bed facility. Lake Port has the financial resources to construct 60 additional beds for $1.4 million. Lake Port's proposed conversion of the licensure category for its existing 60 beds is at no cost, except for approximately $37,000 in filing and consultants fees. In its third year of operation, Lake Port has achieved 97 percent occupancy. At present, delays of up to a week may be experienced in transfering patients from acute care hospitals to nursing homes in the Leesburg area. From October to May, due to the influx of northerners, beds are generally not available in the Leesburg area of western Lake and Sumter Counties. Lake Port's projections of occupancy and its financial ability to complete either 60-bed conversion and/or 60-bed addition make either proposal financially feasible in the short or long term.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That AHCA issue CON 6985 to Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Hernando County, conditioned on the provision of 74 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid residents, and the operation of a 4-bed ventilator-dependent unit, 2 beds for respite care, an adult day care program, and a 20-bed separate unit for residents with Alzheimer's and related dementia. That AHCA issue CON 6986 to Life Care Centers of America, Inc. to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Hernando County, conditioned on the provision of a minimum of 75 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid residents, the operation of a 20-bed dedicated wing for residents with Alzheimer's and related dementia, and the operation of an adult day care. That AHCA issue CON 6993 to Southern Medical Associates, Inc. for the addition of 60 community nursing home beds at Palatka Health Care Center in Putnam County, conditioned on the provision of 74 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid residents, and the establishment of a 20-bed district Alzheimer's wing. That AHCA deny CON 6989P and CON 6989 to Lake Port Properties. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 21st day of July, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6656 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner, Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., d/b/a Beverly Gulf Coast-Florida, Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted in Preliminary Statement and Finding of Fact 3. 2-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8-10, 24 and 25. 10. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. 11-15. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 33. 16-19. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 9, 20-21, 37-39. 20-23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-32. 24-30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9, 23, 24, 29 or 30. 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-32. 32-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9, 23, 24, 29 or 30. 39-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. 43-48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29-31. 49. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29-30. 50-56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 50-51. 57-62. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29 or 30. 63-64 Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 32, 39 and 46-47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. 67-68. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9-10. 69. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 6. 70-71. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 6, 7 and 10. 72-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-7, 8-10 and 48-51. 76. Accepted in Finding of Fact 32. 77-79. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 48-49. Petitioner, Southern Medical's, Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 16. Accepted in Finding of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17. 5-14. Subordinate to preliminary statement. 15. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. 16-17. Accepted in Finding of Fact 20. 18-19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. 20-22. Rejected in conclusions of law 4. 23. Accepted in Finding of Fact 36. 24-41. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 33-45. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20-21. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. Accepted in Finding of Fact 23. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 26. Accepted in Finding of Fact 27. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Accepted in Finding of Fact 30. Accepted in Finding of Fact 31. Accepted in part in Finding of Fact 32. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 19-32. 56-57. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 43-45. 58-60. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. 61-62. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18, 22 and 28. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. 65-69. Accepted in or Subordinate to Finding of Fact 34 and 43-45. 70-72. Accepted in Findings of Fact 17-18 and 22-23. 73-74. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29-30. 75. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. 76-77. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. 78-96. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52-53. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected in Findings of Fact 34-39 and 45. 100-101. Rejected in Findings of Fact 41-42 and 45. 102. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 43-45. 103-109. Rejected in relevant part and accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 41-45. 110-112. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48 and 49. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in conclusions of law 60. 116-120. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 48 and 49. 121. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. 122-123. Rejected in Findings of Fact 39 and 40. 124-125. Issue not addressed at hearing. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 48. Rejected in Finding of Fact 29. Petitioner, HCR Limited Partnership I d/b/a Heartland of Brooksville's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 8-10. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 5-7. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 12-14. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 16-18. Accepted in Preliminary Statement and Findings of Fact 2 and 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 40. Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. Accepted in Finding of Fact 34. 9-16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34-38. 17. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 43. 19-22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21, 42 and 43. 23-33. Accepted in Findings of Fact 38, 42 and 43. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in Finding of Fact 39. 36-41. Accepted in or Subordinate to Findings of Fact 45 and 47. 42-44. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. 45. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45, 48 and 49. Petitioner, Lake Port Properties's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 40. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4 and last sentence rejected in preliminary statement. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. 7-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. 29. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. 30-34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39-43 and 46. 35. Rejected in Finding of Fact 46. 36-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. 39-42. Facts accepted, conclusions rejected in Findings of Fact 44-46. 43-47. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-39. 48. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 49-54. Conclusion in first sentence rejected in Finding of Fact 39. Facts accepted in Findings of Facts 39-45. 55-60. Not solely relied upon but not disregarded. Facts generally accepted in Findings of Fact 39-45. 61-74. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 19-32. 75-82. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 33-38. 83-93. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28-29. 94-100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54-55. 101-103. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 54. 104. Accepted in Finding of Fact 31. 105-106. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. 107-111. Rejected first sentence in Findings of Fact 39 and 40. Remainder of 107-111 accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 19-38. 112-113. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 45, 48, and 49. 114-117. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45, 48 and 49. Rejected in Findings of Fact 45, 48 and 49. Accepted in Finding of Fact 6. 120-121. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 7. 122-125. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7 and 48. 126-130. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. Respondent, Life Care Centers of America, Inc.'s, Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-43. 10-12. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. 13. Rejected in Finding of Fact 12. 14(a-d)-20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-40. 21(a-d). Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-32. 22. Accepted in Finding of Fact 34. 23-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 44-47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 39. Accepted in part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43-45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. 34-40. Accepted in relevant part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-7. 41(a-c). Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 29. 42. Rejected in relevant part in Finding of Fact 12. 43-45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Rejected in Findings of Fact 44. 47-48. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 45. 49-50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-7. 51-54. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 29. 55-62. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48-49. 63-64. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. 65-69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48-49. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 54-55. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 52. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 29. 73-74. Accepted. 75. Accepted in Finding of Fact 4. 76-77. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40-43. 78-79. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 52. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. 82-85. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 22. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. Accepted in conclusions of law. Accepted in preliminary statement. Issue not reached. Subordinate to preliminary statement. Conclusion rejected in Finding of Fact 16. Respondent, AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1-3. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2 and 21 and conclusions of law 66. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2 and 21. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2 and 4. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-18.8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-7. Subordinate to preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 5-7 and 19-33. Relevant as to availability due to occupancy ratio in Findings of Fact 37-45. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48-49. Accepted, except first sentence in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 19-32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-20 and 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 19-32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50-51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-39. Conclusions rejected in Findings of Fact 19-32. Accepted facts in 19-20 and 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52-53. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15 and 19-32. Rejected in Findings of Fact 19 and 20. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54 and 55. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Manheimer, Attorney Dennis LaRosa, Attorney Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Alfred W. Clark, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 James C. Hauser, Attorney Lachlin Waldoch, Attorney Messer, Vickers, Caparello, Madsen Lewis, Goldman & Metz, P.a. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Anton, Attorney Stowell, Anton & Kraemer Post Office Box 11059 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Edward Labrador, Attorney Richard Patterson, Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 W. David Watkins, Attorney Robert Downey, Attorney Oretel, Hoffman, Fernandez, et al. 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Attorney Pennington & Haben, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether the noncompliance as alleged during the August 30, 2001, survey and identified as Tags F324 and F242, were Class II deficiencies; (2) whether the "Conditional" licensure status, effective August 30, 2001, to September 30, 2001, based upon noncompliance is appropriate; and (3) whether a fine in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate for the cited noncompliance
Findings Of Fact Charlotte is a nursing home located at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, Fort Myers, Florida, with 180 residents and is duly licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. AHCA is the state agency responsible for evaluating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. As such, in the instant case it is required to evaluate nursing homes in Florida in accordance with Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2000). AHCA evaluates all Florida nursing homes at least every 15 months and assigns a rating of standard or conditional to each licensee. In addition to its regulatory duties under Florida law, AHCA is the state "survey agency," which, on behalf of the federal government, monitors nursing homes that receive Medicaid or Medicare funds. On August 27 through 30, 2001, AHCA conducted an annual survey of Charlotte's facility and alleged that there were deficiencies. These deficiencies were organized and described in a survey report by "Tags," numbered Tag F242 and Tag F324. The results of the survey were noted on an AHCA form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to this form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567." The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identified each alleged deficiency by reference to a Tag number. Each Tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Charlotte and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. To protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number (i.e., Resident 24) rather than by the name of the resident. AHCA must assign a class rating of I, II or III to any deficiency that it identifies during a survey. The ratings reflect the severity of the identified deficiency, with Class I being the most severe and Class III being the least severe deficiency. There are two Tags, F242 and F324 at issue in the instant case, and, as a result of the August 2001 survey, AHCA assigned each Tag a Class II deficiency rating and issued Charlotte a "Conditional" license effective August 30, 2001. Tag F242 Tag F242 generally alleged that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents, based on record review, group interviews, and staff interviews, and that Charlotte failed to adequately ensure that the residents have a right to choose activities that allow them to interact with members of the community outside the facility. On or about August 24, 2001, AHCA's surveyors conducted group interviews. During these interviews, 10 of 16 residents in attendance disclosed that they had previously been permitted to participate in various activities and interact with members of the community outside the facility. They were permitted to go shopping at malls, go to the movies, and go to restaurants. Amtrans transportation vans were used to transport the residents to and from their destinations. The cost of transportation was paid by Charlotte. An average of 17 to 20 residents participated in those weekly trips to dine out with other community members at the Olive Garden and other restaurants. During those trips, Charlotte would send one activity staff member for every four to six residents. The record contains no evidence that staff nurses accompanied those select few residents on their weekly outings. The outings were enjoyed by those participants; however, not every resident desired or was able to participate in this particular activity. Since 1985, outside-the-facility activities had been the facility's written policy. However, in August 2000, one year prior to the survey, Matthew Logue became Administrator of the facility and directed his newly appointed Activities Director, Debbie Francis, to discontinue facility sponsored activities outside the facility and in its stead to institute alternative activities which are all on-site functions. Those residents who requested continuation of the opportunity to go shopping at the mall or dine out with members of the community were denied their request and given the option to have food from a restaurant brought to the facility and served in-house. The alternative provided by the facility to those residents desiring to "interact with members of the community outside the facility" was for each resident to contact the social worker, activity staff member, friends or family who would agree to take them off the facility's premises. Otherwise, the facility would assist each resident to contact Dial-A-Ride, a transportation service, for their transportation. The facility's alternative resulted in a discontinuation of all its involvement in "scheduling group activities" beyond facility premises and a discontinuation of any "facility staff members" accompanying residents on any outing beyond the facility's premises. As described by its Activities Director, Charlotte's current activities policy is designed to provide for residents' "interaction with the community members outside the facility," by having facility chosen and facility scheduled activities such as: Hospice, yard sales, barbershop groups for men and beautician's day for women, musical entertainment, antique car shows, and Brownie and Girl Guides visits. These, and other similar activities, are conducted by "community residents" who are brought onto the facility premises. According to the Activities Director, Charlotte's outside activities with transportation provided by Amtrans buses were discontinued in October of 2000 because "two to three residents had been hurt while on the out trip, or on out-trips."1 Mr. Logue's stated reason for discontinuing outside activities was, "I no longer wanted to take every member of the activities department and send them with the resident group on an outing, thereby leaving the facility understaffed with activities department employees." The evidence of record does not support Mr. Logue's assumption that "every member of the facility's activities department accompanied the residents on any weekly group outings," as argued by Charlotte in its Proposed Recommended Order. Charlotte's Administrator further disclosed that financial savings for the facility was among the factors he considered when he instructed discontinuation of trips outside the facility. "The facility does not sponsor field trips and use facility money to take people outside and too many staff members were required to facilitate the outings." During a group meeting conducted by the Survey team, residents voiced their feelings and opinions about Charlotte's no longer sponsoring the field trips on a regular basis in terms of: "feels like you're in jail," "you look forward to going out," and being "hemmed in." AHCA's survey team determined, based upon the harm noted in the Federal noncompliance, that the noncompliance should be a State deficiency because the collective harm compromised resident's ability to reach or maintain their highest level of psychosocial well being, i.e. how the residents feel about themselves and their social relationships with members of the community. Charlotte's change in its activities policy in October of 2000 failed to afford each resident "self- determination and participation" and does not afford the residents the "right to choose activities and schedules" nor to "interact with members of the community outside the facility." AHCA has proved the allegations contained in Tag F242, that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents' self-determination and participation. By the testimonies of witnesses for AHCA and Charlotte and the documentary evidence admitted, AHCA has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Charlotte denied residents the right to choose activities and schedules consistent with their interests and has failed to permit residents to interact with members of the community outside the facility. Tag F324 As to the Federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged that Charlotte was not in compliance with certain of those requirements regarding Tag F324, for failing to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. As to State licensure requirements of Sections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2000), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code, Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that Charlotte had failed to comply with State established rules, and under the Florida classification system, classified Tag F324 noncompliance as a Class II deficiency. Based upon Charlotte's patient record reviews and staff interviews, AHCA concluded that Charlotte had failed to adequately assess, develop and implement a plan of care to prevent Resident 24 from repeated falls and injuries. Resident 24 was admitted to Charlotte on April 10, 2001, at age 93, and died August 6, 2001, before AHCA's survey. He had a history of falls while living with his son before his admission. Resident 24's initial diagnoses upon admission included, among other findings, Coronary Artery Disease and generalized weakness, senile dementia, and contusion of the right hip. On April 11, 2001, Charlotte staff had Resident 24 evaluated by its occupational therapist. The evaluation included a basic standing assessment and a lower body assessment. Resident 24, at that time, was in a wheelchair due to his pre-admission right hip contusion injury. On April 12, 2001, two days after his admission, Resident 24 was found by staff on the floor, the result of an unobserved fall, and thus, no details of the fall are available. On April 23, 2001, Resident 24 was transferred to the "secured unit" of the facility. The Survey Team's review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set, completed April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 required limited assistance to transfer and to ambulate and its review of Resident 24's Resident Assessment Protocols (RAPs), completed on April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 was "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's RAP stated that his risk for falls was primarily due to: (1) a history of falls within the past 30 days prior to his admission; (2) his unsteady gait; (3) his highly impaired vision; and (4) his senile dementia. On April 26, 2001, Charlotte developed a care plan for Resident 24 with the stated goal that the "[r]esident will have no falls with significant injury thru [sic] July 25, 2001," and identified those approaches Charlotte would take to ensure that Resident 24 would not continue falling. Resident 24's care plan included: (1) place a call light within his reach; (2) do a falls risk assessment; (3) monitor for hazards such as clutter and furniture in his path; (4) use of a "Merry Walker" for independent ambulation; (5) placing personal items within easy reach; (6) assistance with all transfers; and (7) give Resident 24 short and simple instructions. Charlotte's approach to achieving its goal was to use tab monitors at all times, to monitor him for unsafe behavior, to obtain physical and occupational therapy for strengthening, and to keep his room free from clutter. All factors considered, Charlotte's care plan was reasonable and comprehensive and contained those standard fall prevention measures normally employed for residents who have a history of falling. However, Resident 24's medical history and his repeated episodes of falling imposed upon Charlotte a requirement to document his records and to offer other assistance or assistive devices in an attempt to prevent future falls by this 93-year-old, senile resident who was known to be "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's care plan for Resident 24, considering the knowledge and experience they had with Resident 24's several falling episodes, failed to meet its stated goal. Charlotte's documentation revealed that Resident 24 did not use the call light provided to him, and he frequently refused to use the "Merry Walker" in his attempts of unaided ambulation. On June 28, 2001, his physician, Dr. Janick, ordered discontinuation of the "Merry Walker" due to his refusal to use it and the cost involved. A mobility monitor was ordered by his physician to assist in monitoring his movements. Charlotte's documentation did not indicate whether the monitor was actually placed on Resident 24 at any time or whether it had been discontinued. Notwithstanding Resident 24's refusal to cooperatively participate in his care plan activities, Charlotte conducted separate fall risk assessments after each of the three falls, which occurred on April 12, May 12, and June 17, 2001. In each of the three risk assessments conducted by Charlotte, Resident 24 scored above 17, which placed him in a Level II, high risk for falls category. After AHCA's surveyors reviewed the risk assessment form instruction requiring Charlotte to "[d]etermine risk category and initiate the appropriate care plan immediately," and considered that Resident 24's clinical record contained no notations that his initial care plan of April 23, 2001, had been revised, AHCA concluded that Charlotte was deficient. On May 13, 2001, Dr. Janick visited with Resident 24 and determined that "there was no reason for staff to change their approach to the care of Resident 24." Notwithstanding the motion monitors, on June 17, 2001, Resident 24 fell while walking unaided down a corridor. A staff member observed this incident and reported that while Resident 24 was walking (unaided by staff) he simply tripped over his own feet, fell and broke his hip. Charlotte should have provided "other assistance devices," or "one-on-one supervision," or "other (nonspecific) aids to prevent further falls," for a 93-year-old resident who had a residential history of falls and suffered with senile dementia. Charlotte did not document other assistive alternatives that could have been utilized for a person in the condition of Resident 24. AHCA has carried its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence regarding the allegations contained in Tag F324.