Findings Of Fact Each applicant in this proceeding submitted its application in the January, 1986 batching cycle for the January, 1989 planning horizon, each requesting a certificate of need to build a 120-bed nursing home in Brevard County, Florida. The parties have stipulated that each applicant's letter of intent and application was timely filed, that there is a need in the January, 1989 planning horizon for additional community nursing home beds, and that 120 of those beds should be awarded to one of these applicants. They further stipulated that there are sufficient professional staff available in the Brevard County area to completely staff a new nursing home facility and that each of the applicants is able to obtain the funds necessary to construct its project. Maple Leaf of Brevard County Health Care, Inc., a new corporation to be formed as a wholly-owned subsidiary of HCR proposes a 120-bed community nursing home to be located in central Brevard County in the area of Rockledge and Cocoa. In addition to traditional skilled and intermediate care, the nursing home will provide services for sub-acute patients, and a separate wing of the nursing home will be set aside for Alzheimers and related dementia disease patients (hereinafter "Alzheimers patients"). The HCR proposal includes an adult day- care unit for Alzheimers patients and respite care on a bed- availability basis. At final hearing, HCR submitted an application supplement which provided updated calculations, projections and program descriptions to account for changes occurring as a result of the elapse of time between submission of the original application and the final hearing. The application supplement does not include any programmatic changes from the original application and does not add any new concepts or elements to the original HCR proposal. The adult day-care unit will provide care to Alzheimers patients for four to eight hours a day and from one to five days a week, depending upon the needs of the patient and caregiver. The program will be staffed by a nurse director and an assistant. Patients will be provided with various activities of daily living in an environment developed for Alzheimers disease victims. This program provides placement for the patient who does not need inpatient care but whose caregiver needs rest or an opportunity to attend to matters outside of the home, such as employment. Respite care at the HCR facility is intended to provide placement for patients on a 24-hour basis while the family or caregiver attends to needs such as vacation or hospitalization incompatible with overnight care of the patient at home. Respite care provides inpatient nursing home care for short periods of time, typically a week or two. Sub-acute care is a more intensive form of skilled nursing care than typically has been provided in nursing homes. Historically, this care was provided in hospitals, but adoption of the DRG (diagnostically related group) system of acute care reimbursement has resulted in an earlier discharge from hospitals of elderly patients who continue to need an intense level of nursing care. Sub-acute care includes the provision of high-tech services such as ventilator care IV therapy, pulmonary aids, tube feeding, hyperalimentation and short- and long-term rehabilitation. HCR provides a wide variety of these sub- acute care services in its existing facilities. Hospitals in Brevard County report difficulty in placing patients who require sub-acute care and high-tech services. Particularly difficult to place are these patients whose care is reimbursed by Medicaid. The availability of sub-acute care also provides continuity of care for bedridden Alzheimers patients in the later stages of the disease when they require life support systems. HCR proposes to devote a 29-bed wing of the facility to the care of Alzheimers patients. Special design features, patient activities and programs and modified staffing will be provided to meet the special needs of Alzheimers patients. Alzheimers disease, a form of dementia, is a degenerative condition of the brain which results in a progressive dementia and loss of Previously- acquired intellectual functions and memory. Generally, the disease has three or four stages. In the earliest stages, the victims experience some mild memory loss, behavioral changes, loss of interest in previous hobbies, depression, anxiety and increased difficulty handling some routine day-to-day affairs. In the early stages, victims often are in reasonably good physical condition and symptoms tend to be fairly subtle. In stage two memory loss is much more apparent, and victims begin to have problems with the use of language. They may have increased difficulty with spatial relationships and become lost in familiar surroundings. These victims experience more noticeable problems with their memory in terms with dealing with their family and friends; as the disease progresses to stage three, those problems tend to worsen and become apparent even to people who are not otherwise familiar with the patient. The victims may have additional behavioral or psychiatric difficulties associated with depression or severe anxiety. A delusional stage is frequent. These victims experience disruption of their sleeping cycles and sleep during the day and wander during the night. Seizures may become a problem. In stage three, the victims usually require supervision. As the disease progresses through stage three, the victims have difficulty with personal hygiene, difficulty getting dressed and difficulty performing the simplest human task. As the disease progresses into stage four the victim becomes bedridden and requires total nursing care. There is no cure for the disease. It is terminal. Nursing home care is probably appropriate for everyone in stage four of Alzheimers disease. Most patients in stage three require nursing home care. Some patients in stage two may require nursing home care, depending