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Agency enter a final order upholding the assignment of the Conditional licensure status for the period of August 30, 2001 through September 30, 2001, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500 for each of the two Class II deficiencies for a total administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 13th day of February, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Venice Hospital, a general acute care hospital offering 342 medical/surgical beds and 30 bed's for general psychiatric care, services a population of approximately 110,000 people in Southern Sarasota and Northern Charlotte Counties. Approximately 80% of its patients are covered by Medicare. This figure being higher than average, puts it somewhere in the top 5% of Medicare providers in Florida. The hospital's services are concentrated on geriatric patients and it is developing several programs devoted to that type of patient. It has recently received approval for nursing home development and operates a home health agency. Missing from the geriatric spectrum of services is the hospital based skilled nursing facility, (SNF), which is the subject of this action. Sarasota County currently has four med/surg hospitals, including Petitioner which is the only hospital in the Venice area. Petitioner has a licensed psychiatric unit which operates under separate rules and which is licensed separately but within the hospital cycle. The patients which are treated in that unit are of a different demographic make up than those treated in the med/surg beds and the staff which treats them is different. Petitioner completed a study of the potential need for SNF beds in the hospital which led to the conclusion being drawn by it that this service should be established. Mr. Bebee's review of the applicable rules and statutes indicated to him that the hospital could elect to designate a special care unit within the hospital without even having to go through Certificate of Need, (CON), review. A letter was submitted by the hospital to the Department on February 8, 1990, asking for an exemption from CON review for that project. Because no response to that letter was forthcoming, and because the hospital review cycle was fast coming up, on February 22, 1990, Mr. Bebee submitted a LOI to the Department seeking to convert 42 med/surg beds to a hospital based SNF facility at a cost of $310,000.00. After the LOI was sent, on February 26, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin, on behalf of the Department, responded by letter to Bebee's inquiry letter, indicating the CON review process was a necessary part of the process for Petitioner's facility, but that the LOI and application should be filed in the next nursing home batching cycle by April 30, 1990. Shortly thereafter, by letter dated March 13, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin rejected the LOI which Petitioner had submitted in the hospital cycle since, according to the Department, it was properly "reviewable under the nursing home review cycle rather than the hospital review cycle." Notwithstanding that rejection, and understanding the Department's position as to which cycle was appropriate, on March 26, 1990, Petitioner submitted its CON application for this project, modified to seek only 36 beds. By undated letter, the envelope for which was postmarked April 16, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin declined to accept that application for the same reason she had rejected the LOI. Petitioner has since filed a CON application for the same project in the current nursing home cycle, on a nursing home application form. It did this to keep its options open but considers that action as being without prejudice to the application at issue. Though numerical bed need is not in issue in this proceeding, a brief discussion of general need is pertinent to an understanding of why Petitioner has applied for approval of this project. Petitioner is of the opinion that SNF beds within the hospital setting will provide better care for the patients than could be provided in a nursing home. Many of the patients in issue are receiving intravenous applications of medicines; taking antibiotics; require orthopedic therapy; or are in respiratory distress calling for ventilator or other pulmonary procedures. These patients need a continuing level of nursing care on a 24 hour basis but no longer qualify for a hospital continued length of stay. Petitioner currently has and is taking care of such patients in the facility, but would like to do so in a more organized, systematic manner which could be accomplished in a hospital based SNF. In addition, reimbursement rules dictate that patients no longer needing full hospital care but who remain in the hospital, become, in part, a cost to the hospital because no meaningful reimbursement is received for thatlevel of care. They would qualify for Medicare reimbursement, however, if the unit were designated and certified as a SNF. Medicaid does not recognize these beds as reimbursable because they are in a hospital. Certification for the hospital based SNF would be through the Health Care Financing Administration, (HCFA), and the Medicare program. To secure this certification, the hospital based unit would have to be a distinct part of the facility and not merely consist of beds scattered throughout the facility. Once certified, the unit is not referred to as a nursing home by HCFA or Medicare, but is classified as a hospital based unit. Because Petitioner sees this as a hospital project - a service that the hospital would be providing under its license, it chose to file for the approval in the hospital cycle rather than in the nursing home cycle. Bebee is familiar with the certification process for both hospitals and nursing homes. The latter is a lengthier process and is substantially different from that used for hospitals. In his opinion, it does not give the hospital based applicant the opportunity to properly justify the approval of a hospital based SNF since it deals more with the requirements of a community based facility. The nursing home form is highly structured whereas the hospital form makes it easier to identify and supply the appropriate supporting information for the project applied for. Further, Bebee does not consider the hospital based SNF bed in the same context as a community nursing home bed. The type of patient is not the same nor are the resources required to treat that patient. Petitioner has purchased a CON to construct a 120 bed community nursing home within the Venice area which will have some SNF beds in it. Nonetheless, because of the basic difference between the services, it still plans to pursue the hospital based SNF. A Florida Hospital Association study concluded that SNF in hospitals are different and there is a lack of this type of service in the hospitals throughout the state. This study, dated May, 1989, at Page 5 reads: Conversion of hospital beds to nursing home beds could improve the financial viability of hospitals, reduce purchasers' and consumers' health costs, and improve access to care for patients requiring higher levels of nursing care, [if they are needed and meet quality care requirements]. Bebee also points out that if this project is considered in the nursing home cycle rather than in the hospital cycle, it would result in a hospital competing with nursing homes which are seeking a different type of bed - community versus SNF. Current community nursing home bed need is set at 0. Petitioner's nursing home cycle application was filed under the "not normal circumstances" provision, but there may still be substantial contest. This type of litigation, he believes, adds unreasonably and unnecessarily costs and is a resultant financial burden to the hospital. Mr. Balzano, a health care consultant and Petitioner's other expert, confirmed and amplified the substance of Mr. Bebee's thesis. He compared hospital based SNFs with those in community nursing homes and found notable differences aside from the statutes and rules governing each. Petitioner's current beds are controlled under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D- 28, F.A.C. If some were converted to SNF beds under the pending application, they would still fall under the purview of that statute and rule. On the other hand, community nursing home SNF beds would be controlled by the provisions of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-29, F.A.C. There is a substantial difference between them. Other differences are: Patients in hospital based SNF beds generally have greater nursing requirements than those in SNF beds in community nursing homes. Staffing in hospital based SNF is generally higher than in free standing nursing homes. The average stay is shorter in a hospital based SNF. Patients are not there for continuing care but for restorative care. The size of a hospital based SNF unit is generally smaller than that in a free standing unit. Costs are usually greater in a hospital based SNF unit reflecting the greater needs of the patient. Therefore, reimbursement is generally higher. Health services in the different systems are different and a comparative review would be difficult. The questions in the different application forms reflect a different approach and in the nursing home application, relate to residential type care. This is not the case in the hospital form. Costs relating to the use of an existing facility would be cheaper for the hospital based unit when compared with building a new nursing home facility. However, the costs of hospital construction are usually higher than nursing home construction though the quality of construction is generally better. The operating costs for the more complex services provided in a hospital based unit are higher and Petitioner would have trouble competing if reimbursement were based on the classification as a nursing home. Higher staffing levels and higher staffing costs in a hospital based facility would act in disfavor of that facility. The state generally looks with greater favor on projects for Medicaid patients. Hospital based units are not oriented toward that group and would, therefore, not be given the same consideration, as would be a nursing home which catered to Medicaid patients. The type of patient, (residential vs. subacute) has an impact. The hospital based unit provides treatment to the more acutely ill patient. SNF patients who need that higher degree of care would get it better at a hospital based facility which has greater resources to meet patient needs. Mr. Balzano feels it is unfair to compare the two types of properties. The differences in the programs would have an impact on the issue of need when comparative review is done. A SNF in the hospital setting is different but would be compared, if the nursing home cycle were used, against the total pool of community nursing home beds even though the patients are different and their need for services are different. Need methodology looks at historical utilization. Hospital based SNF patients turn over more frequently than do community nursing home patients and the occupancy level is not as high in the hospital based setting. This would bring the average occupancy rate in an area down and could affect the need for community beds across the board. It is also noted that hospital based SNF beds would not be appropriate to house community nursing home patients who could not be accommodated in a nursing home, and vice-versa. SNF patients could normally not be appropriately treated in a community nursing home because of their greater needs. If compared in a batched review, however, they would be considered together without that distinction being made. Since all other hospital services are reviewed under the provisions of Chapter 395 parameters as hospitals, Balzano sees it as inconsistent to review hospital based SNF beds under the nursing home criteria. He can find no statutory or rule provision requiring this. The Department has drafted a proposed rule on the subject but that proposal is presently under challenge. Further, Medicare considers hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home based SNF beds as different entities with the hospital based beds earning a higher reimbursement ceiling due to the increased services and the different type of patient. According to Mr. Balzano, in Florida, hospital based SNF beds account for 1/2 of 1% of all hospital beds. Nationwide the figure is 4%. Balzano feels this is because in Florida there is no criteria to judge need against and therefore these beds are compared to all nursing home beds. He considers this wrong, especially in a state where there is such a high percentage of elderly patients. It is, in his opinion, poor health planning, and when compared against other nursing homes, the hospital based SNF unit will always be at a disadvantage. The testimony of Ms. Sharon Gordon-Girvin, Director of the Department's Office of Community Health Services and Facilities, reveals the Department's rationale in its rejection of the Petitioner's LOI for the instant project and the subsequent return of its application. The application was rejected because there was no underlying LOI for the project. The LOI was initially rejected as having been filed in an inappropriate cycle, (hospital). The Department's policy, calling for applications for all extended care or hospital based skilled nursing facility beds to be filed in a nursing home batching cycle has been in place for an extended period going back before 1984. The Department looks at extended care beds and SNF beds as somewhat equivalent but different. The designation of extended care facility beds initially used by HCFA, (Medicare), in hospital situations is no longer applicable. Now, Medicare recognizes SNF beds in hospitals, but does not distinguish them from other types of hospital based beds. The service is considered the same and the patients must meet identical admissions criteria. The reasons relied upon by the Department, from a health planning standpoint, for reviewing applications for hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home cycle are: Medicare conditions of service and admission criteria are the same, and The State nursing home formula rule projects a need for all nursing home beds, (SNF and ICF) , and does not differentiate between type. Providers compete for the beds, not where they will be used or under what conditions. The mere need for special treatment such as ventilators or intravenous antibiotics is not controlling. If the patient does not need the acute care provided to hospital acute care patients, since a "subacute" status is no longer recognized by the state, it is the Department's position that that patient should be in intermediate care status. This position is incorporated in the Departments proposed rule which is currently under challenge. It had been elucidated, however, in both the 1988 and 1990 editions of HRSM 235-1, relating to Certificates of Need, where at section 9-5 in both editions the text reads: 9-5 Skilled Nursing Unite in Hospitals. Beds in skilled nursing units located in hospitals will be counted in the nursing home bed inventory, even though they retain their licensure as general medical surgical beds. In addition, the Florida State Health Plan for 1989 and for each year since 1984, has counted hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home bed inventory. The parties stipulated to that point. Ms. Gordon-Girvin admits that it is sometimes difficult for an applicant to apply for hospital based SNF beds on a nursing home application for, but claims that is as it should be. She asserts that the patients are the same, (disputed), and since, she claims, a hospital cannot provide the same services that a full service nursing home could provide, the applicants should be differentiated on the basis of services rather than patient category to justify the additional cost inherent in the hospital based setting. In short, she believes the current situation is appropriate since it requires the applicant, a hospital, to look more carefully at the terms and conditions of the services to be provided. In so far as this results in health care cost savings, her position is accepted. She also contends that the Florida Hospital Association study relied upon by Petitioner to support its position that hospital based SNF bed applications for distinct units cannot compete fairly against nursing homes in a comparative CON review, is not pertinent here considering it was prepared to examine an excess of hospital bed inventory and possible alternative uses as income sources. Regardless of the purpose of the study, absent a showing that it is unreasonably slanted or biased, its conclusions have not been successfully rebutted. Ms. Gordon-Girvin also contends that the low percentage of hospital based SNF beds as compared to total hospital beds is a positive result of the state's efforts to reduce costly services in favor of less costly alternatives. The Department has the exclusive charter to determine which services are to be reviewed and how the review is to be conducted. Even if the proposed rule formalizing the procedure questioned here is stricken, the policy currently being utilized by the Department would still be valid and appropriate. Psychiatric, substance abuse, and rehabilitation beds in hospital inventories are considered distinct from acute care beds, but are still classified as hospital beds because there are no reasonable alternatives for treatment of those conditions. With regard to those patients using hospital based SNF beds, however, the Department claims there is an alternative, the community nursing home based SNF beds. In further support of the Department's position, Amy M. Jones, the Department's Assistant Secretary for Health Care Facilities and an expert in facility licensing and certification in Florida, pointed our that the Department treats hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home SNF beds the same because: conditions of participation are the same and the Department wants to look at and compare similar activities in the same cycle, and pertinent statutes and rules both provide for comparison of similar beds and similar services. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, defines the various types of hospital beds as psychiatric, rehabilitative, and general medical/surgical acute care beds regardless of how they are used. The HCFA Conditions of Participation call for certification of SNF beds as either a distinct part of another facility or as a free standing facility. The agency regulations, as outlined in The Federal Register for February 2, 1989, outlines the requirement that SNF beds in a hospital be surveyed just as are community nursing home SNF beds. Taken as a whole, it would appear that both federal and state regulatory agencies look at SNF beds, regardless of where located, as an integral part of a nursing home operation as opposed to a hospital operation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department affirming its rejection of the Petitioner's Letter of Intent and CON application for the conversion of medical/surgical beds to SNF beds filed in the hospital batching cycle. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 30th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES NOS. 90-2738 & 90-3575 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Not a proper Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein as it relates to Petitioner's filing of the LOI and the CON application. The balance is background information and is not a proper Finding of Fact. 3.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a proper Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Accepted and incorporated herein except for first sentence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. &13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14.&15. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18.-21. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but merely a restatement of the testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. &26. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. &29. Not a Finding of Fact but argument and a restatement of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact but argument. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted. Recitation of the witnesses testimony is accurate, but the conclusion drawn does not necessarily follow. Frequency of use does not necesarily determine the finality of the policy. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted as a presentation of the contents of the document. Accepted. Accepted as represented. 38.-40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 42.&43. Accepted. Accepted. &46. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1.&2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive - Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jeffery A. Boone, Esquire Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Linda K. HarSris General Counsel DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues under consideration are those associated with applications filed by the aforementioned private parties seeking certificates of need for skilled nursing home beds based on a fixed need pool of May, 1989, which identified 261 beds for the January, 1992 planning horizon. The beds are available in HRS District III. The applications are for: CON Action No. 5987 Inverness--20 beds; CON Action No. 5912 Suwannee--60 beds; CON Action No. 5913 McCoy-- 60 beds; CON Action No. 5962 Starke--120 or 60 beds; and CON Action N. 5905 Regency--120 beds.
Findings Of Fact Related to the May, 1989 batching cycle HRS has identified a need for 261 nursing home beds in District III. The applicants accept that determination of the pool of beds, that is to say no applicant has sought beds over and above the 261 beds identified by HRS. Further, the parties have expressed their agreement to allow Regency to be granted CON 5905 to construct a new nursing home facility in Lake County, Florida, which will have 120 beds. The written stipulation sets out the parties belief that all applicable criteria for obtaining a certificate of need as set out in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, have been met. That stipulation is accepted, provided the following conditions are met in issuing the certificate of need: The annual resident population of the facility shall include at least 62% of Medicaid patient days. Two beds shall be dedicated to the care of Alzheimer and respite care residents. The facility shall be a one story design consisting of 43,000 square feet in size. Likewise, the parties have agreed to allow the issuance of CON 5987 to Inverness to add 20 community nursing beds to its existing facility in Inverness, Florida. That written stipulation points out the agreement by the parties concerning the Inverness compliance with all applicable criteria set out in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes as well as any implementing rules set forth in Chapter 10-5, Florida Administrative Code. The arrangement is one by which existing ACLF beds are converted to nursing home beds. That stipulation is accepted, upon condition that Inverness commit to provide a minimum of 75.2% of total patient days for Medicaid patients. The Inverness stipulation which reiterates Inverness' lack of opposition to the grant of a certificate of need to Regency also withdraws its opposition to McCoy, Starke and Suwannee. By the terms of the stipulation's 140 of the 261 beds in the pool are spoken for. This leaves for consideration the applications of Suwannee, Starke and McCoy. In the absence of subdistricting, District III is divided into seven planning areas. The planning areas are as established by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc. Planning Area l is constituted of Hamilton, Suwannee, Lafayette, Columbia, Union and Bradford counties. Suwannee intends to place its facility in Suwannee County. Starke intends to place its facility in Columbia County. The expansion of the McCoy facility would occur in Marion County which is the sole county in Planning Area 4. By resort to the North Central Florida Health Planning Council District III Health Plan preferences can be seen concerning the allocation of beds among the applicants within the various planning areas. A copy of that plan is HRS Exhibit No. 2. Under this scheme the McCoy application to add 60 additional nursing home beds to its existing facility in Marion County, Florida, is considered a third priority. A third priority would allow the addition of at least 60 beds and no more than 120 beds. The Suwannee and Starke applications are a fourth priority under the local plan which allows for an addition of up to 60 beds. The McCoy application as presented at hearing responds adequately to all applicable criteria set out in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, to include the State Health Plan and District III Health Plan. McCoy holds a superior license rating at present and has a proposed capital expenditure for this project of $1,568,000. Taking into consideration the proposed allocation of beds set forth in the local health plan, the distance between the McCoy facility and the proposed facilities in Suwannee and Columbia counties by the applicants Suwannee and Starke and absent proof which clearly identifies that Suwannee and Starke are meaningful competitors against McCoy and its attempt to gain a certificate of need calling for expansion of its facility, the McCoy application should be granted. That grant should be conditioned upon a willingness to serve Alzheimer patients in the proposed 14 bed unit and the commitment to provide Medicaid at a 60% level as a minimum commitment. This arrangement would bring the total number of nursing home beds at McCoy to 120, a desirable number when considering economies of scale. What must be resolved by comparative analysis of the applications of Suwannee and Starke, is which of those competitors for 60 beds out of the 61 beds remaining in the pool should be granted a certificate of need, if any. Starke had noticed its intention to apply for 120 beds and made application for 120 beds and in the alternative for 60 beds. The decision to notice its intent to apply for 120 beds was not misleading nor inconsistent with HRS policy in a circumstance where the application was stated in the alternative for 120 beds or 60 beds. The significant point is that Starke explained its alternatives of 120 beds or 60 beds in detail in the course of the application. HRS perceives that the 120 bed notice of intent took into account a lesser number of beds being applied for on the due date for applications and that perception is reasonable. Suwannee noticed the intent to apply for 60 beds and applied for that many. Both Suwannee and Starke met all procedural requirements for consideration of their applications for nursing home beds. In determining the disposition of the 60 nursing home beds needed for Planning Area l within District III, it is noted that Suwannee and Columbia counties are contiguous. Columbia is east of Suwannee. While the main emphasis by these applicants is to serve the needs of residents within the two counties where the facilities would be located, given their contiguity there is a potential for either applicant to serve needs within both counties. Columbia county is the more populous county. However, in the two counties the age cohorts in the 65 and over group and 75 and over group are similar, especially in the 75 and over group. Occupancy rates in the existing nursing homes within the two counties are also similar. The J. Ralph Smith Health Center in Suwannee County has 107 existing beds and 54 beds approved. Those additional 54 beds were designated for residents of the Advent Christian Village exclusively; however, the residents of that village constitute part of the population base in Suwannee county. Therefore this limited utilization of that resource still benefits citizens within Suwannee county. Surrey Place in Suwannee county has 60 beds and the Suwannee Health Care Center has 120 beds with 60 more approved. The 60 additional beds may not be constructed in that the applicant failed to proceed to construction in the time contemplated by CON 3746 and may lose the beds. Columbia County has Tanglewood Care Center with 95 beds. It has Lake City Medical Center with 5 beds associated with a hospital. Palm Garden of Columbia has approval for 60 beds. On balance there would not appear to be an advantage to placing the 60 beds at issue in either Suwannee or Columbia counties when considering the population to be served, present occupancy rates for existing nursing bomes and geographic accessibility to the proposed nursing homes. Suwannee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Santa Fe Health Care, Inc. The parent corporation filed the application with the permission of Suwannee. The 60 bed nursing home facility is part of an overall project which includes the replacement of an existing 60 bed acute care hospital with a 30 bed acute care hospital. If the proposals are accepted the hospital and 60 bed nursing home would be located on a common parcel. HRS has granted CON 6179 to decertify 30 beds. The approved cost of the delicensure and establishment of the new hospital is $6,752,824. The nursing home component of this project is stated to cost $3,408,100 in the way of capital expenditures with an operating equity in the amount of $300,000. The overall health care delivery system contemplated in the hospital and nursing home project includes the replacement hospital, the new nursing home, an out patient diagnostic center, home health care, hospice and adult day care services. Suwannee has the financial backing of its parent corporation which owns a number of health care facilities including six hospitals, two health maintenance organizations and six other health related corporations. Both Suwannee and the parent corporation Santa Fe Health Care, Inc. are not for profit. The Santa Fe operations are in Florida and its hospital holdings include other rural hospitals in addition to Suwannee which is a rural hospital. Before filing the application for the 60 bed nursing home neither Suwannee nor the Santa Fe parent corporation had any involvement in long term health care delivery. Suwannee intends to serve the needs of Alzheimer patients and to provide services to persons needing subacute care. In its present hospital facility in Suwannee County it has 24 swing beds with which it serves patients needing subacute care and which beds are seen as an alternative to nursing home beds. That alternative has limited utility. Although swing beds may serve nursing home patients they are not an alternative for long term care in lieu of community nursing home beds. To the extent that Suwannee Hospital has tried to place patients in nursing homes needing a high level of skilled care, described as subacute care, it has experienced problems. Existing nursing homes in Suwannee County have not accepted the placement of those patients. It is unclear from the record what portion of subacute care needed in the service area will continue to be met in the hospital proper with the advent of delicensure of 30 beds. There was testimony to the affect that the hospital has the option to request swing beds in its remaining 30 bed hospital facility, but it has not been shown that the hospital will avail itself of that opportunity and through the use of the swing beds be able to render subacute care. The description by Suwannee of the subacute patients that it is contemplating serving through its nursing home are those who require a shorter stay in nursing facilities, who are said to have fragile medical condition and require intensive licensed nursing care. In the application, it states that the Medicare patients contemplated as being served by this prospective nursing home would be the principal users of the subacute care. There patients would have an average length of stay of 15 days with 12 patients per month being served. The Medicare per diem charge of $130 for the first year of operation is said to include the cost of care given to these patients who are said to be heavy users of subacute care. That per diem charge reflects ancillaries such as the various therapies as well. Having considered the explanation of this application, it is less than apparent what the difference would be between the subacute care services now being provided by the hospital in its swing beds and those contemplated by its nursing home application. In a similar vein, it is unclear what the distinction would be between the subacute care rendered in the proposed nursing home when contrasted with the subacute care being provided in swing beds that might be available in the 30 bed replacement hospital. If granted a certificate of need Suwannee is committed to serving AIDS patients. Suwannee intends to serve Medicaid patients and it projects a percentage of patient days attributable to Medicaid patients in the first two years of operation to approximate 73%. This is contrasted with experience statewide of 62%, within District III of 75% and within the planning area of 81%. Projected per diem rate for Medicaid reimbursement within the first year of operation is $68. The financial expert presented by Suwannee said that the applicant could charge as much as $10 to $12 more, making the Medicaid rate $78 to $80 per day. This increase contemplates raising the present caps on reimbursement. The record does not support increases in the caps of $10 to $12 in the relevant planning period. In the first year of operation the private room, private pay per diem rate at Suwannee reflects $97 as the charge and $80 as the charge for semiprivate room, private pay. This is as compared to $130 for Medicare per diem. Although it is unacceptable to charge more for Medicare than private pay, Schedule 12 within the application shows the inclusion of ancillaries for the Medicare patient and the exclusion of ancillaries for private pay. Under the circumstances it is difficult to tell whether the Medicare per diem charges exceed the private pay per diem charges as has been contended by Starke. The inclusion of the therapies as ancillary costs is shown on page 39 at Schedule 12 of the application of Suwannee. On Schedule 17 in the first operating year the therapies as ancillary costs are not broken out as individual items such as physical therapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy separate and apart from routine services. Instead an aggregate figure is given. That precludes an understanding of what portion of the per diem charge for Medicare patients is attributable to those ancillary costs. The circumstance is made more bewildering in that the financial expert presented by Suwannee stated that the $130 per diem charge had application to residents who were receiving subacute care. What portion of the per diem charge for Medicare residents is attributable to the subacute care component is not revealed in the application. Neither, is it explained in the testimony. Notwithstanding the assurance of the Suwannee financial planner that the Medicare rate projected for the first year of operation is in keeping with the Hospital Cost Containment Board's data on the average rate structure, that comment and his other explanations failed to establish the reasonableness of that charge. This is especially true when considering the fact that the Medicaid charges, even accepting an adjusted rate of $80 per day, are also indicated at Schedule 12 as including therapies and are far less than the Medicare per diem. Schedule 17 shows the Medicaid without reference to the therapies as an aggregate item in the same fashion as described with the Medicare category of reimbursement. Further, evidence of the fact that private room, private pay, does not exceed the Medicare per diem charge is related at Schedule 12 where it describes the subacute private room, private pay patient as paying $150 and the semiprivate, room private pay as paying $130. Again, in the Suwannee application in the first year of operation for both Medicaid and Medicare therapies are said to be included in the basic charges of $68 and $130 respectively shown at Schedule 12 and carried forward in the aggregate on Schedule 17. From the explanations stated by the financial planner, the projected costs for therapies by those two categories of patients is not reflected in the ancillary cost centers for physical therapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy found at lines 11-13 of Schedule 18. Instead, they are reflected at line 39 under other costs centers in the amount of $80,900. Moreover the $80,900 is said to include subacute services as well as the therapies. Having considered Schedules 12, 17 and 18 for the first operating year, together with the other evidence presented in the course of the hearing, the estimate at line 39 of Schedule 18 of $80,900 is unreliable. The Suwannee project contemplates a facility of approximately 24,370 square feet. The construction cost estimate is $62.44 per square foot. The total project cost per bed is $56,802. That far exceeds the caps for the property cost component related to Medicaid residents which is presently $30,350 per bed. Put another way, that translates to a differential of $11.64 per patient day above present reimbursement levels for Medicaid residents. That differential cannot be made up by resort to payments for ancillary services for that category of resident. The shortfall attributable to the costs per bed differential in the application of $56,802 compared to $30,350 per bed plus ancillaries is not expected to be made up by resort to other revenue sources within this proposal either, nor can it be properly be. This is particularly true when approximately 70% of the patient days are expected to be provided by Medicaid residents. Even if Suwannee were able to obtain reimbursement for the per bed cost of $56,802, this is much more than the Starke cost per bed which is approximately $30,000 as built. The cap that has been mentioned is the one effective July 1, 1990. Nothing in the testimony would suggest that the caps would approach $56,802 within the planning horizon for this review cycle. In summary, the financial feasibility of the Suwannee proposal has not been established. While the parent corporation, Santa Fe Health Care, Inc., is strong financially and able to sustain Suwannee in its nursing home operation in the short term, even with expected losses, the losses will be extraordinary and the long term feasibility has not been demonstrated either. Simply stated, too much money is being expended to establish this facility and it may not be recouped by resort to the reimbursement scheme identified in the application. Under the circumstances, the nursing home is not perceived as a means of promoting the financial well being of the overall project constituted of the nursing home, relocated hospital and associated services. It is not accepted that the manner and quality of care proposed to be delivered by Suwannee is so superior that it justifies the inordinate expense in delivering the care. In other particulars Suwannee has shown that it meets all applicable criteria for granting it a certificate of need, but the overall costs are so exorbitant that they preclude financial success in the project. In addition, even if the project met the criteria its costs compared to the Starke proposal are so much more that the Suwannee proposal should be rejected in favor of the Starke proposal. It is not accepted that a hospital based nursing home is superior to a freestanding nursing home as urged by the presentation made by Suwannee. Starke had applied for a 120 bed nursing home, with a separate request explaining its proposal to construct a 60 bed nursing home. It is that latter proposal that fits the need in Planning Area I of District III. The total capital expenditure for that alternative proposal is $1,882,713. The cost per square foot is approximately $60 in the 22,500 square foot facility. The per bed costs is in the neighborhood of $30,000. In the first year of operation the private room, private pay is $89; the semiprivate room, private pay rate is $79; the Medicaid rate is $69.50 and the Medicare rate is $69.50. These rates do not include ancillary charges for therapies. The Starke proposal will include a unit for Alzheimer, subacute care, adult day care and respite care. Starke will provide 80% of its patient days for Medicaid residents and 10% of its patient days for Medicare residents. The Medicaid performance exceeds that of Suwannee. That rate is consistent with the experience which Starke has in the operation of its Whispering Pines Care Center in Starke, Florida, a 120 bed nursing home facility which has held a superior license rating over the three years preceding the application. Starke as a corporation would own both the Starke, Florida facility and the proposed Lake City, Florida facility. The principals in that corporation with 50% ownership are J. D. Griffis and George R. Grosse, Jr. The subacute care that is to be provided is in patient rooms which are directly adjacent to the nursing station. It is the intention of the applicant to build these rooms to allow support for medical equipment needed in the treatment of those residents. Although some criticism has been directed to the architectural design of the proposed nursing home facility, Starke has committed itself to meet all applicable codes. Under the circumstances it does not appear that this application presents significant problems associated with resident safety or inordinate costs in making necessary adjustments to comply with applicable codes. The Starke application was prepared by Jerry L. Keach, the then administrator for University Nursing Care Center in Gainesville, Florida, operated by Covenant Care Corporation. By the comments found in the application it was contemplated that the Covenant Care group would manage the Starke facility in Lake City, Florida, which would do business as Lake City Care Center. No contract has been executed between Starke and Covenant Care Corporation to allow the latter entity to manage the Lake City facility assuming the grant of the certificate of need to that applicant. At hearing the principals for Starke indicated that Covenant Care together with other unnamed organizations would be considered as management for the nursing home in Lake City. Although this issue of management is unresolved, reservations about the project are overcome in recognition of the success of the Starke corporation in the operation of the Whispering Pines Care Center in Starke, Florida. That suffices as an indication that Starke is capable of installing appropriate personnel to operate the Lake City facility, and provide quality care. The assumptions concerning the various aspects of the proposals set forth in the Starke application are sufficiently explained in the course of the final hearing and those explanations are accepted. It is reasonable to expect that the nursing home could be constructed, staffed and operated in a manner consistent with the explanations found in the application and through testimony at hearing. A successful outcome is anticipated whether the Covenant Care Corporation is employed to operate the facility or not. The favorable impression of the Starke proposal is held notwithstanding the criticism directed to the financial feasibility by remarks offered by Suwannee. In particular the Suwannee Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence questioning the assumptions of the Starke applicant concerning income projections for the first two years have been taken into account. Whispering Pines Care Center presently offers care for Alzheimer patients and subacute services. Therefore problems are not anticipated in the provision of those services in the proposed facility. With due regard for the criticisms that have been directed to the financial ability of Starke to maintain its Whispering Pines Nursing Center and the proposed project in Lake City, Florida, it is found that the applicant has the ability to conduct those businesses. As with the matter of financial feasibility, Starke has satisfied all other applicable criteria for the grant of a certificate of need to construct the 60 bed nursing home.
Recommendation Based upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which requires all CONs granted to be consistent with the applications and in keeping with that intention: Grants CON 5987 to Inverness for the addition of 20 community nursing home beds to its existing facility upon condition that those beds be constituted of a minimum of 75.2% total patient days for Medicaid patients; Grants CON 5962 to Starke for construction of a nursing home in Columbia County, Florida, constituted of a minimum of 80% total patient days for Medicaid patients, that provides Alzheimer services, subacute care, day care and respite care; Grants CON 5910 to McCoy for the addition of 60 beds upon condition that 60% of the patient days be devoted to Medicaid patients; Grants CON 5905 to Regency for construction of a 120 nursing home facility with 62% of its patient dads being devoted to Medicaid patients, 2 beds dedicated to Alzheimer patients, provision of respite care and that the facility shall be a one-story design consisting of 43,000 gross square feet in size; and Denies the application for a 60 bed nursing home in Suwannee County made by Suwannee under CON Action No. 5912. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 September, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NOS. 90-0043 and 90-0045 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Inverness Paragraphs 1 through 3 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 4 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Suwannee Paragraphs 1 through 7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 is contrary to facts found in that the Starke application can be advanced without a resort to an affiliation with Covenant Care Corporation. Paragraph 9 is accepted; however, those facts do not cause the rejection of the Starke proposal. Paragraphs 10 and 11 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 12 is accepted as factually correct; however, this is not crucial in determining the outcome of this case. Concerning Paragraph 13, while the record reveals that Mr. Keach was responsible at a time moratorium had been placed on admissions into University Nursing Care Center in Gainesville, Florida, the record was not detailed enough to ascertain what influence that might have on his ability to act as an administrator at the Starke facility proposed in this instance or his competence in preparing the application. The representations found in Paragraph 14 do not preclude the consideration of the Starke application. Concerning Paragraph 15, the first sentence is rejected as fact. The second and third sentences are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Concerning Paragraph 16, those items which are mentioned did not cause the rejection of the Starke application in that Starke is committed to abide by all applicable codes to insure control over the patients. Paragraphs 17 through 21 are contrary to facts found. Concerning Paragraphs 22-24, the Starke proposal is found to be financially feasible. Paragraph 25-27 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 28, notwithstanding economies of scale they will not overcome the inherent extravagance in the costs associated with bringing the Suwannee project on line. Concerning Paragraph 29, while diversification for rural hospitals is desirable, the present attempt by Suwannee is unacceptable. Paragraph 30 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 31 see comment on Paragraph 29. Paragraph 32 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 33 is accepted; however, the principal service area would appear to be Suwannee County. The existence of service over to Hamilton, Madison, Lafayette and Columbia Counties does not change the perception of this case. Paragraph 34 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 35 is contrary to facts found as are Paragraphs 36 and 37. Concerning Paragraph 38, the affiliation of Suwannee with the Santa Fe Health Care system does not overcome the lack of financial feasibility. Paragraphs 39 and 40 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 41 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 42 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 43 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 44 and 45 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 46 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 47-55 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 56 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 57-60 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 61 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 62 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 63 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 64 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 65, notwithstanding these observations they do not justify the rate structure or per diem charges set out in the Suwannee application. Paragraph 66 is subordinate to facts found as are the first two sentences of Paragraph 67. The last sentence to Paragraph 67 is rejected. Paragraphs 68 and 69 are contrary to facts found. The first sentence of Paragraph 70 is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not relevant. Paragraphs 71 through the first sentence of Paragraph 73 is contrary to facts found. Concerning the last sentence of Paragraph 73, Starke is found to be financially feasible and Suwannee is not. Paragraph 74 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 75 and 76 have been taken into account in deciding that there are no particular advantages to placing the 60 beds in Columbia County as opposed to Suwannee County. Paragraph 77 in all sentences save the last is accepted. The last sentence is contrary to facts found in that subacute care will be rendered in the Starke facility. Paragraphs 78 through 80 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 81 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 82 is accepted in the premise, but use of Suwannee as the facility to serve this population is rejected based upon the lack of financial feasibility. Paragraph 83 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the subacute patients would not be best placed with Suwannee. Paragraph 84 and 85 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 86 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 1-5 with the exception of the last sentence in Paragraph 5 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning that latter sentence it is clear that Suwannee would intend to build the nursing home facility together with the hospital or exclusive of the hospital project. Paragraphs 6-8 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 9 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 10 is accepted and it is acknowledged that the applicants can approximate that average. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 13 Suwannee did establish its percentage of commitment to Medicaid through proof at hearing. Paragraphs 14 through 23 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 24 is contrary to facts found in that Starke offers no greater enhancement than Suwannee in terms of geographic accessibility and is not really a competitor in this criterion with McCoy. Paragraphs 25 through 27 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 28 is contrary to facts found in that Suwannee did identify the programs that it intends to offer. Paragraphs 29 through 36 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 37 in the first sentence is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 38 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 39 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Concerning Paragraph 40 while it is agreed that swing beds are skilled level of nursing home care they do not constitute reasonable alternatives to long term care. Paragraph 41 is subordinate to facts found in the first sentence. The second sentence in its suggestion that there is no significance to the lack of provision of these types of services under subacute care in area nursing homes is rejected. Paragraph 42 is rejected. Paragraph 43 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 44 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 45 through 52 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 53 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 54 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the reason that the Suwannee project is not found to be financially feasible does not include reference to a higher charge for Medicare patients than the charge to private pay patients. Paragraphs 55 through 60 with the exception of the last sentence in Paragraph 60 are subordinate to facts found. The nursing home is intended to be built whether the replacement hospital is built or not. Paragraphs 61 through 65 are subordinate to facts found. Starke Paragraphs 1 through 5 with the exception of the latter two sentences in Paragraph 5 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning the next to the last sentence, it was made clear that the intentions on the part of Suwannee were to build the nursing home. The last sentence to the extent that it is intended to suggest that this applicant is incapable of offering long term care services is rejected. Paragraphs 6 through 8 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 9 through 11 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 12 to the extent that it suggests that Suwannee is not willing to provide services to Medicaid recipients, it is rejected. Paragraphs 13 through 21 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 22 is contrary to facts found in that Starke is not seen as enhancing geographic accessibility to a greater extent than Suwannee its true competitor. Paragraphs 23 and 24 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 25 is contrary to facts found ih that Suwannee has identified its special programs. Paragraphs 26 through 33 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 34 is subordinate to facts found in the first sentence. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 35 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 36 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Concerning Paragraph 37 while it is agreed that swing beds are skilled level of nursing home care they do not constitute reasonable alternatives to long term care. Paragraph 38 is subordinate to facts found in the first sentence. The second sentence in its suggestion than there is no significance to the lack of provision of these types of services under subacute care in area nursing homes is rejected. Paragraph 39 is rejected. Paragraphs 40 and 41 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 42 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 43 through 50 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 51 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 52 is subordinate to facts found except as it suggests that the difference in rate between Medicaid patients and private pay patients in the Suwannee proposal forms the basis for the criticism that the Suwannee project is not financially sound. Paragraphs 53 through the first two sentence of Paragraph 59 are subordinate to facts found. Related to the latter sentences in Paragraph 59 it is clear that the schematic pertains to the basic design of the Suwannee facility whether attached to a new hospital or free standing. Paragraphs 60 through 64 are subordinate to facts found. McCoy Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 4 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 5 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 6 through 83 are subordinate to facts found. Regency Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 3 through 5 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Department Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Elizabeth McArthur, Esquire Jeffrey Frehn, Esquire Aurell, Radey, Hinkle and Thomas 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1000 Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, FL 32302 W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez and Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 2700 Blair Stone Road Tallahasee, FL 32314-6507 Leslie Mendelson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, FL 32308 James C. Hauser, Esquire F. Phillip Blank, Esquire R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Julie Gallagher, Esquire F. Philip Blank, P.A. 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Grafton B. Wilson, II, Esquire 711 North 23rd Avenue, Suite 4 Post Office Box 1292 Gainesville, FL 32602 R. Bruce McKibben, Esquire Dempsey and Goldsmith, P.A. 307 West Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact NATURE OF THE CONTROVERSY In response to a 144 nursing home bed need for southeast Duval County, Florida, Subdistrict 3, HRS Service District IV, several applicants filed nursing home bed certificate of need applications for the review cycle triggered by a December 5, 1990 deadline, including; CVI for a 60-bed addition to an existing 60-bed facility authorized by Certificate of Need No. 5602; Atrium for an 84-bed facility; Marriott for a 30-bed facility; Health Quest for a 41-bed renovation and conversion of assisted-living facility beds, or 24-bed addition to the existing nursing home. Two other applicants, Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America for a 120-bed facility and Health Care Properties of St. Augustine for a 60-bed facility, did not pursue administrative appeals of their applications. HRS found all of the applications to be complete and all proposals were comparatively reviewed on their merits, with the exception of the MCRI 24-bed proposal which HRS found was untimely. The Department noticed its intent to approve the applications filed by CVI and Atrium. MRCI and HQR are Petitioners contesting the HRS intent because their applications were denied. HQR also claimed standing as an alleged substantially affected existing facility; however, HQR did not present any evidence in support of its standing on these grounds. THE HRS REVIEW HRS required the applicants to submit their proposals on an application form designated "HRS Form 1455, Oct.`88". [CVI Ex. 8; Tr. 2461. This application form is not a rule. [E.D. Tr. 1618]. A work group consisting of HRS and nursing home industry representatives developed the application form and HRS review procedures. [S.G., Q. 14; CVI Ex. 10; ANH Ex. 8]. Criteria at Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, form the basis for 13 goals of the HRS review process. (Id. S.G. pp. 4-15, Q. 14-39; ANH Ex. 8, p. 4). The goals are as follows: The first goal promotes the establishment of facilities to provide services when and where needed, intended to implement Sections 381.705(l) (a), (b), (d), (e), (j), (l), (2)(a), (b), (d) and (e) The second goal promotes special resident programs for special population groups, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(a), (b), (c), (f), (j), (l), (2) (a), (b) and The third goal promotes the establishment of continuing care-type communities, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (j), (2)(a), (b) and (d). The fourth goal promotes use of professionals in a variety of disciplines to meet resident needs, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(b),(c), (f), (g), (h), (j), (1) and (n). The fifth goal promotes the establishment of well-designed, comfortable facilities, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(b), (c), (m) and (2)(c). The sixth goal promotes residents' rights and residents' quality of life, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(b), (c), (f), (j), (l) and (2)(b). The seventh goal promotes a full range of social services for nursing home residents, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(b), (c), (f), (j), (l) and (2)(b) and (d). The eighth goal promotes provision of services to Medicaid eligible residents, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(a), (h), (n) and (2) (e) The ninth goal promotes the establishment of nursing homes which do not intend to secure significant profits at the expense of resid ent care programs and facility design, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(b), (e), (h), (i), (l), (2)(a), (c) and (e) The tenth goal promotes nursing home locations which achieve a geographic distribution of nursing home beds, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (h), (j), (2) (a), (b) and (d). The eleventh goal promotes proper projection of construction costs, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(b), (e), (i) , (l), (m) , (2)(a) and (c) The twelfth goal promotes the establishment of nursing homes which have a record of implementing superior resident care programs and providing superior quality of care, intended to implement Sections 38 1.705(1) (b), (c), (f), (h), (j), (l), (n) and (2) (b); and The thirteenth goal promotes nursing home charges consistent with industry trends and Medicaid charges which are within Medicaid upper limits, intended to implement Sections 381.705(1)(b), (e), (h), (i), (l), (m), (2)(a) and (e) The working group identified the goals as representing desirable outcomes under the statute to be attained by successful applicants if specific objectives are achieved. Eight objectives, each relating to one or more of the goals are then utilized, with each operationally defined by several items of information. Scoring points are divided among the various items of information solicited under each objective. [SAG. p. 3, Q. 14, p. 17, 18, Q. 45; A.G. Tr. 1330]. The scoring system is not a rule; HRS utilizes it on a case-by-case basis to aid in decision-making. [A.G. Tr. 1273, 1274; S.G. Q. 43, 45, 46]. An application was measured by assessing the responses provided in the application against the point system. [ANH Ex. 8, p. 4; S.G. Q. 43, 45, 46]. The scoring system is a means to accomplish an evaluation of information--the process of forming, qualifying, verifying, and establishing judgments. Applicants are asked to specify concrete procedures or steps that, when implemented, are likely to result in a clear and predictable outcome. [S.G. Q. 44; A.G. Tr. 1320, 1321]. Thus, both operational features and the implementation process for those features are sought. All of the foregoing evaluation procedures, including the goals, objectives, review protocols and scoring system were disclosed to the applicants prior to application preparation and filing. [S.G. Q. 14; CVI Ex. 10; ANH Ex. 8; J.B. Q. 24]. Two HRS review consultants, a primary and a secondary reviewer, assigned a number to each application item which represented that consultant's assessment of how well the applicant's response addressed the particular item. [S.G. Q. 42, 43, 45; ANH Ex. 8, p. 4]. The ultimate score was calculated by a combination of manual and computer scoring which assigned the points available for each item number. [ANH Ex. 8 p. 4; S.G. Q. 45]. The scores assigned by each of the two consultants were then averaged. [ANH Ex. 8, p. 4; S.G. Q. 45]. A statistical reliability analysis of the consultants' assessments was then conducted before further evaluation proceeded. The work group also established protocols for evaluating the information provided by applicants. [S.G. Q. 14, 45]. The protocols utilized by the HRS provide a methodology which results in predictability, uniformity and commonality of judgment in the review of each application insofar as that is possible with subjective judgments of facts [S.G. Q. 42, 43, 45, 46]. Upon completion of the scoring, a final assessment was conducted by HRS managers who evaluated the overall presentation of information in the application available to make a judgment--the application of functional aspects with program components, whether the integration of the elements was internally consistent, and the likelihood that the proposal will have the success predicted by the applicant. [S.G. Q. 43, 46]. These elements serve as verification of the reviewer's actions and reflect the decision-making that occurs when the preliminary decision is made. Under the HRS evaluation system, there is no particular "passing" score. [S.G. Q. 45, 46]. The scores attained were utilized as an aid to evaluating the applications. [A.G. Tr. 1273, 1274]. The goal is to attain the highest possible percentage score possible based upon a potential base score of 1500 points. A successful applicant should demonstrate a consistently high number on each of the eight rated objectives. Reviewer judgment dictates the score; the score does not dictate the judgment. A display of the scores will quickly reveal weak points and inconsistencies in the application which assist HRS in exercising its decision- making discretion in weighing and balancing the statutory criteria. [A.G. Tr. 1273, 1274]. HRS prepared a "State Agency Action Report" which explained the evaluation, summarized the HRS findings, provided the scoring results, and stated HRS' intent to approve the CVI and ANH applications. [ANH Ex. 8]. 22. The scoring results Primary were: Secondary Average Percent of Reviewer Reviewer Score Maximum Atrium 1196.9 1274.33 1235.61 82.37 CVI 1175.28 1178.77 1177.03 78.47 Health Care & Retirement Corp. 1113.92 1185.4 1149.66 76.64 Health Care 1119.25 Properties of St . Augustine Marriott 1110.58 1150.90 1143.67 1135.08 1127.12 75.64 75.14 Health Quest (41 beds) 1079.46 1109.05 1094.26 72.95 Health Quest 1079.46 (24 beds) 1109.05 1094.26 72.95 The staff consultant with primary review responsibility exercised her professional judgment in reviewing the applications. [A.G. Tr. p. 1272]. /1 There was no evidence that approval of any of the four applicants would have an adverse impact on the costs of providing health services, especially in light of the numeric need and the high occupancy rates within the subdistrict. There were no alternatives within the subdistrict for the providing the type of care required except construction of additional beds or renovation of existing beds of a similar type. Both of these alternatives were presented by the various applicants. THE CVI APPLICATION CVI is a not-for-profit Florida corporation. [CVI Ex. 3, iiia, iiic; J.B. Q. 28; CVI Ex. 8]. It is a local service unit of the National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), a Missouri not-for-profit corporation. The NBA was founded in 1887, and is one of the general administrative units of the General Assembly of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The NBA provides care at numerous facilities to older adults, children and persons with developmental disabilities. [Id.; L.W. Q. 14]. Through local service units, (not including the CVI project), the NBA currently operates 13 nursing homes in 8 states. [Id.] CVI is developing a 65-acre adult retirement community on a site adjacent to the Mayo Clinic Jacksonville in southeast Duval County. [Id.]. Construction has been completed on all individual residential components of Phase I. [P.R. Tr. 200, 205, 206; K.V. Tr. 53; J.B. Tr. 311, 312; J.B. Q. 19]. The 60 bed addition will be part of Phase 11. [CVI Ex 3, PT 1, p. iiia; J.B. Q. 28]. Phase I consists of independent living apartments, an adult congregate living facility ("ACLF"), a 60-bed skilled nursing facility specifically designed for and dedicated to the care of persons afflicted with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia, and a core service building which contains administrative and other support facilities- [P.R. Tr. 200, 205, 206; K.V. Tr. 53; J.B. Tr. 311, 312; J.B. Q 19; CVI Ex. 3, PT II, p. 50a, supp. after p. 72a]. These elements, as required, have already been granted CON's. Phase I also included a maintenance building which in turn includes a laundry to serve the campus. [Id.; J.B. Q. 78, 79; CVI Ex. 3, PT I, p. 40a]. The Alzheimer's facility was authorized pursuant to Certificate of Need No. 5602 issued to CVI in 1989. [CVI Ex. 9; J.B. Q. 18]. The Alzheimer's facility consists of a 60-bed unit connected to the core service building. The 60 beds proposed by CVI herein will be located in a new nursing unit a.ii so to be /2 connected to the core service center. [Id.; P.R.Q. 12, 13, 14; P.R. Tr. 188, 189]. The Alzheimer's unit will also serve as a research center. [CVI Ex. 3, PT II, p. 71a, 71b; T.W. Q. 46, 47; K.V. Q. 17, 18]. All residents will participate in low-risk research such as diagnostic assessments, tracking the degenerative process through the collection of clinical data, behavioral observation and modification, activity-based therapy, and the use of environmental cues. [Id.; T.W. Q. 13]. Ultimately, dietary and drug therapies will also be the subject of research. [T.W. Q. 13]. The Mayo Clinic Jacksonville has a special Alzheimer's disease research team which will actively participate in the CVI research. [Id.]. CVI will be the only applicant licensed by HRS to operate the Alzheimer's unit. [F.D. Tr. 1565, 1566]. The Alzheimer's unit constitutes the nursing facility to which the proposed 60 nursing unit beds will be added.. [Id.]. CVI PROPOSED NURSING UNIT PROGRAM/QUALITY OF CARE CVI seeks a CON for a 60-bed nursing home addition to the ACLF mentioned above. The majority of the residents for the proposed nursing unit will come from the adult community developed by CVI which will be occupied by residents from within the total district. However, it is not anticipated that the adult community will be a direct source for nursing home residents for at least five years after the nursing unit is opened. [J.B. Q. 52, 103]. The CVI nursing unit will provide nursing care of a more generalized nature compared to the Alzheimer's unit. [J.B. Q. 26; K.V. Q. 28; CVI Ex. 3, PT II, p. iiia]. Consistent with CVI's plan for a continuum of care, the proposed nursing unit beds will also serve residents initially admitted to the Alzheimer's unit but whose disease has progressed to the point where the medical diagnosis becomes primary and, therefore, skilled nursing care becomes the primary need for that resident. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, iiia; J.B. Q. 26; CVI Ex. 3, PT II, pp. 46a-46c; K.V. Q. 26, 27, 28]. However, utilizing existing Alzheimer's unit resources, these former Alzheimer's unit residents will still receive specialized care and participate in research; CVI Ex. 3, PT II, pp. 71a, 71b; T.W. Q. 46, 47]. CVI defines a "program" as those services designed to correct a resident's problem or condition. [CVII Ex. 3, PT I, p. 46a-46c; K.V. Q. 26, 27, 28]. The CVI nursing unit will offer three different specialized programs: (a) Alzheimer's care offering specific therapies for residents with Alzheimer's disease or related dementias; (b) a medically complex program offering restorative, therapeutic care for residents with acute, medically complex conditions; and (c) an inter-generational enrichment program for the purpose of stimulating nursing residents by daily interaction with children in a structured therapeutic activity. [Id.] Given the experience of the NBA at other local service units, CVI can reasonably be expected to provide excellent quality of care through the support and resources of NBA. [CVI Ex. 3, PT ii, pp. 24a-24c; T.W. Q. 29, 30; K.V. Q. 54]. CVI PROPOSED NURSING UNIT DESIGN SUPPORT FEATURES The nursing unit will comprise 18,720 square feet of new construction, with 28 semiprivate rooms, 3 private rooms, and one isolation room. [CVI Ex. 3, iiia; P.R. Q. 14-16]. The nursing unit will include an activity room, a day room/lounge with an outside activity deck, a nourishment station, and three garden recreation areas. [Id.]. The quality of life and care of the CVI nursing unit resident will be enhanced by resources available in the adjacent core service building which include a kitchen, a large, dividable dining area, activity rooms, physical and occupational therapy areas, beauty and barber shops, administration areas offices, medical treatment rooms, and a visitor lounge. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, p. iiia; J.B. Q. 28]. Construction of the core service building was completed as part of the construction for the Alzheimer's unit. [P.R. Tr. 205-208]. When HRS reviewed the feasibility of the certificate of need application for the Alzheimer's unit, it also reviewed plans for the core service building. [P.R. 196-203, 207, 208; HQR Ex. 44; J.B. Tr. 255, 256]. The Alzheimer's unit was approved as a 60-bed alternative to a 120-bed nursing home proposed in CVI's earlier application for Certificate of Need No. 5602. [Id.]. Approval of the 60-bed Alzheimer's unit did not change the design nor reduce the total space planned far the core service building. [Id.]. The CVI nursing unit addition will not require the conversion, through renovation or new constructions of any area within the core service building. [P.R. pp. 200-206; J.B. Tr. 311, 312]. After the Alzheimer's unit project construction was underway, HRS allocated 7741 square feet of the core service building to represent the amount of core service area space under HRS nursing home jurisdiction. [P.R. Tr. 196, 199; HQR Ex. 42]. It is unrebutted that this allocated space will be sufficient to support both the proposed nursing unit beds and the Alzheimer's unit. [J.B. Tr. 311, 312; P.R. Tr. 196-203, 205, 206]. The allocated core space includes an allocation for the main dining room. Use of this main dining area is optional for residents of the Alzheimer's unit and the proposed nursing unit, since each unit has its own adequate dining facilities. [P.R. Tr. 188-191, 229; K.V. pp. 59, 60]. CVI will provide child day care for employees, and these children will participate inn the inter-generational enrichment program. [CVI Ex. 3,PT II, pp. 46a, 60a, 60b; K.V. 27, 28, 33, 34]. Ultimately, the child day care center will be located within a new apartment building, but will be temporarily housed in the core service building. [K.V. Tr. 52, 58]. CVI will also eventually construct a chapel to be located on the campus. [CVI Ex. 3, PT II, p. 66b; K.V. Q. 43, 44]. Until then, the nursing home residents will be able to utilize a chapel area located in one of the lounge areas in the existing apartment building. [K.V. Tr. p. 56]. CVI's semiprivate rooms are specially designed to provide a physical separation, through the use of a dividing wall, that approaches the privacy of a single room with the economizes of a semiprivate room, while still allowing each resident to have the very important contact with another person. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, p. iiia, Appendix 11(4B); P.R. Q. 14-16; P.R. Tr. 182-186]. Each bed will overlook an individual adjacent window. [Id.]. CVI PROJECT COSTS CVI reasonably projects that the nursing unit will involve a total project cost of $3,286,258 - ($301,175 land, $2,174,108 (including $79,880 fixed equipment) building construction, $231,525 moveable equipment, and $571,450 intangible asset and deferred) [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, 24-27c; J.B. Q. 37-39, 41; P.R. Q. 8; T.W. Q. 19-21]. CVI's capital budget also includes the possible development of additional ACLF units on a second floor of the nursing unit building as part of Phase II. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, pp. 28, 28a; J.B. Q. 42; J.B. Tr. 303, 304]. However, the CVI nursing unit construction cost was conservatively projected on the basis that the nursing unit would, like the Alzheimer's unit, be a one-story building. [P.R. Tr. 193-195]. It thereby accounts for all construction, including the roof, necessary to build the 18,720 square foot nursing unit. [Id.]. CVI's projected construction costs for the proposed nursing unit are reasonable and conservative. [CVI Ex. 3, PT 1, p. 27a; J.B. Q. 38, 39, 40; P.R. Q. 6; P.R. Tr. 210-212; CVI Ex. 34]. In the application, they were premised upon the Alzheimer's unit costs as known at the time the application was submitted. [Id.]. The reasonableness of the proposed nursing unit construction cost projections was again verified by the time of hearing in August, 1991. [J.B. Q. 41]. For construction (labor, materials, overhead, construction management, and profit) CVI projected a cost of $1,825,144, or $97.50 per square foot [CVI Ex. 3 PT 1, p. 27a; J.B. Q. 38, 39, 40; P.R. Q. 6; P.R. Tr. 210-212; CVI Ex. 34]. CVI certified to HRS that the final construction cost for the Alzheimer's unit under Certificate of Need No. 5602, including fixed equipment, was $76.33 per square foot. [CVI Ex. 34]. Adding the construction management fee, the final cost was $81.30 per square foot. [Id.]. If CVI's fixed equipment costs of $79,880 were added to the $1,825,144 projected construction cost for CVI's nursing unit, the result would be $101.74 per square foot. If the comparable Alzheimer's unit cost of $81.30 per square foot was conservatively inflated for a two year period (to allow adequate construction commencement after final agency action, see CVI Ex. 3, PT II, p. 57; P.R. 1. 25, 26) the result of $89.63 per square foot again reveals the reasonableness of CVI's projected construction costs. The CVI proposed nursing unit will occupy approximately 3 acres of the total 65 acre campus. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, pp. iiia, 27a; J.B. Q. 28,38, 39, 46]. CVI reasonably allocated, pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles, a portion of the land's fair market value and land improvement costs to the proposed nursing unit 60-bed project. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, p. 27a; J.B. Q. 38, 39; J.B. Tr. 294-296]. CVI's ABILITY TO FINANCE THE PROJECT CVI has the ability to finance the nursing unit project. [ANH Ex. 8, p. 22]. Phase I, including: the Alzheimer's unit, of the CVI campus was financed through a $21,960,000 tax exempt bond issue through the Jacksonville Health Facilities Authority. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, p. 28a, 1990 Audited: Financial Statement, p. 10; CVI Ex. 8; R.B. Tr. 241, 242]. CVI intends to secure the same type of financing for the proposed nursing unit. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, pp. 30, 30a; J.B. Q. 44-46; CVI Ex. 3, Appendix 5(2.c.1); L.W. Q. 8-10; R.B. Q. 5-13; R.B. Tr. 241,: 242]. The Jacksonville Health Facilities Authority provided the tax exempt bond issue through the authority of Chapter 159, Part II, Florida Statutes. [CVI Ex. 8, p. 1]. Thus, pursuant to the provisions of the statute, CVI Phase I project in its entirety (which includes the core service building and the ACLF) necessarily was found to be financially feasible. See Section 159.29, Florida Statutes. CVI will be primarily responsible for repayment of the bond proceeds but the NBA will guarantee the bond issue, as it did for Phase I. [Id.; M.G. Q. 26]. The NBA has significant financial strength. In 1988, it had total assets of $145,493,840. [CVI Ex. 8; L.W. Q. 16]. In 1989, the total grew to $168,507,027. [Id.]. In 1988, it realized a net income (revenue over expenditures) of $5,670,754. [Id.]. In 1989, the income increased to $11,563,778. [Id.] The NBA has secured third party financing for its local service units on numerous other occasions. [L.W. Q. 7; R.B. pp. 241, 242]. The most recent occasion involved tax exempt bond financing immediately prior to the hearing, ore July 31, 1991. [L.W. Q. 7]. The investment banking firm which has worked on several tax exempt bond financing projects with the NBA, and which handled the financing for Phase I of CVI, has reviewed the financing proposal for the CVI nursing unit and has found it to be reasonable and achievable. [R.B. Q. 1-13]. Raising charitable funds has been a regular activity of the NBA and its local service units. [L.W. Q. 11, 13]. To date, CVI has raised $4,000,000. [Id.]. As of June 30, 1991, $1,327,589 in cash from donations was still available for the proposed nursing unit. [Id.; J.B.Q. 44-46]. The CVI application revealed $24 million in assets consisting primarily of bond issue proceeds. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, pp. 28-28(b); J.B. Q. 42, 43]. CVI STAFF AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS The staff proposed for CVI's nursing unit significantly exceeds minimum requirements, and would meet the criteria in Florida for a superior rating. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, pp. 36, 37, 37a, 38, 39; K.V. Tr. 31, 32, 39, 40; K.V. Q. 49-53; T.W. Q. 23-26; J.B. Q. 54-63]. The superior rating indicates a higher level, and higher quality, of care. [Id.]. Because of the nursing intensity required for Alzheimer's and related dementia patients, the Alzheimer's units staff nursing to patient ratio will be 1:5 or 1:6. [K.V. Tr. 63, 66]. The CVI nursing unit will have a 1:8. The typical ratio for nursing homes in the Jacksonville, Florida area is 1:10. [K.V. Tr. p. 66]. The CVI application presented reasonable levels of anticipated salaries and fringe benefits. [CVI Ex 3, PT I, pp. 36, 37, 37a, 38, 39; K.V. Tr. 31, 32, 39, 40; K.V. Q. 49-53; T.W. Q. 23-26; J.B. Q. 54-63]. CVI accounted for employees, such as the administrator and director of nursing, who were full-time and on a fixed salary. (Id.]. CVI also accounted for those staff who are to be paid on the basis of an hourly wage, such as nurses, calculated according to the number of work hours expected (based on full-time equivalent factors). [Id.]. Under this approach, the CVI salary projections account for vacation, overtime, and sick leave. [Id.; K.V. Tr. 45, CVI did not directly reflect revenues nor expenses attendant to the activities of therapists, pharmacists, dentists, podiatrists, a medical director, for other such consultants because they would serve as independent contractors. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, pp. 40a, 46b; J.B. Q. 66, Instead, CVI indirectly accounted for the independent contractors by utilizing a "net methodology" pursuant to which the anticipated consulting fees are included within a base rate for private pay residents along with a markup. [Id., Tr. 312-314, 339, 340]. The markup covers the cost to provide the contractual services to Medicaid or Medicare reimbursed residents. [Id.]. In this regard, CV followed the customary accounting approach taken by a not-for-profit nursing home whereby the facility does not attempt to profit from the provision of such contractual services. [Id.] FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF CVI'S NURSING; UNIT By the end of the second year of proposed nursing unit operations, it is reasonably anticipated that the 120-bed CVI nursing home will realize a net income of at least $275,300 at 95 percent occupancy. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, pp. 35 35a, 47-49a (Schedule 18); J.B. Q. 77-81; J.B. Tr. 274, 275]. By the second year of operation, CVI's revenues per patient day will be $99.25, compared to $116.16 for HQR's 24 bed proposal, $117.45 for HQR's 41 bed proposal, $118.15 for Atrium's proposal, and $126.03 for MRCI's proposal. [Comparison of Schedule 18 of applications]. The nursing unit is feasible on an immediate and long-term basis. [J.B. Q. 27]. CVI did not rely upon any non-nursing home revenues to demonstrate feasibility for the nursing unit. [Id.; J.B. Tr. p. 305]. CVI demonstrated nursing home feasibility as a stand-alone project. [Id.] Schedule 18 of the application contains space for the applicant to enter non-nursing home revenues and costs, such as those items associated with the operation of a co-located ACLF. Under HRS policy, the applicant has the option as to whether or not to provide these projections. [E.D. Tr. 1551-1559]. CVI proposes a 35 percent Medicaid utilization condition for the nursing unit which, with a 50 percent rate in the Alzheimer unit, results in a 42.5 percent Medicaid rate for the 120 bed facility. [CVI Ex. 3, PT I, p.iv, p. 46a; H.B. Q. 31, 33, 73-75; A.G. Tr. 1260, 1261, 1320]. Of the completing applicants, only CVI showed all it beds will be Medicaid certified. [J.B. Tr. 263, 265]. It is the financial feasibility of the specific certificate of need being reviewed which is assessed by HRS. [Id.]. HRS does not review the financial feasibility of any other operations of the applicant which are not part of the nursing home certificate of need application. [Id.]. VALIDITY OF CVI'S AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The completeness deadline for applications was January 18, 1991. However, the completeness determination for CVI was delayed by approximately one month because, initially, HRS withdrew the CVI application from review. HRS' action was based upon an audited financial statement of CVI covering the first 10 months of 1990. HRS acted upon an apparent non-rule policy that a "combined" audited financial statement would not be `accepted, and the conclusion that the 1990 10-month CVI audit was a "combined" statement. No evidence was adduced at hearing to demonstrate what HRS specifically defined to be a "combined" statement, or specifically why the Department initially felt the 10-month 1990 audit was not an audited financial statement of Cypress Village, Inc. Upon reconsideration, the HRS reinstated the CVI application, specifically finding that another audited financial statement, covering the full 1989. The purpose of an audit is to fairly present, in all material respects, an entity's financial position, results of operations, and cash flows in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). [M.G. Q. 11; M.F. Tr. p. 1813]. This conclusion may be expressed only when the auditor has formed such an opinion on the basis of an audit performed in accordance with general accepted accounting principles which govern auditing standards. [Id.] The certified public accountant has a duty to exercise independent professional judgment with due professional care in preparing the audit and preparing the report. [Id.; M.F., Tr. p. 1811; M.G. Q. 35]. Within the accounting profession, because independent judgment is to be utilized, reasonable persons can disagree on a professional basis as to whether, how, and why certain items should or should not be included in, or appear in, audited financial statements under GAAP for any particular entity. [M.F. Tr. 1918]. The CVI auditors found that `failure to account for all assets, regardless of legal title, exclusively utilized by CVI for its economic benefit would violate the completeness requirement. [M.G. Q. 16, 17, 33]. [M.G.Q. 26]. If CVI's auditors had not reflected the assets to which that liability applies, notwithstanding titled ownership, the audited statements would not have been complete and would not have fairly represented the financial position of CVI. [Id.]. Both CVI audited financial statements meet the test of fairly presenting CVI's financial position results of its operations, and cash flows in conformity with GAAP. [M.G. Q. 1-39]. The CVI auditors exercised independent professional judgment with due care. [Id.; M.G. 34, 36]. Even if reasonable persons disagreed with the results, the application's requirements were met and HRS had information presented to it upon which to base its decision. The balance sheet and income statements contained in both the 1989 and 1990 CVI audited financial statements are based upon the "fund balance" accounting approach. [CVI Ex. 3, p. 9, 1990 audit; M.G. Q. 28, 30; Burcham Q. 11]. Fund balance accounting is unique to not-for- profit and governmental entities. [M.G. Q. 31]. The CVI audit balance sheets and income statements represent the combination of funds from two sources, both directly related to CVI operations and both of which have a material influence upon CVI's financial position, cash flows, and operational results. [M.G. Q. 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36]. The 1990 statement is only different from the 1989 audit in terms of the form of presentation and because the passage of time resulted in updated financial information being available to reflect the more mature status of CVI in its development activities. [M.G. Tr. 1536; CVI Ex. 3 1989 & 1990 audits]. The characterization of the audited financial statement as a "combined statement" has no significance from an accounting standpoint because "combined statement" is not a term of art in accounting and has no precise meaning. [Id.; M.F. Tr. 1825, 1826]. To the extent the CVI statements may be deemed "combined", they do portray CVI as a distinct legal entity and do not distort the financial ability of the applicant [M.G.Q. 1-39; M.G.Q. 16, 27-29]. To the extent that CVI's 1990 audited financial statements make a specific reference to "combined financial statements", this reference is not a term of art and does not effect the validity of the audited financial statement. [M.G.Q. 27; Burcham Tr. 330, 331]. The financial statements account for the assets and liabilities shared with the NBA as required by GAAP. [Id.; and M.F. Tr. 1333-1334]. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountant's Technical Division concurs in the type of presentation utilized by CVI's auditors. [I.B.Q. 17]. The Technical Division was asked to comment on an audit for another NBA local which utilized the fund balance presentation. [Burcham Q. 5- 18]. The Division concurred that NBA's assets dedicated to that service unit's retirement program (similar to CVI's) should be included on the audit given the unit's debt and other obligations and economic benefit derived from those assets. [Id.; M.F. Tr. 1744, 1745]. VALIDITY OF CVI'S LETTER OF INTENT NOTICE OF PUBLICATION CVI timely published notice of its letter of intent in the Jacksonville Times Union. The contents of the publication are set forth in Rule 10-5.008(1)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Due to an error which was solely the fault of the newspaper, the newspaper left a zero off the total project costs so that the publication actually said "$30,000.00" instead of $3,000,000. [CVI Ex. 4]. Prior to the application completeness deadline, CVI provided an affidavit to the HRS which revealed that the error was not due to any fault of CVI. [CVI Ex. 4; A.G. Tr. 1266, 1267; E.D. Tr. 1569-1571]. Consistent with its existing policy, HRS found that since the publication error was not the fault of or within the control of the applicant, CVI had satisfied the legal requirements for publication. [Id.; A.G. Tr. 1269-1270]. The rationale for the HRS policy was that it would not be fair to punish an applicant for the `mistake of the newspaper as long as the applicant fulfilled its responsibility to demonstrate that it had no part in creating the error. [Id.]. At the time of the CVI application, this policy had been consistently applied by HRS for numerous other applicants who were found to be in compliance with the law as long as the publication error was not their fault. [Id.]. CONFORMITY WITH THE LOCAL HEALTH PLAN All four applicants conformed generally to the applicable local health plan. The applications of CVI and Atrium were determined by HRS to meet the elements of the local plan better than did the applications of Health Quest and MRCI. Atrium and CVI were the only applicants which provided specialized programs for Alzheimer's patients, a preference for applicants in the local health plan. [Atrium/Nelson PF, pp. 20- 28; Atrium Ex. 8, p. 10-11; HRS/Granger PF, pp. 6-8; ANH Ex 16; A.G. Tr. 1323]. Atrium and CVI had the lowest costs per bed of the applicants. [See p. 249 below]. MCRI failed to address the current District Health Plan (1990-91) and instead used the 1989-90 plan. [Atrium/Nelson PF, p.9]. MRCI proposes to serve the lowest percentage of Medicaid patients in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide experience of nursing homes. Health Quest's existing facility, already at 120 beds, would be substantially over optimal size at 161 beds, if its proposed project is approved. Furthermore, Health Quest was not in compliance with regard to special programs and commitment to serve hard-to-place patients. [Atrium/Nelson PF, pp. 9-20; Atrium Ex. 8; HRS/Granger PF, pp.: 9-10]. There was no evidence that approval of any of the four applicants would have an adverse impact on the costs of providing health services, especially in light of the numeric need and high occupancy rates of the subdistrict. ATRIUM'S APPLICATION The proposed Atrium 84-bed nursing home will be constructed in close proximity to The Atrium Retirement Community of Jacksonville, an existing 176 unit retirement and assisted- living community. The Atrium will be a new facility constructed and developed by owners new to construction and operation of health care facilities. The applicant is a "shell" corporation with assets of $50,000.00 owned by Jack and William Deinetree, two brothers, who have also provided financial data and letters from their bank indicating their financial ability and intent to complete this project. The applicant filed an audited financial statement as required by statute although it revealed a shell corporation waiting CON approval for the infusion of dollars by the shareholders, Jack and William Demetree. HRS does not limit an applicant's documentation in demonstrating how it will be able to finance its project, if approved. Atrium's letter of intent was clearly indicated as such within its application. Atrium's application was deemed complete. [Vol. 15, pp. 1616-17; Atrium Ex. 2, p.123; Atrium Ex. 5]. Personal financial statements of the Demetrees, prepared by their longtime CPA, were also included in Atrium's application. [Atrium/Schramm PF, pp. 10-11]. The Demetrees' financial statements were "compiled" statements. [Vol. 16, p. 1678]. A CPA will not even prepare a compiled statement unless he has personal knowledge of the individual involved and his business operations. [Vol. 16, p. 1678]. `The financial statements of the Demetrees were provided as supplementary material. There is no statutory or rule requirement that they be in a certain form. [Vol. 16, p. 1694] After assessing their financial net worth, DHRS concluded that the Demetrees have more than sufficient liquid assets to make the equity contribution required in Atrium's application. It is a matter of the general business philosophy of the Demetrees that they put equity into all their development projects. [Atrium/Schramm PF, p. 11]. The nursing home application form does not require audited financial statements of stockholders in order to support their ability to make equity contributions. Neither the application Form 1455A, October 1988, nor the instructions thereto, dictate such a requirement. [Atrium Ex. 2, p. 24; Healthy Quest Ex. 9, p. 1-6; MRCI/Beiseigel PF, p. 6; Vol. 1, p. 75; Vol. 5, p. 444]. The ability of the Demetrees to obtain construction and permanent financing, as well as contribute substantial equity and operating capital was demonstrated by competent, substantial evidence. The $100,000 note payable to owners that appears in Schedule 15 of Atrium's application will be a line of credit, used for working capital during the first year of operation, before the cash flow picks up. It is fairly customary in the industry to provide such financing during the initial year or so of operations. (Vol. 6, p. 569; Vol. 16, p. 1682). The Atrium will have the resources available to complete the proposed project if the Demetrees provide the financing. Because the Atrium is a shell corporation in which the Demetrees own all the stock, it is logically assumed that they will provide the financing to the extent they are able. [Vol. 16, p. 1682; p. 1716; p. 1723; HRS/Granger PF, p. 13]. Their ability to finance the project is discussed above, and no evidence was introduced to show they could not finance the project. As a shell corporation, the Atrium currently has no other capital projects or expenditures under development or in the planning stage. Because it has very little capital and is totally dependent upon the infusion of capital by the Demetrees, existence of other project and expenditures is absolutely irrelevant. [Atrium/Schramm PF, pp. 5, 7]. Recent borrowings in amounts of from 3 to 8 million dollars by companies in which the Demetrees are major owners indicate their ability to obtain capital at rates from prime plus one-half to prime plus one. [Vol. 16, pp. 1680-1]. In its application, Atrium provided a letter of interest from First Union National Bank to finance the project, if approved. The Demetrees have a long-standing relationship with the bank, which has financed numerous large scale developments for the Demetrees through construction loans, working capital lines and permanent financing. The Demetrees have a 40-year, unblemished lender-borrower relationship with First Union (formerly Atlantic National Bank); there was no competent substantial testimony to the contrary. [Atrium/Schramm PF, pp. 8-9; Vol. 6, p. 549; Atrium Ex. 2, App.; Vol. 16, pp. 1679-81; Vol. 5, p. 445]. The Atrium's proposed plan is designed to develop innovative quality of life enhancements to minimize the institutional setting characteristic of some nursing homes. The plan utilizes a staggered semiprivate room design that increases residents' privacy and allows each resident to have a window to the exterior. The facility will-meet social needs of the residents, as well as their need for privacy. It is supported by a resident room design as well as a variety of activity and support spaces. (Atrium/Bhide PF, p. 3; Atrium Ex. 8, p. 18) The Atrium's proposed design is both appropriate and reasonable in light of state and local construction standards for a freestanding nursing home. (Atrium/Bhide PF, p. 3-7) The projected construction costs are based on Vasant Bhide's experience with designing and working on at least five (5) nursing home projects in the North Florida area in the past two years. According to Bhide, the proposed project cost estimates (construction costs, fees and equipment) are reasonable, and include almost $200,000 in contingency funds. Bhide's representations are disputed by other equally knowledgeable and experienced builders and architects whose costs estimates on similar facilities exceed Bhide's estimates. (Vol. 7, p. 644; Atrium/Bhide PF, p. 4; Atrium Ex. 3, p. 49; Atrium/Downs PF, p. 6-7) The Atrium's project costs compare favorably with HRS experience, and the actual costs may be lower due to the impact of the current recession. (Vol. 5, P. 434). (Vol. 7, p.644; Atrium/Bhide PF, p. 4-7; Atrium Ex. 3, p. 4-7) The total project cost of Atrium, which is just under $4 million, is deemed reasonable. (Atrium/Nelson PF, p. 29; Atrium/Downs PF, p. 6; Vol. 6, p.570, 572; Vol. 6, p. 552; Vol. 16, p. 1699-1703). The Atrium's projected bed utilization for the first two years is both reasonable and appropriate. (Atrium/Nelson PF, p. 6; Atrium/Downs PF, p. 4) The Atrium's proposed patient charges and expenses are reasonable. (Atrium/Nelson PF, p. 29, 31; Atrium/Mitchell PF, p. 4-6) Although acknowledging he had seen Medicare rates as high as $270 per patient day, Mark Fall challenged the Medicare rates projected by Atrium. (Vol. 18, p. 1888) If Mr. Fall's opinion were credited, Atrium's net income in year two would still exceed $260,000. (Atrium Ex. 4, Sch. 18) reasonable and conservative, based on actual recent financing of other Demetree projects. (Atrium/Schramm PF, p.12) The Atrium's assumptions on Schedule 11, especially regarding fringe benefits, were shown to be reasonable. The total dollar amount of salaries and wages and benefits for Schedule 11 were compared to other historical operations, inflated forward, and found to be well within the reasonable range by Joseph Mitchell, Atrium's expert in Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement and nursing home accounting. (Vol. 6, p. 563-565) The Atrium's proforma assumptions, using fringe benefits of 22 percent, were reasonable. (Vol. 6, p. 565) The Atrium's projected Medicare per diem revenues are reasonable considering this is a start up facility. One cannot compare a start up facility's Medicare rates with those of a long-standing facility, as Medicare imposes a limitation on Medicare rates after the first three (3) years of operation. (Vol. 6, p. 568) Atrium's proposed project is feasible in both the short and long term. Mr. Mitchell tested the reasonableness of the proforma assumptions based on his experience working with 125 to 150 nursing homes on an operational basis. (Atrium/Mitchell PF, p. 9; Vol. 6, p. 578) The Atrium's projected debt schedule is reasonable and conservative based upon recent financing of projects by the Demetrees. (Atrium/Schramm PF, p. 12.) The Atrium's design meets all codes, including building and life safety, energy code, handicap accessibility code, etc. (Atrium/Bhide PF, p. 6) HRS' architects ranked Atrium's plans first among the applicants in this hearing. (Atrium Ex. 8, p. 17-19; HRS/Granger PF, p. 14) The Atrium's application notes a willingness to take AIDS patients and will be bringing on-line 84 beds in a high occupancy subdistrict, which will promote better geographic accessibility. [Atrium/Nelson PF, p. 31]. The Atrium proposes to commit to 61% Medicaid, the most of any applicant. This commitment is attainable in light of the actual experience in the subdistrict (62.1% average) and the overall state average (60.6%). [Atrium/Nelson PF, p. 8- 9]. The proposed operations and quality assurance program submitted by Atrium meet or exceed Florida regulatory standards. [Atrium/Fitzpatrick PF, p.5, 14; Atrium/Downs PF, pp. 4-6; HRS/Granger PF, p. 11]. The Atrium's proposed staffing levels are reasonable and meet or exceed Florida standards. [Atrium/Fitzpatrick PF, p. 7; Health Quest Ex. 11]. The Atrium will develop and implement a training/staff development/internship program, to include students residing in Duval County. [Atrium Ex. 4, p. 70 A-C]. The Atrium will also be associated with an existing 176-unit retirement community known as The Atrium Retirement Community of Jacksonville, through their common ownership. The experience gained, in the five years of operating The Atrium Retirement Community of Jacksonville will be beneficial to the Atrium nursing home project, especially in the areas of housing for elderly residents, security, housekeeping, dietary and nutritional services, activities and counseling. (Atrium Ex. 2, p. 24B) Atrium will have established linkages with its sister retirement community and thereby offer a continuum of care. [Atrium Ex. 4, p. 46 A-c; 58A]. Atrium will have a good recruitment and career ladder programs. The Atrium's description of its patient assessment and care plan, utilization review program, quality assurance program, operations and dietary programs were comprehensive and explicit. The Atrium described very good activities programs, family involvement, mental conditions of residents, restoration/normalization programs and quality of life enhancement programs. [Atrium Ex. 8, p. 15; HRS/Granger PF, pp. 11-12]. Overall, the presentation was consistent and thorough and stated the services to be offered by the applicant. [Atrium Ex. 8, p. 15; HRS/Granger PF, pp. 11-12]. However, Atrium has never built or operated a nursing home. The Atrium's inexperience is demonstrated by its failure to properly plan for the cleaning of soiled laundry. The Atrium indicated it may send out the patients' laundry or use the laundry of a nearby retirement community. (T. 171, 549; Atrium Exhibit 4) As additional evidence of its inexperience in operating nursing homes, the Atrium proposes to use a non- wheelchair accessible van for transportation of it's residents, pulling a U-Haul with the wheelchairs. (Atrium Exhibit 4) When the matter was raised at hearing, its representative indicated that Atrium would rent a wheelchair accessible van, and private medical providers might be called on to transport Medicare and Medicaid residents to doctors' appointments, therapy sessions, and related activities. [Atrium Ex. 4, p. 61A; Atrium/Downs PF, p. 9]. Atrium intends to draw upon the management skills of the American Retirement Corporation (ARC) of Nashville, Tennessee. ARC is a national management services company which operates 21 retirement communities in 14 states. Most of the programmatic features set forth in Atrium's application are already utilized successfully at ARC facilities around the country. (Atrium Ex. 2, p. 24 A-B) For more than 10 years, ARC has employed its standard operating methods at a nursing home located at the Burcham Hills Retirement Community in East Lansing, Michigan. (Atrium Exhibit 13, p. 2; T. 520) ARC has been found to be in violation of several nursing home standards at its facility at Burcham Hills, Michigan, including serious failures to provide appropriate care to residents. (Health Quest Exhibit 26, pp. 3-7) The Senior Vice President of Operations for ARC plans to manage Atrium's nursing home using ARC's "`standard operating methods," to describe the programs that would be offered. (Downs PT, pp. 5-12) He asserted that ARC's lack of experience in managing a nursing facility of this size, type, and location is irrelevant because, among other reasons, "a patient is a patient." (T. 618) The Atrium, through its proposed management contract with American Retirement Corporation (ARC), will attempt to provide quality care to its patients. [Atrium/Fitzpatrick PF, p. 3]. MCRI'S APPLICATION FOR CON The MRCI CON is for a 30-bed nursing home. MRCI filed a proper letter of intent and audited financial statement for this CON. (T. 1608, 1609, 1611, 1613). MRCI also filed a CON for a 24 bed nursing home which HRS rejected as incomplete and untimely. Because the completeness issue of the 24 bed CON was undecided, MRCI presented evidence that included the feasibility, etc., of the 24 bed CON. In summary, there were no significant differences between the two CONs, and both were equally feasible. MRCI has developed a prototype facility called "Brighton Gardens". An MRCI Brighton Gardens facility typically includes 30 nursing home beds and 120 ACLF `beds. (Walter PT, p. 5). The concept anticipates carrying for the elderly from their need for an ACLF through nursing home care with minimum disruptions due to changes in environment. MRCI's research has indicated that as people get older, changes become more difficult and residents do not want to transfer back and forth between facilities. (T. 909) MRCI's project minimizes transfer trauma. The more unfamiliar the situation the more serious the transfer trauma. Transfer trauma manifests itself by despair, isolation, a change in a person's behavior and the way they deal with ordinary situations. Some states require transfer trauma plans before a resident is moved out of a facility. (T. 910, 911) At a Brighton Gardens facility, when a resident moves from the ACLF to the nursing home, friends in the ACLF can visit the nursing home on a regular basis. This is particularly beneficial for spouses to be able to visit back and forth without the need for transportation. (T. 907, 908) All of the beds are contained within the same building, although the nursing home is a self-contained unit with its own separate entrance for privacy and ease of access by residents, staff and visitors. (Walter PT, pp. 5, 6). Marriott and Marriott Retirement Communities, Inc. currently own and operate ten retirement centers and manage two other. (Evans PT, p. 4) MRCI operates two Brighton Gardens in Arizona and one in Virginia Beach and one in Houston, Texas. (Evans PT, p. 6) Five retirements communities are currently under construction and are all scheduled to open within 18 months (Evans PT, p. 4). MRCI already operates one facility in Florida which is a full service retirement community and has a superior rating. (Walter PT, p. 18) MRCI has demonstrated that it has the ability to provide superior care at its Brighton Garden facility. MRCI has demonstrated that it can provide the quality and types of programs equal to or exceeding any of the other applicants. MRCI has demonstrated that it can improve the quality of care in existing institutions and successfully operate nursing homes. For example, MRCI began managing a property in Canton, Ohio in June, 1988, when occupancy was less than 50%. When it discontinued management in early 1991, occupancy was approximately 90%. The net loss in income for the property had been reduced substantially from $2.3 million in 1988 to $900,000 in 1990. Reduction in cash loss was even more significant. (T. 874-875) MRCI managed property known as Towne Center, beginning in June, 1988, and discontinued management in early 1991. When MRCI began managing the property occupancy was approximately 55%. Occupancy had increased to over 90% by the time MRCI discontinued management. Efforts to discredit Marriott's management were unsuccessful and rebutted by its representatives. The design of MRCI's proposed project lends itself to quality of care because residents will not be expected to transfer from one entity to another as their needs change and because the small size of the unit allows for more individualized care. (Evans PT, pp. 28, 29; T. 1315) MRCI's proposal provides sufficient staff to provide top quality care. (Evans PT, p. 6) MRCI is proposing to provide 3.0 