upon the type of care that is available at home. According to some estimations, approximately 2.5 million American adults suffer from Alzheimers disease and approximately one-half of existing nursing home patients, and 15 percent of the population age 75 and over suffer from Alzheimers disease (4 - 5 percent 65 and over, 20 - 30 percent 85 and older). There are eleven nursing homes in Brevard County, but there is only one nursing home in Brevard County which provides a separate unit for Alzheimers patients. This facility is located in West Melbourne in south Brevard County. There is no nursing home which provides a separate Alzheimers program in central or north Brevard County. Historically, Alzheimers patients in nursing homes have been mixed with other patients. The Alzheimers patient in the nursing home has often created management problems because of wandering, incontinence, confusion, loss of cognitive and communicative capabilities, unusual sensitivity to normal environmental stress, and socially, unacceptable behavior. Because of these characteristics, nursing homes have sometimes avoided admitting Alzheimers patients. Often, when such patients were admitted, their behavior was controlled by sedation and physical restraints. Nursing home patients who do not suffer from Alzheimers disease are often agitated and disrupted by the Alzheimers patient. The Alzheimers patient exhibits such unacceptable social behavior as going through other patients' belongings, sleeping in other patients' beds, violent behavior, being unresponsive to attempted communications and continually wandering. A separate unit for the Alzheimers disease victim also accommodates the needs of the non- Alzheimers patient. It is medically appropriate to separate Alzheimers patients from other nursing home patients. Frequently, the Alzheimers patient is suffering from mental problems resulting in confusion and disorientation but is otherwise physically healthy and ambulatory. Other patients in the nursing home often have a variety of medical problems which require more intensive nursing care. Placing Alzheimers patients in the same area with those patients with medical problems requiring more nursing care can be disruptive to the nursing care being provided to the non- Alzheimers patient, The design of the HCR facility is intended to reduce the environmental stress on Alzheimers disease victims and allow them to maintain their cognitive capabilities for as long as possible. Special wall coverings, floor coverings, labeling and color coding features are provided. Separate dining and activities areas are provided. Wandering is permitted. A fenced courtyard is provided. A monitoring system will alert the facility staff when a patient begins to wander out of the facility. Bathrooms are designed to avoid fright and confusion by automatic lighting systems, coloring and distinctly shaped fixtures and waste baskets. Safe dinnerware and tables which enhance the Alzheimers victim's ability to continue to feed himself or herself are provided. Additional staffing in the Alzheimers unit and staff training in Alzheimers care will be provided. The goal of the Alzheimers design and program is to maintain the patient's activities of daily living and assist in the retention of the patient's cognitive capabilities for as long as possible. Separate, specialized Alzheimers care units are beneficial for several reasons. They are safer for the Alzheimers patient. They reduce the agitation and disruption of the Alzheimer's and non-Alzheimer's patient. They provide programs for Alzheimers patients which are within the patient's cognitive abilities. The units are smaller, and each patient receives more individual attention. Sedation and physical restraint is eliminated or reduced. Individual dignity is enhanced. HCR confirmed the need for an Alzheimers program in Brevard County by calculations based upon nationally-accepted statistics and contact in Brevard County with individuals knowledgeable of the availability of care being provided to Alzheimers disease patients. Special units for Alzheimers patients are a fairly new phenomenon. HCR proposes to develop Alzheimers units in other nursing homes in Florida and has submitted applications to add Alzheimers wings to existing nursing homes in Florida. HCR also proposes to convert a wing in an existing facility in Dade County to provide care for Alzheimers patients. HCR will locate its nursing home in the Rockledge- Cocoa area, about thirty miles north of Melbourne and thirty miles south of Titusville, in central Brevard County. All 120 nursing home beds in the HCR nursing home will be certified for Medicaid reimbursement. New equipment for the HCR nursing home is projected to cost $412,079. This represents an increase in cost over the original estimate of $370,000 because of a general increase in equipment cost since the original application and an allocation of approximately $13,800 for equipment for the daycare unit, a cost which was not included in the original estimate. HCR's estimate for purchase of new equipment is reasonable. Projections of payor-mix, facility utilization and revenue and expenses of a nursing home are useful to evaluate the financial feasibility of the project. All projections utilized by HCR to evaluate financial feasibility are conservative projections. The updated projections presented by HCR at final hearing are more conservative than the projections presented in HCR's original application. If the projections found in HCR's original application were realized, the facility simply would be more profitable. HCR's estimate of an 11 percent interest rate for the funds to be borrowed for this project is a reasonable and conservative estimate. HCR's estimate of 50 percent intermediate care patients and 50 percent skilled care patients is a reasonable estimate for the patients expected to be found in this facility and is a conservative estimate. No other applicant