nursing hours per patient day for the 30-bed project. This does not include direct nursing hours which could be provided by the director of nursing. If you include those hours, direct nursing hours increased to 3.21 nursing hours per patient day. For the 24-bed project, if you include direct nursing hours provided by the director of nursing, 3.25 nursing hours per nursing hours per patient day will be provided. (T. 922-923, 954) There will be a full time administrator on the property of Brighton Gardens of Jacksonville. (T. 872) The administrator will be responsible, for the entire property. (T. 872) MRCI's proposed staffing exceeds the regulations of the State of Florida. In fact, MRCI proposes to provide four licensed nurses five days per week. By regulation, MRCI is required to provide only three licensed nurses. (Evans PT, p. 7) MRCI has an excellent recruitment plan and has designed a variety of enhancement programs for its employees. Some of these programs include a profit sharing program, the employee stock ownership plan, and a benefit trade system. MRCI offers an employee credit union, employee discounts at Marriott Hotels, continuing education, as well as additional training for employees to advance in their areas. MRCI has a working family life program, offers family life-counseling programs and has a guaranteed right to fair treatment policy within the company. MRCI recruitment efforts have been very successful. (Evans PT, p. 10) MRCI has developed a superb quality assurance program which exceeds the federal OBRA requirements and exceeds state requirements for quality assurance committees. (Evans PT, pp. 11, 12, 13-19) The wage assumptions and salary assumptions of both MRCI applications are reasonable projections. (Huber PT, p. 11) The staffing assumptions in both Schedules 11 are reasonable assumptions. The proposed Medicaid rate is reasonable and consistent with the Medicaid requirement in Florida. (Huber PT, p. 13) MRCI has demonstrated that its proposed 30-bed project is a financially feasible project. (Huber PT, p. 6) The proposed capital expenditure is $1,901,507 and first year operating expenses are projected-to be $1,065,108. MRCI has demonstrated that its Jacksonville Brighton Gardens project will be profitable in Year 2 of operation. This is true for the 30-bed application and for the 24-bed application. (Huber PT, pp. 14, 15) The ACLF revenues are a reasonable estimate of revenues for the Duval project. (Huber PT, p. 17) MRCI's land cost is based upon an option contract it entered into in 1989. The land cost for the project is reasonable and based upon a reasonable allocation of cost to the nursing home. (T. 1237, 1238, 12 41) MRCI intends to develop the entire Brighton Gardens of Jacksonville, which includes the ACLF and the nursing home. (T. 800) In conjunction with this type of facility, a nursing home this size is a viable alternative to "optimal sized" facilities because the small complement of beds is offset as part of the larger facility. The data provided attest to the financial feasibility of such a concept. MIRCI does not intend to build a stand-alone 30-bed nursing home. They will only be built in conjunction with the ACLF. (T. 861) The costs of construction for the MRCI proposals are reasonable and are allocated appropriately between the nursing facility and the ACLF. (McPhail PT, p. 20, 21, 22) MRCI allocated the costs of construction of the 30-bed project between the nursing home portions and the ACLF portions. This allocation was performed by determining the cost of the entire Brighton Gardens and conducting an allocation of those costs directly related to the nursing home portion of the building, including construction costs, fixed and movable equipment. Shared area costs, such as those associated with the kitchen, laundry, circulation, beauty-barber, and administrative areas, were allocated on a proportional basis. The kitchen was allocated on a proportion of meals served to the nursing center residents. The construction, site development costs and equipment costs of other shared areas were estimated by function, and these costs were then allocated on the basis of a square footage ratio of the nursing center to the ACLF portion of the building. (McPhail PT, pp. 20, 21) MRCI has three other Brighton Gardens projects which have been constructed. Those projects have been constructed at a cost within 1% of the original cost assumptions prepared at Marriott. (McPhail PT, p. 9) The Brighton Gardens design and schematic plans are consistent with the requirements contained in Chapter 10D-29 and local building codes for the 30-bed project and the 24-bed project. (McDowell PT, p. 5) Marriott has developed a bi-axial room which is one of the best semiprivate rooms available. The residents are situated so that they each have a privacy curtain and each resident still has a window. Semiprivate rooms are more affordable than a private room. Private rooms often lead to a resident feeling isolated, thereby leading to depression. (T. 915, 916, 1012) MRCI's design provides certain advantages for residents of both the ACLF and the nursing components. The bi- axial semiprivate rooms are quite large; there is significant amount of storage space; all resident's bathrooms are handicapped accessible. Residents will be able to take advantage of some of the ACLF common spaces at will, and MRCI's project will have a courtyard which will allow residents to do some secure wandering. The buildings are residential in nature, both in the exterior and interior architecture. (McDowell PT, p. 7) MRCI anticipated that the duration of construction for the Brighton Gardens of Jacksonville will be 12 months. This is a reasonable estimate. (McPhail PT, p. 22) The Brighton Gardens project in Southeast Duval County will be located on an 11 acre parcel on San Jose Boulevard which has ready access to public transportation and is convenient to the elderly population in the service area. (Walter PT, p. 19). MRCI will accept the following conditions on its certificate of need: MRCI will make at least 30% of its patient days available to Medicaid eligible patients, will donate 20 prepared meals per day to a local Meals-on-Wheels program for distribution to elderly residents and will provide respite care at both the nursing home and ACLF levels of care. MRCI will implement its special Homeward Bound Program. (Walter PT, pp. 16, 17, 30; Evans PT, pp. 22, 23,). MRCI has a history of providing nursing care services to Medicaid eligible residents. For example, although MRCI's Calusa Harbour facility carries no Medicaid, condition, approximately 31% of its community patient days were provided to Medicaid residents in 1990. (Walter PT, p. 18). MRCI will provide' services to ACLF residents requiring AIDS care or Alzheimer's care. (Walter PT, p. 19, T 915). MRCI filed an audited financial statement as required by the statute. Nationwide, Marriott has designated approximately $90 million for the development of retirement projects for 1991 and has designated $70 to $80 million for 1992. (T. 1020). Marriott has the resources to fund Brighton Gardens. [Handlon, p. 2]. Schedules 2A and 2B of MRCI's CON application contain a list of other planned capital projects of MRCI. This list of projects changes on a regular basis as projects are either added or rejected from the development process. This list includes projects in the very preliminary stages of planning. (Handlon PT, p. 3). No project has been dropped from Schedule 2 for financial feasibility problem's. (T. 1246). Typically, projects are deleted because of difficulty obtaining suitable property or problems with zoning or other regulatory hurdles. (T. 1253). Furthermore, certain projects listed on the capital project list in Schedule 2 identify expenditures which will occur as late as, or later than, 1998. (T. 798). An omission by MCI of approximately $7 million relating to a Boynton Beach project will have no effect on Marriott's ability to finance these projects. The amount omitted is inconsequential when considering Marriott's total development plans. Furthermore, MRCI has included projects on Schedule 2 which will be financed beyond the' next five years, well after the proposed project is operational and has demonstrated financial feasibility. (Handlon PT, p. 3; T. 1040, 1042). No MRCI or Marriott retirement housing project under construction has been slowed down or stopped for economic reasons. (T. 893). No retirement housing project which has been presented to the Executive Committee of Marriott has been denied or delayed. No project will be delayed once a CON has been issued or if another government timetable requires construction by a particular time. (T. 1223). MRCI is a subsidiary of Marriott Corporation, and the board of MRCI filed a proper letter of intent. Marriott has proven that it is committed to constructing, licensing and operating the project at issue iii this proceeding. MRCI operates five facilities that have had deficiency-free surveys under the new Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act ("OBRA") guidelines. It is unusual to have no deficiencies found by the survey-team. Under the OBRA guidelines there are 710 elements in the program and surveyors evaluate compliance with the regulations by looking at each item. For each of these facilities, surveyors found that all 710 elements were in compliance with the guidelines and there were no deficiencies. (T. 905, 906). HQR'S APPLICATION Health Quest Realty II, Ltd. ("HQR II") is an Indiana limited partnership, first created prior to March 30, 1987 and authorized to transact business in the State of Florida on July 11, 1991. (HQR II Exhibit 7). HQR II is the authorized licensee of Regents Park of Jacksonville, a 120-bed community nursing home located in Duval County, Florida. HQR II has been the licensee of this facility since it first opened in 1986. HQR II's CON proposes to convert a portion of Regents Woods of Jacksonville, and existing Adult Congregate Living Facility, and thereby add nursing beds to an existing and co-located 120-bed nursing facility licensed as Regents Park of Jacksonville by HQR II. Alternatively, HQR II's CON proposed a 24 beds addition to Regents Park of Jacksonville. The 41-bed addition proposed by HQR II would involve 16,025 gross square feet at an estimated total project cost of approximately $2.6 million. The 24-bed partial request would involve 10,405 gross square feet at an estimated total project cost of $1.76 million. (HQR II App.) Health Quest Management Corporation IV ("HQMC IV") is an Indiana corporation, which filed, on October 3, 1984, a notice of doing business in Jacksonville as Regents Park in compliance with the fictitious name law. On February 12, 1986, HQR II filed a notice under Florida's "fictitious name" law, Section 865.09, Florida Statutes, in the public records of Duval County, Florida, giving notice of doing business as "Regents Park" in Jacksonville. CVI 33 (exhibit indicates document recorded at Duval County Official Records Vol. 6084, Pg. 1948). According to filings in the official records of Duval County, Florida, on September 25, 1987, the persons having an interest in HQR II were Lawrence H. Garatoni, holding a 90% interest, and Judith A. Garatoni,, holding a 10% interest. HQ 41 (exhibit indicates document recorded at Duval County Public Records Vol. 6402, Pg. 1466). An affidavit was filed in the official records of Duval County, Florida, that identified Lawrence H. Garatoni as owning a 190% interest in HQR IV, an Indiana corporation. HQ 40 (exhibit indicates document recorded at Duval County Official Records: Vol. 5860, Pg. 1904). Regents Park of Jacksonville actually is owned by Health Quest Realty XXII, another Indiana general partnership ("HQR XXII") (Krisher 7). The construction of Regents Park was financed by industrial revenue bonds issued by the City of Jacksonville on November 1, 1984. CVI 210. HQR XXII leased the property to HQR IV, which operates the facility. As part of the bond transaction, HQR XXII gave the City of Jacksonville a collateral assignment of its rights as lessor in its lease of the property to HQMC IV. All the Health Quest entities are controlled by one man, Lawrence Garatoni. Mr. Garatoni is the sole general partner of HQR II and owns 90% in that partnership, T. 1908 (Fall); HQ 41. Mr. Garatoni also owns 90% of the stock of HQMC IV, HQ 40, and owns 95% of HQR XXII partnership. T. 1780 (Fall). CVI 32, p. 7. The original CON for Regents Park was issued to HQR II. T. 1381. When Regents Park was first licensed in February of 1986, the license was issued to HQR II. T. 1382 (Krisher). In the process of obtaining renewal of the license for Regents Park in January of 1987 Mr. Krisher realized that the licensee, HQR II, in facet held no interest in the facility; HQR XXII was the owner of the property and HQMC IV the lessee/operator. Mr. Krisher brought this to the attention of Bruce Henderson of the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification ("OLC"). In an attempt to rectify the problem, HQR XXII entered an agreement to retain HQR II, the licensee to provide management services for the facility operated by HQR IV. CVI 23; T. 1382. This agreement was not rescinded. HRS advised that it would not issue a license to HQR II based on HQR II being a management agent because only the owner or lessee of a nursing home was eligible to be licensed. T. 1383. HQR II then approached HRS about obtaining approval for HQR IV to be the licensee of tie facility. HRS indicated to Mr. Krisher that to have the license issued to HQR IV would require a change of ownership. T. 1383. Mr. Garatoni did not want to go through a "change of ownership" since a new licensee could not retain the superior license, which Regents Park had received in December of 1986. T. 1384 (Krisher). In order to enable HQR II to obtain renewal of the license, HQR IV assigned its leasehold to HQR II. T. 1383. However, all profits and losses of Regents Park were recorded in the books of HQR IV because Mr. Garatoni did not wish to change the internal accounting structure of the Jacksonville operation. CVI 32, Wright deposition, p. 25. Conversely, there is only one set of books and records for HQR II, and they related only to the facility located in Merrillville, Indiana. T. 1861 (Fall). Disclosure of all material transactions and circumstances affecting the entity being audited is a key requirement (i.e., "completeness") in order to properly present an audited financial statement under GAAP. (Vol. 14, p. 1534; Vol. 17, p. 1840; Vol. 18, p. 1920). Since the Regents Park began operation in 1986, HQR IV has had and continues to have full operational and financial responsibility for the nursing home. (CVI Ex. 22; Vol. 13, p. 1394; Vol. 14, p. 1455; Vol. 18, p. 1883-4). HQR IV took the benefit of all profits and the risk of all losses from the operation of a nursing home licensed to HQR II and owned by Health Quest Realty XXII. (CVI Ex. 21a, 21b, 21c; Vol. 13, p. 1384, 1407-11; Vol. 14, p. 1430) HQR II claims these circumstances relieved its auditors from any responsibility to even mention, much less adequately disclose, financial data or other disclosure information pertaining to Regents Park. (Vol. 17, p. 1830-1). Neither the 1988 nor 1989 audited financial statements submitted by HQR II with its CON fairly present, in all material respects, the financial position, cash flow and results of operations of Regents Park of Jacksonville under GAAP. To the contrary, both financial statements were the result of a "special audit" of property located in Merrillville, Indiana, which is owned by HQR II and leased to a third party for a retirement community. (HQR II App,.; Vol. 17 p. 1824; Vol. 13, p. 1404-5) Although an audit of the applicant and licensee, HQR II, was presented, the operation of the nursing home upon which determinations of financial feasibility would be based never occurred. When each audit was conducted, HQR II's auditors had no knowledge of the Jacksonville operation. (Vol. 14, p. 1445-46; Vol. 18, p. 1877). The purpose of requiring audited financial statements is to provide HRS with reasonable assurances that an appropriate audit, with all necessary field work, was conducted. (Vol. 15, p. 1563; Vol. 15, p. 1619-22). HQR II did not provide financial statements which reasonably represented and presented the financial status of the applicant because HQR II did not tell the auditors about its Jacksonville operations. If complete field work and independent evaluation by the auditors had been performed, the auditors would have discovered the relationship between Health Quest Realty XXII, HQR II and HQR IV. In considering disclosure of related party transactions, the auditors would have had to reconcile the relationships between the various entities, and present a accurate picture of the finances of the applicant. The Health Quest nursing home has not made a profit in its five years of existence. (Vol. 17, p. 1798, 1799; Vol. 14, p. 1444, 1445) For example, in 1989 it suffered a net loss of $114,000. (Vol. 17, p. 1)98) In 1990, it suffered a net loss of $107,000. (Id.) Health Quest's past history of consistent losses was not disclosed anywhere in its application. (Vol. 14, p. 1444, 1445) Such information is relevant to the financial feasibility of a CON, and is revealed in a proper audited financial statement. (Vol. 12, p. 1324, 1325; Vol. 15, p. 1560- 61) Health Quest projects a profit for its bed addition alternatives. (Health Quest App. Sch. 18) Given the past history of losses, Health Quest did not provide any explanation as to how a profit should now be expected. (Health Quest App.) Health Quest is a foreign limited partnership which did not register to conducts business in the State of Florida until July 11, 1991. (Health Quest Ex. 7) Its petitions for formal administrative proceedings were filed in March and April of this year. Some scores in HRS' s system are objective, i.e., based on specific facts. Other scores in HRS's system are subjective, i.e., based on the reviewer's opinion. On the objective items, Health Quest received 480.3 points, 80% of the possible 602; Atrium received 47911 (80%). MRCI 397.3,7 (66%), and CVI 374.55 (62%). At. 8. On the subjective items, Health Quest received 442.94 points, 68%, of the possible 654; Atrium received 575.61 (88%); MRCI 566.7:5 (87%); and CVI 621.47 (95%). At. 8. Health Quest finished highest among the applicants on the items scored objectively add lowest among the applicants (by a gap of 19% of the maximum s1core available) on the items scored subjectively. Health Quest's is the only nursing home in Duval County that has had a "superior" licensure rating since 1986. Krisher 8. Only about a third of Florida's nursing homes have superior licenses. Brockish 4; HQ 2. Health Quest's facility is considered excellent by local physicians, hospital discharge planners, and home health agencies. HQ 38. The chairman of the District IV Long-Term Care Ombudsman Council described Regent's Park as having a "solid reputation," and as having been identified by the University of Northern Florida as "a model facility and primary site for its newly developed Administrator-in-training program."' 6513, PT 2, Item 3M (1/14/91 letter). A high level of staffing, measured by the ratio of full-time equivalent ("FTE") staff to patients, generally correlates to high quality care. T. 40, 42 (Vroman). Health Quest's existing total direct care staffing pattern, at 3.49 hours per patient day, exceeds the levels proposed by the other applicants. Health Quest's proposed staffing, measured by licensed staff (i.e., RNs & LPNs) or by total direct care staff (i.e., including nursing aides), is higher than that of any other applicant except MRCI's 24-bed proposal. HQ 11. Health Quest provides a broader range of services than most nursing homes, including subacute care such as intravenous antibiotics, respiratory care and tracheostomy care. T. 757, 59 (Janesky). Regents Park provides more physical therapy ("PT") than most nursing homes. Provision of PT is related to Medicare utilization because Medicare residents are the primary recipients of PT in nursing homes. 6513, PT 2, Only one other facility in Duval County provides the type of subacute care which Regents Park provides, and that facility is not an applicant for beds in this cycle, [T. 775 (Janesky), H31] although CVI states that it too will serve high acuity patients. Vroman 6-7. Although the CON application form asks for a description of "specialized programs," HRS has not defined "specialized program" in the application instructions. T. 394 (Gordon-Girvin). HRS gave Health Quest no credit for providing subacute care because subacute care was not considered a "specialized program" although HRS had considered subacute care a specialized program in the past. T. 1286-87 (Granger). The Office of Licensure and Certification, which licenses and monitors nursing homes, recognizes 11 categories of "special care." Regents Park provides all of them. Although Health Quest referred to this in `,its application, HRS gave Health Quest zero points in this category. At. 8 (Ex. B, p. 22). HRS gives the same weight to its consideration of a proposal to provide a particular service and type of care that it gives to actually providing the service or care. The application evaluation process does not differentiate between the promise to perform by a entity which has never engaged in the nursing home business and actual performance by an existing provider with an excellent track record. T. 1295 (Granger). The success of Regents Park in restoring residents to health is objectively demonstrated by the high ratio of patients discharged from Regents Park rather than remaining as residents until death. As reflected in HCCCB reports for 7/89- 6/90, Regents Park discharged 179 patients, i.e., 1.49 times its licensed beds, which was more than twice the rate for all other District IV facilities. 6513, PT 2, p. 43E Health Quest's actual resident care cost per resident day is the highest in the Southeast Duval County, which is considered a favorable factor under State Health Plan Preference #12. Nursing care cost for resident day for Regents Park for fiscal year 1989, per HCCCB reports, at $30.64 was higher than that for any of the other nine Southeast Duval County facilities reporting. 6513, PT 2, p. 45F. Similarly, Regents Park's dietary cost per patient day, at $8.69, exceeded any of the other nine facilities. 6513, PT 2, p. 48C. Health Quest proposes that all but four of its new beds are to be in private rooms. There would be two rooms, each with two beds, sharing an entrance to the hallway but otherwise private. T. 1155. CVI, MRCI and Atrium each plan to provide four to twelve beds in private rooms. HQ 10. Health Quest agreed to condition an approval on the following: The proposed site would be 7130 Southside Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. A minimum of 50% of patient days will be devoted to Medicaid patients for the proposed new unit. The facility will continue to use only certified nursing aides ("CNA's"). (Health Quest App.) The conditions, above, to which Health Quest committed are largely redundant. As an existing provider, Health Quest is limited to expansion at its existing site, 7130 Southside Boulevard, and it must use trained personnel. Health Quest listed as special care restraint reduction, and weight maintenance. HRS found that the these programs constitute services which every nursing home must provide, or should provide, as standard care. (Atrium Ex. 8, p. 17; Vol. 8, p. 753-63) Health Quest did not characterize its services to Alzheimer's residents as a special program within its application. (Vol. 12, p. 1288) The care for Alzheimer's patients becomes a special program when it is offered in a discrete unit or when some other unique feature is present, such as a facility design, which specifically takes into account and benefits the needs of residents with Alzheimer's. (Vol. 12, p. 1319, 1323) Health Quest's application did not present any such unique features. Health Quest's willingness to accept hard-to-place patients is reflected its practice of accepting Medicaid residents requiring skilled rather than intermediate care. Per 1989 HCCCB data, the proportion of Medicaid patients receiving skilled care at Regents Park (31.5%) was more than twice the average (11.6%) for other reporting Southeast Duval County facilities. 6513, PT 2, p. 45F. However, the percentage of Medicaid utilization to which Health Quest is committed is ambiguous because its application states: It should be noted that Medicaid residents are to be placed in the facility according to the wishes of the residents themselves, their attending physicians, and the staff. The Agreement on page 6 should not be misconstrued as evidencing an intention to operate the new unit at 50% Medicaid occupancy [sic]. (Health Quest App., Sch. 17, Footnote #16) The reference to "page 6" is the application page wherein the applicant can expressly agree to a particular Medicaid utilization condition. Given its proposal to convert ACLF space, the remoteness of the proposed Health Quest unit from its existing skilled nursing facility will not lend itself to optimal efficiency in utilizing existing nursing home support areas. (Atrium Ex. 8, p. 19) Almost all of the proposed Health Quest beds will be located in private rooms. (Vol. 9, p. 915) The isolation of the elderly in a private room can cause problems with depression. (Id.) Health Quest was deficient in describing how it would measure the outcomes for its programs. (Atrium Ex. 8, p. 21) Health Quest description of its residential quality assurance program was weak. [ANH Ex. 8, pp. 16, 17]. Health Quest was the only applicant proposing renovation rather than new construction. The instructions to the CON application form state: If currently owned land is going to be converted from some other use to be used for this project, the land's original cost plus past improvements made must be included. If the purchase price of the land was previously approved in CON review by this department, it must be excluded when calculating the application fee. * * * The same treatment applies to donated and converted buildings (including partial bed conversion) as apply to donated and converted land, except that cost less accumulated depreciation must be used. Health Quest followed the instructions and included the depreciated cost of the existing ACLF area to be converted to nursing beds. 6513, 6513-P, Sch. 1. HRS in its cost comparisons used the "total cost" figures given by the applicants. Using those figures, the cost per bed were as follows: CON Total Cost Cost Per Bed HQ 41-bed $2,608,646 $63,625 HQ 24-bed $1,765,482 $73,562 CVI $3,286,258 $54,771 Atrium $3,944,324 $46,956 MRCI 30-bed $1,891,507 $63,050 See State Agency Action Report, At. 8, pp. 2-3.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED, in the absence of reconsideration by the Department, that: The application of Health Quest be denied for failure to file a properly audited financial statement and establish its financial feasibility; The CON of Cypress Village be approved for 60 beds; The CON of Atrium be approved for 84 beds; and The beds sought by MRCI should be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 11 day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11 day of February, 1992.
The Issue Which one of three Certificate of Need applications for a new nursing facility in AHCA Nursing Home District 3 should be granted: Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc.’s; Life Health Care Resources, Inc.’s; or Arbor Health Care Company’s?
Findings Of Fact The Parties and The Applications Beverly Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc., the largest provider of nursing-home care in the nation. Beverly is proposing to construct a 120-bed freestanding nursing home in Marion County from which it proposes to provide hospice services, respite services and, for six days a week, inpatient and outpatient therapy services. The nursing home, if constructed, will contain a 16-bed Medicare unit and a 20-bed secured Alzheimer’s unit. The Beverly application is conditioned upon providing at least 55 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients. In addition, Beverly proposes to provide 0.2 percent of its patient days to indigent and charity patients. Beverly proposes to provide care to residents who are HIV positive or have AIDS. If the application is approved, Beverly will contribute $10,000 to a geriatric research fund. Life Care Life Care is a new, start-up corporation formed initially for the purpose of seeking a CON for a nursing home in Hernando County. Life Care’s plan is that it be operated by Life Care Centers of America, Inc. (LCCA), a privately owned Tennessee corporation authorized to business in Florida. LCCA owns, operates, or manages over 185 nursing homes with over 22,700 beds and retirement center units in 28 states. It is the largest privately owned nursing-home company in the United States. Life Care’s application proposes construction and operation of a 120-bed nursing home in Hernando County. The nursing home will include a 20-bed secured Alzheimers/dementia care unit and a state-of-the-art adult care unit. In fact, Life Care has agreed to condition approval of its application on inclusion of these two units. Additionally, it has agreed to a condition of service of Medicaid residents at the district average (69.26 percent) at least. Life Care proposes a broad range of Specialized Programs, including care of AIDS victims, respite care, and care to hospice clients and outpatient rehabilitative care. Its inpatient care will include a 20-bed Medicare unit, within which will be at least 12 beds for "subacute" services. Arbor Headquartered in Lima, Ohio, Arbor Health Care Company has 27 facilities located in five states. Twelve of the facilities are in Florida but none of its licensed facilities are in District 3. Of the twelve in Florida, eleven are JCAHO accredited, with the twelfth, newly-licensed, scheduled at the time of hearing for an accreditation survey in December of 1997. Ten of the eleven accredited facilities are also accredited for subacute care. Arbor’s accreditation record is outstanding compared to both the 600 nursing facilities in Florida, 93 of which are JCAHO accredited and 49 of which are accredited for subacute care, and the national record of accreditation of nursing home facilities in subacute care, 23 percent. This record, too, is demonstrative of Arbor’s progress in carrying out its corporate mission: to be the premier subacute provider of long-term care services. Consistent with its mission, Arbor proposes a distinct subacute unit to serve patients with digestive diseases and patients in need of ventilator therapy, infusion therapy, wound care, and cardiac therapy. In addition to subacute services, Arbor proposes to serve residents with dementia, including Alzheimer’s, by utilizing a strongly-developed, individualized- care plan with an interdisciplinary approach implemented upon admission and subject to continuous review and, if necessary, revision. Arbor's application, however, distinctly different from Beverly’s and Life Care’s, does not propose a secured Alzheimer’s unit. Arbor proposes comprehensive rehabilitation care for its patient and residents, as well as outpatient rehabilitation services for both former residents and residents throughout the community. Arbor proposes to provide 0.2 percent of all patient days for charity care and 69.26 percent of all patient days for Medicaid patients within its 104-bed long-term facility. Medicaid patients will also be served in the 16-bed subacute unit. In addition, Arbor proposes to provide, at a minimum, one percent of its patient days for hospice care, respite care, the care of AIDS patients, and the care of pediatric patients. Arbor is committed to such services, as well as the provision of both inpatient and outpatient intensive rehabilitative programs, and has agreed to condition its award of a Certificate of Need upon such commitments. Arbor is the only one of the three applicants committed to provide care and services to pediatric patients. Location Introduction The issue on which these cases turn is location within District 3. (There are other issues in this case certainly. For one reason or another, their disposition will not determine the outcome of this case. Not the least among the other issues is whether Beverly or Life Care should be favored over Arbor because they propose secured Alzheimer’s units. This issue, however important and subject to whatever quality of debate, is not dispositive because at present it has no clear answer. See Findings of Fact Nos. 43-45, below.) District 3 Comprised of 16 counties located as far north as the Georgia state line and southwest to Hernando County, District 3 is the largest AHCA Nursing Home District area-wise. The District is not divided into subdistricts for the purpose of applying the state methodology to determine numeric need of additional nursing home beds. Among the 16 counties in the district are Marion, Hernando and Citrus. The Applicant’s Proposed Locations Beverly proposes to construct its 120-bed freestanding nursing home in Marion County. The specific proposed location is south of the City of Ocala, east of State Road 200 and west of Maricamp Road. From this location, Beverly would serve primarily residents of Marion County, but would also be accessible to residents of Citrus, Lake and Sumter Counties. Life Care proposes to construct its 120-bed nursing home in the Spring Hill area of Hernando County. Arbor proposes to locate its 120-bed nursing home in Citrus County. It did not propose a specific location within the County. The Best Location Conflicting qualified opinions were introduced into evidence by each of the three applicants. Each applicant, of course, presented expert testimony that its proposed location was superior to the locations proposed by the other two. In its preliminary decision, AHCA approved Arbor’s application and denied the other two. AHCA continues to favor Citrus County as the best location for a new 120-bed nursing home in District 3. At bottom, AHCA’s preliminary decision is supported by Arbor's proposal to locate in the county among Marion, Hernando and Citrus Counties with the greatest need: Citrus. This basis underlying, and therefore, the Agency’s preliminary decision, is supported by the findings of fact in paragraphs 21-35, below. Allocation of Nursing Home Beds Within AHCA Nursing Home District 3 Although the district is identified as a single entity for purposes of the state methodology utilized to determine the need for additional nursing home beds, the local planning council divides the district into geographic units or planning areas in order to specify preferences for the allocation of nursing homes within the district. The North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc., has created seven planning areas in District 3. The local health plan utilizes a priority-setting system to identify the relative importance of adding beds to specific planning areas. After establishing well-defined priorities for geographically-underserved areas and designated occupancy thresholds, the priority-setting system creates a decision matrix: the Planning Area Nursing Home Bed Allocation (PANHAM). The matrix is based on the population at risk, bed supply (both licensed and approved), and occupancy levels within the planning area. The allocation factors in the local health plan are particularly significant with respect to District 3 in light of its lone stance among the Agency’s Nursing Home Districts as lacking a process for allocating number of beds needed to the individual subdistrict. The local health plan provides "the only road map or the only guidance" (Tr. 311) as to how to allocate beds within District 3. The local health plan bases its occupancy priorities upon both licensed and approved beds within each planning area. From a planning perspective, it is reasonable and appropriate to calculate occupancy rates based upon both licensed and approved beds in assessing the need for additional beds. The number of approved beds is a measure of how much additional capacity will be on line in the near future. To ignore the number of approved beds in the evaluation of where to allocate new beds is not a good health planning technique. The three counties in which Beverly, Life Care and Arbor propose to locate are each separate planning areas in the local health plan. Marion is Planning Area 4; Hernando and Citrus are 6 and 5, respectively. The preferences contained within the local health plan for the allocation of nursing home beds within District 3 are listed in terms of importance and priority. Allocation factors "[t]wo and three really are the basis . . . for figur[ing] out in this huge district of 16 counties, how [to] make sense of where the beds ought to go." (Tr. 312.) The first of these is for applicants proposing to develop nursing home beds in geographically-underserved areas. None of the planning areas designated by the three applicants in this proceeding meet this geographic-access priority. The second of these two allocation factors, Allocation Factor 3, assigns a number of priorities in order of significance. These priorities are based primarily upon occupancy or utilization and need determined by the number of beds per area residents of 75 years of age and older. The first priority in Allocation Factor 3 is "an acid test." (Tr. 312.) It states that no nursing home beds should be added in a planning area until the number of nursing home days, considering both licensed and approved beds, for the most recent six months is 80 percent. It is only when an applicant meets this threshold that the remaining priorities in Allocation Factor 3 are considered. If the 80-percent priority is not met in a planning area, then the area should be given no further consideration for the allocation of beds. The only planning area of the three at issue in this case which meets the 80-percent occupancy standard is Planning Area 5, Citrus County. At the time the original fixed need pool for District 3 was published for the batching cycle applicable to this case, Citrus County had 69-approved nursing home beds. Hernando County had 147 (including 27 hospital-based skilled nursing beds), and Marion County had 234 approved beds. The most recent data available at the time of hearing show no new beds in Citrus or Hernando Counties but 309 new beds approved for Marion County. Utilizing the most recent data regarding the number of licensed and approved beds in Citrus, Hernando and Marion Counties, Citrus County remains the only planning area of the three which meets or exceeds the 80 percent occupancy threshold. Assuming that the remaining priority factors contained within the PANHAM matrix are applicable, none of the three applicants received a priority ranking under the PANHAM methodology. Applying the most recent data available, however, only Citrus County is moving toward the highest priority of high need and high occupancy. Both Marion County and Hernando County are moving away from the highest priority. Excluding the two counties within District 3 which have no nursing home beds (Dixie and Union), Hernando County has the lowest bed-to-elderly population ratio in the District. Considering occupancy rates over the past three years based solely upon licensed beds, Hernando County has demonstrated a marked decrease in utilization. Thus, even though Hernando has had a growth in population and experiences a lower bed-to- population ratio than the District as a whole, there is no stress on the nursing home bed supply in Hernando County. There is, moreover, no evidence of a high need to add additional bed capacity in Hernando County. The recently opened 120-bed Beverly nursing home in Spring Hill will serve to suppress or depress the overall rate of occupancy in Hernando County, making the occupancy rate even lower. There are a number of reasons why an area that has a relatively low bed-to-population ratio may also experience low occupancy. While a county or a planning area is defined by political boundaries, people do not necessarily stay within those boundaries for nursing home services. Socio-economic factors, the quality of existing nursing home services and the existence of alternatives, such as assisted living facilities, driving times and distances, the proximity of family, all may play a role in determining occupancy rates in a particular area. With regard to Planning Area 6, Hernando County, there are five nursing homes in northern Pasco County within a 15-mile radius of the center of Spring Hill, Life Care’s proposed location. Three of the four existing nursing homes in Hernando County have had downward occupancy trends. Occupancy rate may be expected to further drop with the recently licensed 120-bed facility in Spring Hill. Marion County has far and away the highest number of approved beds and a very high ratio of approved beds to licensed beds, thus providing significant additional capacity in that planning area. While the local health plan for District 3 affords no priorities based upon data concerning patient origin, Beverly attempted to demonstrate a greater need for additional beds in Marion County, as opposed to Citrus County, through patient origin information reported in those two counties. Beverly concluded that while 99 percent of the Citrus County population placed in a nursing home seek care within Citrus County, only 78 percent of Marion County residents placed in a nursing home seek nursing home care in Marion County. A 1996 nursing home data report showed that 147 Marion County residents sought nursing home care outside of Marion County, primarily in adjacent Levy, Sumter and Citrus Counties. Beverly’s analysis fails to establish need in Marion greater than in Citrus. First, it fails to take into account the 309 approved beds which will significantly add to Marion County’s capacity. Second, Citrus County’s occupancy rates are slightly higher than Marion County’s. Third, the data relied upon by Beverly’s expert performing the analysis is incomplete in that two or three nursing homes in Marion County did not report any data regarding patient origin. And finally, there are a number of reasons, found above, for why residents of one planning area choose a nursing home in another planning area. The Extent and Quality of Services Overview The District 3 local plan expresses a preference and priority for applicants which propose specialized services to meet the needs of identified population groups. Examples of such services include care for special children, care for Alzheimer’s or dementia patients, subacute care, and adult day care. Only a small percentage of nursing home care is provided to children. Proposing such care does not in the ordinary nursing home case carry much weight. Nor was there any demonstration that there is an unmet need for pediatric nursing home services in District 3. Nonetheless, it is at least noteworthy that only Arbor proposes care for special children as part of its pediatric services; the other two do not propose pediatric care at all. Arbor is also the only applicant that demonstrated a need for subacute care in its planning area and that is committed to provide such care. Utilizing a reasonable methodology, Arbor demonstrated a need for 41 additional subacute care beds in Citrus County. Arbor’s 16-bed subacute unit is consistent with that demonstrated need. While Beverly and Life Care propose to offer skilled, short-term services, neither proposes a distinct subacute unit. Indeed, Beverly’s skilled Medicare unit will not provide subacute care or services. Life Care’s subacute "program" will be implemented only if management later verifies a community need for such a program. While Life Care proposes to offer adult day care for five clients, Life Care did not identify a need for such services in Hernando County. Each of the applicants proposes to offer services and programs for residents with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia and each intends to service AIDS patients, provide respite care, and offer rehabilitation therapy services. Given the mix of services proposed, as well as Arbor’s commitment to such services, Arbor best meets the local health plan’s priority for the provision of specialized services to meet the needs of identified population groups. Subacute Care Arbor will offer a full range of subacute services, programs, and staffing it in its quest to be a premier provider of subacute services. In contrast, neither Beverly nor Life Care demonstrated a need for subacute care in their districts. In keeping with this lack of demonstration, neither Beverly nor Life Care made any commitment to a dedicated and distinct subacute unit or the provision of such services. Care for Alzheimer’s and Dementia Patients Approximately 50 percent of residents within nursing homes suffer from Alzheimer’s Disease or some form of related dementia. All three applicants propose to serve such patients and offer specified programs and rehabilitative services to these patients. Arbor, however, differs from Beverly and Life Care in its approach to treating those with Alzheimer’s. Beverly and Life Care propose secured, dedicated Alzheimer’s units. Arbor, while clustering patients within the facility in terms of the level of care and resources which each requires, follows a policy of mainstreaming residents with Alzheimer’s within the general nursing home population. There is a difference of opinion in the health care community as to which approach is better: secured, dedicated Alzheimer’s units or mainstreaming. There are both positive and negative aspects to dedicated, secured Alzheimer’s units. And it may turn out that the positive aspects prevail ultimately. But, at present, the results of research are inconclusive. The conclusion cannot yet be drawn that a secured, dedicated unit provides a more effective manner, either from a clinical standpoint or a cost-effective standpoint, of treating and caring for Alzheimer’s or dementia patients. Medicaid Services Florida’s State Health Plan expresses a preference for applicants proposing to serve Medicaid residents in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of the nursing homes in the same subdistrict. Since District 3 is not divided into subdistricts, the applicable comparison is the average District Medicaid utilization: 69.26 percent at the time the applications were filed. Beverly proposes to offer only 55 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients. Beverly showed that Medicaid utilization has been declining in Marion County to the point at the time of hearing that it was 58 percent. But even if it were appropriate to use Marion County as the equivalent of a subdistrict, Beverly’s commitment would not match the Marion County rate, a rate lower than the district-wide rate. Beverly does not qualify for the preference. Life Care proposes 69.5 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients. Life Care qualifies for the preference. Arbor proposes to commit 69.26 percent of its patient days to Medicaid residents in the 104-bed long-term unit of its facility, or a minimum of 67 long-term care beds. In addition, Arbor will dually-certify some of its Medicare-certified beds for Medicaid in its subacute unit for patients who are either admitted on Medicaid or would convert of Medicaid. Typically, an applicant’s commitment to provide a certain percentage of its patient days for services to Medicaid patients is expressed in terms of patient days for the total facility. This batching cycle, however, was unique in that AHCA created a separate subset of nursing home beds, known as short- term beds, and required that separate applications be filed by applicants proposing both long-term and short-term beds. The partition created a problem for each applicant because it set up the possibility that one of the applicant's applications (either the short-term or the long-term) would be approved and the other denied. Arbor solved the problem by considering its 104-bed long term application as an application for a stand-alone project. Beverly and Life Care did not have the problem since they do not intend to have subacute units within their proposed facility. For facilities approved by more than one CON, AHCA uses a blended rate for monitoring compliance with CON conditions. For Arbor’s application, therefore, one could argue that a blended rate of 60.03 percent, composed of 69.23 percent for 104 beds and 0 percent for the 16 subacute beds, which is the rate Arbor proposes for the entire 120-bed facility, should apply. Whether applying a blended rate or using the rate applicable to long-term beds, Arbor is entitled to the State Health Plan preference for service to Medicaid patients. Financial Feasibility With one exception, all parties stipulated that each of the three applicants propose projects that are financially feasible both immediately and on a long-term basis. The exception relates to the listing in Arbor’s application in Schedule 6 of understated proposed wages for certified occupational therapy assistants (COTAs) and licensed physical therapy assistants (LPTAs). The evidence establishes that through inadvertence, Arbor mislabeled the line item designated as COTAs and LPTAs. The item should have borne a description of therapists aides instead of licensed therapists. Had the item been correctly described, the wages listed were salary levels comparable to wages experienced in other Arbor facilities. The error is harmless. The licensed assistants, that is, the COTAs and LPTAs, were included under the therapist line items within Arbor’s Schedule 6. Thus, the total salary expenses reflected in the schedule are accurate and Arbor’s project is financially feasible in the second year of operation. Even if Arbor has misstated the total amount of salaries for therapists and aides in Schedule 6, Arbor’s project would still be financially feasible because the majority of those costs would be allocated to the Medicare unit and would be reimbursed by the Medicare program. Arbor would continue to show a profit (approximately $189,000) in the second year of operation. Arbor’s proposed project is financially feasible in both the short and long terms.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The applications of Arbor Health Care Company (CON Application Numbers 8471L and 8471S) to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home facility in Citrus County be GRANTED; and the applications of Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc. (CON Applications Numbers 8484L and 8484S) and Life Care Health Resources, Inc. (CON Applications Numbers 8479L and 8479S) to construct and operate 120-bed nursing home facilities in Marion and Hernando Counties, respectively, be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane D. Tremor, Esquire John L. Wharton, Esquire Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP 2548 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Bruce McKibben, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-0810 Jay Adams, Esquire Douglas L Mannheimer, Esquire Broad & Cassel Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner, Stacey Health Care Centers, Inc., is licensed to operate Riverside Care Center, located at 899 Northwest Fourth Street, Miami, Florida, as a nursing home in compliance with Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. On July 9, 1986, James A. Bavetta, assistant area supervisor, Office of Licensure and Certification, made a visit of Riverside's facility and determined that Ralph Stacey, Jr., the administrator of record, was acting in the capacity of administrator for two facilities, the subject facility and another facility in Kentucky, without having a qualified assistant administrator to act in his absence. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Ralph L. Stacey Jr., is a licensed nursing home administrator in the States of Ohio, Kentucky and Florida. He has been licensed in Kentucky and Florida since 1974. At the time of Mr. Bavetta's visit and inspection during July, 1986, Ralph Stacey, Jr., was in Cincinnati, Ohio preparing the payroll for Stacey Health Care Centers. During this time period, Ralph Stacey, Jr., served as the administrator for the subject facility, Riverside Care Center, and another facility in Kentucky and did not have a qualified assistant administrator employed to act in his absence. However, once Mr. Bavetta issued his recommendation for sanctions, Petitioner, as part of its plan of correction, has employed a licensed administrator who is presently on staff and serves as Riverside's assistant administrator during the administrator's absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of lawn it is RECOMMENDED: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) upon Stacey Health Care Centers- Inc., d/b/a Riverside Care Center, which amount shall be payable to Respondent within thirty (30) days after entry of Respondent's Final Order. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth S. Handmaker, Esquire MIDDLETON & REUTLINGER 2500 Brown & Williamson Tower Louisville, KY 40202-3410 Leonard T. Helfand, Esquire Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 5190 Northwest 167th Street Miami, Florida 33014 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard -Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether a certificate of need should be issued to permit Tamarac Hospital, Inc. d/b/a University Community Hospital (Tamarac) to convert 10 acute care medical/surgical beds to skilled nursing facility beds. Based on their presentations at the final hearing and their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the central issue is whether there is a need for the proposed nursing home beds.