provided such an estimate. In computing revenues and expenses, HCR assumed an inflation factor of 3 percent for Medicare and Medicaid revenues, 5 percent for other revenues and 5 percent for expenses. These inflation factors are reasonable. HCR's projections of 22 percent in year one and 25 percent in year two for payroll taxes and fringe benefits are reasonable and consistent with HCR's actual experience. HCR utilized reasonable and appropriate depreciation periods of 40 years for the building and 10 years for equipment. These are the depreciation periods used by HCR in its regular course of business. The patient charges projected by HCR, including Medicaid, Medicare and private room rates and ancillary charges, are reasonable projections. HCR projected that private pay room charges at the nursing home would be $75 for a semi-private room and $85 for a private room in July, 1989. These updated projections are consistent with existing (1987) private pay rates in Brevard County, which range from $59 for a semi-private room to $90 for a private room. The HCR rates, inflated forward to 1989, are reasonable and consistent with the existing private pay charges in Brevard County. Private pay room rates charged at nursing homes tend to reflect the market for private pay rates in the vicinity of the nursing home. HCR's updated projection of payor-mix is consistent with the actual experience in central Brevard County and an open admissions policy for Medicaid patients. HCR projects that the facility will reach 95 percent occupancy within 12 months of operation. This projection is based upon HCR's experience subsequent to filing the original application. This projection is reasonable and more conservative than those of the other applicants. HCR anticipates a loss in the first year of operation of $293,885, but a profit in the second year of Operation of $241,084. These projections reveal that the project proposed by HCR is financially feasible, and these projections are reasonable. Staffing of the HCR nursing home is comprised of an administrator, a director of nursing, an assistant director of nursing, an Alzheimers program director, 8.4 FTE (full time equivalent) registered nurses, 6.3 FTE licensed practical nurses, 39.9 FTE nurse-aides, 1 full time occupational therapy aide, 1 full time recreational therapy aide, a social worker, an activities director, 10 FTE dietary personnel, 3 FTE laundry personnel, 8 FTE housekeeping personnel, a maintenance person, 2 clerical workers, and 1 medical records worker. Physical therapy, occupational therapy, recreational therapy, and speech therapy will be provided by licensed therapists on a contract basis. The updated staffing pattern represents minor changes from the staffing pattern in the original application. These changes are a direct result of HCR's experience in operating an Alzheimers wing within a nursing home. HCR's staffing level for staff who provide direct patient care (RNs, LPNs and Aides) exceeds that of Wuesthoff and Unicare. Staff levels in the HCR nursing home are designed to meet the special needs of the Alzheimers patients. An Alzheimers program director will be responsible for the Alzheimers wing and will be an advisor for the day-care facility. HCR's staffing pattern assumes 15 wandering Alzheimers patients in the Alzheimers wing. Care for Alzheimers patients requires increased staffing. Higher nurse-aides staffing is required in the Alzheimers wing during the evening and night hours than in the remainder of the nursing home because Alzheimers patients tend to wander without regard to the time of day. HCR estimates construction costs to be $2,200,000, not including site preparation, which is estimated to cost $275,000. Construction costs per square foot are estimated at $55 and $61.87 when site preparation is included. The estimates of construction cost and construction cost per square foot include an allocation of 2,000 square feet and $110,000 for the day-care unit. The cost per square foot projected in the updated application differs from that projected in the original application because the original application included site preparation, assumed a facility size of 36,000 square feet and was not changed when the original design was changed to add day- care in the original application supplement. The actual size is approximately 40,000 gross square feet. The original HCR application submitted a blueprint which is somewhat different in shape from that which HCR currently intends to build. When HCR added day-care in its Original application supplement, a change in the shape of the building was required and a new design was submitted, but cost estimates were not changed. The design which HCR will use for this facility is similar to the design being used in four ongoing HCR projects in Florida, and which, therefore, meets HRS' requirements. The design relied upon by HCR at final hearing is not substantially different from the design presented to HRS in the original application supplement. HCR's estimates of construction cost, construction cost per square foot, construction cost per bed, equipment cost per bed and total project costs are reasonable and adequate to accomplish the construction of the proposed facility. HCR's updated construction cost estimates are based upon its construction experience in Florida, its experience in having built the design proposed and its discussions with contractors and subcontractors on the east coast of Florida. HCR is currently building two facilities on the east coast of Florida. HCR does not anticipate any cost overruns on any of the facilities currently under construction. All HCR facilities under construction are being constructed within the certificate of need budgets for those facilities. HCR estimates project development costs, including feasibility studies, surveys, legal and accounting fees, planning and HRS's plan review, to be $55,000, which represents an increase over the estimate