Findings Of Fact Tamarac proposes to convert 10 currently licensed medical/surgical acute care beds into skilled nursing facility beds. The skilled nursing beds would be available at the hospital to treat patients who no longer require acute hospital care but do require skilled nursing services beyond those required by ordinary nursing home patients. (Tr. 15-16) 1/ The capital cost of the project would be approximately $20,000 for renovation to provide a private bathroom in the existing group of hospital rooms which would be converted to use as the skilled nursing facility (Tr. 25). The testimony of the petitioner with respect to the financial feasibility of the project was undisputed (Tr. 25, PX 1, p.14). Tamarac has encountered problems in placing patients who no longer require acute hospital care in nursing homes in HRS District 10, Broward County, when those patients require more than normal nursing home services. These patients, due to their diagnosis or treatment, require more skilled nursing care, more technical assistance, supplies or more frequent checking than traditional nursing home patients (Tr. 15). These are patients with infectious diseases or draining wounds who require isolation; patients requiring ongoing intravenous administration of medications including antibiotics and narcotics; patients on chronic ventilator support; patients with tracheostomies requiring respiratory support, suctioning or oxygen; patients with naso-gastric feeding tubes and patients receiving total parenteral nutrition (PX 1, application, p. 2). Tamarac introduced a study it had conducted concerning discharge delays for the one year period prior to its application which included 70 patients (Tr. 12, PX 3). The study is anecdotal in nature. The director of social services for Tamarac, who is in charge of discharge planning coordination, testified that the 70 cases were representative and randomly sampled (Tr. 12, 21). There was no specific evidence of the sampling methodology, however. In the absence of better evidence of the sampling methodology it is not possible to determine what inferences validly may be drawn from the information presented in PX 3. For example, the evidence fails to show whether the 70 cases included represent 1 percent or 100 percent of the instances where a discharge was delayed. All that is known is that in 53 percent of those 70 cases studied the discharge delay occurred because the patient could not be placed in a nursing home (Tr. 12). These 37 patients might have been served at Tamarac if a skilled nursing facility had been in operation. Due to the limited evidence of how the sample was chosen, the study has been given little weight. In addition, the application and Tamarac's study focuses solely on the experience of Tamarac in attempting to place patients who no longer required acute care in a nursing home. There is no basis for determining whether there is a general community need for the project proposed. The narrowness of the proof offered is apparently due to the restriction Tamarac made in the application that "this project is for [Tamarac] hospitalized patients only". Application, PX 1, page 6 paragraph 4. Tamarac also conducted a survey of Broward nursing homes to determine what services they provide, PX 4. That survey indicates that there are some specialized nursing services that are not available in nursing homes in Broward County, e.g., services for patients on chronic ventilators and patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (although Tamarac did not indicate that it proposed to offer services to AIDS patients). There are also services which are not commonly available. Many nursing homes will not accept patients on intravenous medication in the form of chemotherapy or narcotics or patients with draining wounds, and the few that do generally require no pathogenic organism be present as shown by negative culture test. Even when some nursing home in Broward County provides a specific service, a bed at that nursing home may not be available to a patient in Tamarac Hospital ready for discharge from acute care when the bed is requested (Tr. 14- 15). Tamarac's placement problem is made more difficult because it is to some extent in competition with other Broward County hospitals for the available nursing home beds for patients needing skilled, subacute nursing services (Tr. 16). This generalized evidence of competition does not rise to the level of demonstrating a need in HRS Service District 10 for the proposed skilled nursing facility. Tamarac has attempted to persuade existing nursing homes to expand services to accept on a routine basis patients needing the type services which Tamarac proposes to provide, but has been unsuccessful (Tr. 16). The bed need calculation methodology set out in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, for the July 1988 planning horizon shows a surplus of 92 nursing home beds in Broward County (RX 1 and 2, Tr. 32-44). Approximately 258 nursing home beds are unoccupied in Broward County on a daily basis, assuming 100 percent occupancy actually could be achieved (Tr. 39). The availability of empty nursing home beds in the district does not necessarily mean that beds are available for a particular patient at Tamarac Hospital who needs more than normal nursing services on a specific day (Tr. 55). Individual patients requiring subacute care may remain in the hospital (Tr. 18). Patients ready for discharge from acute care are not eligible for Medicare coverage (Tr. 17), and are potentially liable for their hospital costs incurred awaiting placement. If they were transferred to a skilled nursing facility such as that proposed by Tamarac, those patients would be eligible for the Medicare benefits for the first 20 days, with an additional 80 days of co- insurance reimbursement thereafter (Tr. 26). The average hospital room, board, and ancillary charges at Tamarac is $900 per patient and per day. The charge to be made in Tamarac's proposed skilled nursing facility would be $115 per day (Tr. 26). According to the application (PX 1, table 7, utilization by the class of pay), 65.6 percent of its patient days of service are provided by Tamarac to Medicare patients. Tamarac would recover approximately $115 per patient per day for patients utilizing its skilled nursing facility, rather than writing off, as it does now, approximately $900 per day for those Medicare patients requiring subacute care who remain in Tamarac due to an inability to identify an appropriate skilled nursing facility in Broward County to accept them when their care requirements are greater than that normally provided by Broward County nursing homes (Tr. 29). Few Medicaid patients utilize the services of Tamarac because of the nature of the population surrounding the hospital. Referring again to the evidence of utilization by class of pay, only one tenth of one percent of the patient days spent at Tamarac during the period January 84 through December 84 were days spent by Medicaid patients. There would be no restriction on access to the skill nursing facility unit if one of the rare Medicaid patients at Tamarac Hospital required those services (Tr. 27-28).
Recommendation It is recommended that the application of Tamarac Hospital, Inc., d/b/a University Community Hospital to convert 10 medical/surgical beds to skilled nursing facility beds be denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of October 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 1986.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Department of Health, Board of Nursing Home Administrators (the “Department”), was “substantially justified” under section 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes,1 in initiating the underlying action against the nursing home administrator license of Petitioner, Sebrina Cameron, N.H.A. (“Petitioner” or “Ms. Cameron”).
Findings Of Fact Based on the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department, through the Board, is the entity authorized by statute to issue licenses to nursing home administrators and to impose discipline on those licenses when warranted. § 468.1685(4), Fla. Stat. Ms. Cameron is a licensed nursing home administrator, having been issued license number NH 4950. Case No. 20-3025PL was initiated by the Department, a “state agency” for purposes of section 57.111(3)(f). Ms. Cameron qualifies as a “small business party” as defined in section 57.111(3)(d). Because the Administrative Complaint underlying Case No. 20- 3025PL was ultimately dismissed by the Board, Ms. Cameron is a “prevailing small business party” under section 57.111(3)(c)1. The sole issue presented in this bifurcated proceeding is whether the Department was substantially justified in bringing the Administrative Complaint against Petitioner’s nursing home administrator license. Section 57.111(3)(e) states that a proceeding is “substantially justified” if “it had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by a state agency.” On May 4, 2020, the Department presented its investigation and recommendation in Department Case No. 2020-12066 to the Panel, which decides whether there is a sufficient legal and factual basis for the Department to move forward with formal charges in license discipline cases. The Panel reviewed the following materials (hereinafter “Panel Materials”): a draft of the proposed Administrative Complaint; a copy of the Department’s Order of Emergency Suspension of License; Petitioner’s detailed response to the allegations; a 980-page Supplemental Investigative Report dated April 23, 2020; and a 196-page Final Investigative Report dated April 22, 2020. The Panel found probable cause and authorized the filing of the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron. The investigation and subsequent Administrative Complaint related to an outbreak of COVID-19 involving several residents at Cross Landings Health and Rehabilitation Center, a nursing home in Monticello. The outbreak commenced on or about April 5, 2020, when a resident at Cross Landings tested positive for COVID-19. By April 14, 2020, 11 additional residents had tested positive. On April 9, 2020, a team of four registered nurses (“RN Team”), contracted by the Department’s Division of Emergency Management, arrived at Cross Landings with the stated assignment of assessing the facility’s infection control procedures and providing education and training on hygiene practices, infection control, isolation procedures, and the proper use of personal protective equipment (“PPE”). The RN Team was also tasked with identifying and recommending actions to be taken to control the spread of COVID-19 infections. The RN Team worked at Cross Landings until April 14, 2020. The record indicates that the RN Team’s dealings with the staff of Cross Landings was contentious, particularly with regard to the facility’s owner, administrators, and senior nursing staff, who regarded the team’s behavior as high-handed, intrusive, and not consistent with its supposed mission of helping Cross Landings cope with the COVID-19 outbreak. From the RN Team’s point of view, Cross Landings’ leadership was uncooperative when not outright obstructive. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Cross Landings had two licensed nursing home administrators on site responding to the outbreak. The administrator of record was Mark Daniels. However, Mr. Daniels submitted his resignation to Cross Landings on April 7, 2020. During the team’s stay, Ms. Cameron was also at the facility in her role as regional administrator for the parent company of Cross Landings, to ensure continuity of care for the residents and to help on the administrative side. Petitioner argues that the title “regional administrator” was an honorific bestowed upon her by the parent company in recognition of her years of service to the organization. The title carried no additional powers or duties. Petitioner states that Ms. Cameron had no supervisory authority over Mr. Daniels, who was at all relevant times the administrator of record at Cross Landings. At the time of the investigation, the Department was unaware that the title “regional administrator” carried no actual authority. The Department understood the title to mean that Ms. Cameron was senior to Mr. Daniels and exercised some level of administrative authority at Cross Landings. It appeared to the RN Team that Ms. Cameron was a figure of authority at Cross Landings and that she was treated as such by the staff of the facility. The RN Team created daily reports detailing its observations at Cross Landings for April 9 through 11, 13, and 14, 2020. During its subsequent investigation, the Department interviewed the members of the RN Team regarding their observations at Cross Landings. The daily reports and the interviews were part of the investigative file that was before the Panel when it deliberated probable cause in Ms. Cameron’s case. The RN Team reported widespread failure in Cross Landings’ infection prevention and control measures, including the improper use of PPE by staff, inadequate hygiene procedures, the failure to properly isolate COVID-19 suspected or positive residents, the failure to timely notify staff members of COVID-19 positive residents, and the failure to properly screen individuals entering the facility, including Ms. Cameron.2 The RN Team also reported an overall failure to deliver adequate resident care, including residents who were soiled with feces or urine, 2 The RN Team’s reportage was disputed by Cross Landings and would have been subject to challenge by Ms. Cameron at any subsequent hearing. The RN Team’s reportage is relayed in this Final Order not as fact but as information that was available to the Panel in its deliberations. residents who did not have bed sheets, residents who were not receiving adequate wound care, and residents with undated and soiled surgical dressings. The RN Team reported being “shocked and horrified” by the conditions at Cross Landings. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron instructed Cross Landings’ staff to not listen to the RN Team’s recommendations and that Ms. Cameron called the RN Team “nothing but trouble.” Ms. Cameron and her fellow senior employees believed, not without reason, that the main purpose of the RN Team was not to help Cross Landings cope with the COVID-19 outbreak, but to compile a record for the purpose of disciplinary action against the facility and its administrators. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron, Mr. Daniels, and Director of Nursing Mary Lewis actively obstructed the RN Team’s efforts to improve conditions at the facility. The RN Team reported that the trio became increasingly hostile to the RN Team. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. Lewis stated that they were following orders from the facility’s owner, Karl Cross. On or about April 14, 2020, the Department issued Quarantine/ Isolation Orders directing that 13 of Cross Landings’ 42 residents be relocated to another facility due to Cross Landings’ insufficient infection control practices and the resultant spread of COVID-19 within the facility. On or about April 15, 2020, the Department issued additional Orders requiring the remaining Cross Landings’ residents to undergo COVID-19 testing. Petitioner’s Motion does not dispute the factual allegations of the Administrative Complaint as to her actions at Cross Landings between April 9 and 14, 2020. Petitioner’s case rests on the legal argument that the Department cannot take disciplinary action against Ms. Cameron’s nursing home administrator license under the facts alleged because Ms. Cameron was not the designated administrator of record at Cross Landings. The Motion states: Here, the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron was not substantially justified because Mark Daniels—and NOT Sebrina Cameron—was the designated administrator of Cross Landings at all times referenced in the Amended Complaint. Ms. Cameron was at all relevant times, and continues to be, the administrator of a completely different facility, Crosswinds Health and Rehabilitation Center (“Crosswinds”). These facts were known to the [Department]. The identity of the actual administrator was readily available to [the Department] and was easily determined through a simple review of readily available state records. Petitioner relies on a rule of the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) regulating the licensure, administration, and fiscal management of nursing homes. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A- 4.103(4) provides: Administration. The licensee of each nursing home must have full legal authority and responsibility for the operation of the facility. The licensee of each facility must designate one person, who is licensed by the Florida Department of Health, Board of Nursing Home Administrators under Chapter 468, Part II, F.S., as the Administrator who oversees the day to day administration and operation of the facility.[3] Each nursing home must be organized according to a written table of organization. (emphasis added). 3 This portion of the rule implements section 400.141(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that a licensed nursing home facility shall “[b]e under the administrative direction and charge of a licensed administrator.” Section 400.021(1) defines “administrator” as “the licensed individual who has the general administrative charge of a facility.” The Motion notes that the Administrative Complaint acknowledges that Ms. Cameron was not the designated administrator of record at Cross Landings by repeatedly referring to her as the “regional administrator” of the facility. The Motion goes on to argue as follows: There are no rules, codes, statutes, or any other authoritative sources that recognize the existence of or define the responsibilities of a “regional administrator.” Ms. Cameron was given the honorific title as recognition of her years of quality service, but the title did not come with any legislatively recognized responsibilities, official responsibilities, authority, or monetary incentives for any time she chose to spend helping out at Cross Landings during the once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic. To be clear, Ms. Cameron was not required by contract, duties, law, or regulation to step foot in Cross Landings and put herself at risk during a deadly pandemic. Despite this, the [Department] elected to proceed against her license through [sections] 468.1755(1)(h) and (k). Count I of the Administrative Complaint alleged that Petitioner violated section 468.1755(1)(h), by engaging in fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of nursing home administration, which is defined as follows by section 468.1655(4): “Practice of nursing home administration” means any service requiring nursing home administration education, training, or experience and the application of such to the planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling of the total management of a nursing home. A person shall be construed to practice or to offer to practice nursing home administration who: Practices any of the above services. Holds himself or herself out as able to perform, or does perform, any form of nursing home administration by written or verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, or card; or in any other way represents himself or herself to be, or implies that he or she is, a nursing home administrator. The Department argues that the statutory definition of the practice of nursing home administration does not limit its regulatory reach to the designated administrator of a nursing home, but reaches a person who holds herself out as able to perform or who does perform nursing home administration. The Department states that an AHCA rule regarding the overall operation of nursing home facilities does not govern the Department’s regulation of an individual licensee. The Department contends that Ms. Cameron’s undisputed actions at Cross Landings met the statutory definition of the practice of nursing home administration and that it was reasonable for the Panel to find probable cause based on those actions. The Department points out that Ms. Cameron used her title of regional administrator to order supplies on behalf of Cross Landings, including PPE and sanitizing products. Ms. Cameron verbally directed Cross Landings’ staff members. In one instance noted by the RN Team, a newly hired Cross Landings certified nursing assistant (“CNA”) was given a painter’s mask that was too large for her face. The RN Team instructed her to replace it with a smaller mask. The CNA told the RN Team that Ms. Cameron had given her the mask and that she had been given no training on COVID-19 procedures or PPE. Ms. Cameron subsequently refused to give the CNA a smaller mask and instead offered her a used N95 mask from the trunk of her car. When the CNA refused to put on the used mask, she was forced to resign from her position. Ms. Cameron represented Cross Landings in dealing with the Department regarding the placement of a resident who was suspected to have COVID-19. Ms. Cameron met with the RN Team on behalf of Cross Landings. The Department notes that Ms. Cameron held herself out as able to perform nursing home administration and/or represented or implied that she was a nursing home administrator at Cross Landings. Ms. Cameron was physically present at Cross Landings in her role as regional administrator. She employed the title “regional administrator” to some effect and used the administrator’s office while at Cross Landings. She was privy to communications between Mr. Cross and AHCA regarding the RN Team and COVID-19 infection control procedures at Cross Landings. Though she was not the administrator of record, Ms. Cameron held herself out and was treated as having actual administrative authority at Cross Landings during the COVID-19 outbreak and the RN Team’s visit in April 2020. There was a reasonable basis in law and fact to find that Petitioner engaged in the practice of nursing home administration at Cross Landings as defined in section 468.1655(4)(a) and/or (b), due to her performance of nursing home administrator services and/or by her holding herself out to be a nursing home administrator. Count II of the Administrative Complaint alleged that Petitioner violated section 468.1755(1)(k), by repeatedly acting in a manner inconsistent with the health, safety, or welfare of the patients of the facility in which she is the administrator. Chapter 468, enacted to ensure that every nursing home administrator practicing in Florida meets the minimum requirements for safe practice, defines a nursing home administrator as, “a person who is licensed to engage in the practice of nursing home administration in this state under the authority of this part.” § 468.1655(3), Fla. Stat. (2019). As noted above, section 400.021 defines “administrator” as “the licensed individual who has the general administrative charge of a facility.” The stated purpose of chapter 400, part II, is to provide for the development, establishment, and enforcement of basic standards for the health, care, and treatment of persons in nursing homes and the maintenance and operation of such institutions in a manner that will ensure safe, adequate, and appropriate care, treatment, and health of persons in such facilities. § 400.011, Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Cameron was a licensed nursing home administrator pursuant to chapter 468 and used the title of regional administrator. The title “regional administrator” is not defined by statute but in context carries an ordinary meaning that the individual is the administrator supervising more than one nursing home in a geographic area. Ms. Cameron stated that she was at Cross Landings to ensure continuity of care after Mr. Daniels tendered his resignation. It was not illogical for the Department to conclude that “continuity of care” meant that Ms. Cameron was sent to Cross Landings to perform the duties of administrator as Mr. Daniels prepared for his departure. Ensuring “continuity of care” would certainly require control over the various components of a nursing home to provide health care and activities of daily living, including the management of nursing and housekeeping staff, oversight of meal services, and the facilitation of social and recreational activities. Such oversight or control is tantamount to the general administrative charge of the facility. Ms. Cameron would not have been able to ensure continuity of care if she did not have de facto general administrative charge of Cross Landings. Ms. Cameron’s general administrative charge over the facility was evidenced by her actions at Cross Landings, including ordering supplies, distributing supplies to staff members, directing staff members, communicating on behalf of the facility, meeting with the RN Team in the place of Mr. Daniels, and using the administrator’s office as her own. Ms. Cameron’s licensure as a nursing home administrator, her use of the title regional administrator, her stated purpose for being present at Cross Landings, and her actions at Cross Landings provide sufficient grounds for a reasonable person to believe that she had the general administrative charge of Cross Landings. Though she was not the administrator of record and did not have sole administrative charge of the facility, Ms. Cameron presented herself as the person in charge and was treated as such by Cross Landings’ staff. Based on the foregoing, at the time this proceeding was initiated, the Department had a reasonable basis in law and fact to find that Petitioner was the administrator at Cross Landings as defined in sections 468.1655(3) and 400.021(1), and was subject to discipline for repeatedly acting in a manner inconsistent with the health, safety, or welfare of the patients of the facility. During the probable cause hearing on May 4, 2020, the Panel discussed and considered whether Ms. Cameron was subject to discipline for her actions at Cross Landings. Members of the Panel raised questions about her status as the administrator of Cross Landings. The Department informed the Panel that Mr. Daniels was the administrator of record for Cross Landings. The Panel discussed what duties and obligations a licensed administrator other than the administrator of record would have in this specific scenario. The Panel considered that Ms. Cameron was the regional administrator for the parent company, that she was acting in an administrative capacity on the ground at Cross Landings, and that she therefore had some degree of responsibility. The Panel concluded that Ms. Cameron was operating in the capacity of administrator by being the regional administrator on site. The chair of the Panel reasonably concluded that a regional administrator would be in a position to exercise control over Mr. Daniels and that Mr. Daniels was reporting to Ms. Cameron. It is found that the information before the Panel was sufficient to support the Panel’s decision. The Department was substantially justified in finding probable cause and deciding to pursue an Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron.