in the original application due to the passage of time. HCR estimates professional services required for the construction of the facility to cost $90,000. These services include architectural and engineering fees and a site survey and soil investigation report. These costs are approximate1y $5,000 less than the original estimate. This reduction in cost is a direct result of HCR's new staff of civil engineers. Previously, HCR had contracted for site survey work with outside engineers. Thus, while architectural and engineering fees increase, the costs for site surveys and soil investigation reports decrease. The HCR nursing home will be located on approximately 5 acres. HCR estimates land cost for the facility to be approximately $500,000. This - represents an increase over the original land cost estimate because HCR intends to acquire a site which requires less site preparation, located near a hospital. The HCR estimates for land cost are reasonable and consistent with other applicants' estimates. Site preparation costs are estimated at $275,000, a reduction from the original site preparation cost estimate of $315,000. This change is accounted for by HCR's intention to acquire a more costly site which will require less site preparation. HCR intends to build and operate the nursing home proposed for Brevard County and is willing to accept a condition to that effect on any certificate of need issued. HCR estimates a project completion schedule which will result in its nursing home being occupied and in use in July, 1989, and this project completion forecast is a reasonable forecast. HCR has taken steps to ensure that failure to initiate construction within statutory requirements will not occur. HCR has undertaken numerous nursing home projects since 1983 and has successfully constructed or initiated construction on all of those projects. At this time HCR has approximately six projects under construction, four projects have been completed, and one project is under construction for a third party. The design of the HCR facility incorporates numerous energy conservation measures and efficiencies. The HCR facility will comply with all energy code requirements. HCR owns and operates seven nursing homes in Florida. Three of these facilities have superior licenses, and the remaining facilities have standard licenses. HCR nursing homes adhere to extensive quality assurance standards and guidelines. These standards and guidelines regulate such areas as patients' rights, staff development and orientation, physician and nurses services, pharmacy services and medication administration, social services, patient activities, infection control, patient care planning, safety and the physical environmental, menus, diets, nutritional care and scheduling and staffing of dietary personnel, personal appearance and hygiene for dietary personnel, and food storage, preparation and sanitation. These standards and guidelines will be applicable to this proposed project. The standards and guidelines cover all areas of operations and patient care and incorporate survey tools used by the state of Florida and the Health Care and Finance Administration of the federal government for their annual licensure surveys. Additionally, administrators of HCR facilities have a financial incentive to optimize the performance and the quality of care of their facilities. HCR estimates that approximately 60 percent of the patient days in the facility (53 percent of the revenue) will result from Medicaid patients. This estimate is consistent with the experience in the Rockledge-Cocoa area, where one facility has a very low percentage of Medicaid patients and the remaining facilities have very high Medicaid populations (over 60 percent). HCR's estimate also takes into account HCR's recent experience in staffing a facility which includes an Alzheimers wing. HCR will not restrict the number of Medicaid patients in the Alzheimers wing or the remainder of the home. HCR's original application assumed approximately 45 percent of the patient days (42 percent of the revenues) would be accounted for by Medicaid patients. This assumption was based upon HCR's assumption at that time that, in order to cover the assumed high cost of additional staffing in the Alzheimers wing, a greater percentage of private patients (at a higher daily charge) would be required. Subsequent to submission of the original application, HCR has gained actual experience which has demonstrated that the level of staffing proposed by the original application is not necessary and that the cost of staffing can be reduced. The result is that HCR can reduce its reliance on the additional revenue generated by the private paying patient. HCR's design for its Brevard County Alzheimers unit is based upon a state-of-the-art Alzheimers wing at its facility in Perrysburg, Ohio, and HCR's experience gained there. In addition, HCR operates two other facilities which have separate units for Alzheimers patients. The HCR application is consistent with both state and local health plans. HCR projects a charge for Medicaid patients to be $60.93 and, for Medicare patients to be $76 in July, 1989. The increase in charges between the updated projections and the original projections is due to increases in costs during the passage of time since the original estimates were made. The cost of care for patients who are unable to pay is subsidized by the general revenue of the nursing home. Although HCR and Unicare have not projected a percentage of "charity" patients who will not be paying for their services, there will always be some patients who do not pay for all of their care. Patients who do not qualify for Medicaid but who cannot afford standard private pay rates are charged at lower contract rates. The loan fees projected by HCR of $57,000 for the amount of the project financed by debt are reasonable projections based upon current discussions with lenders. HCR estimates that interest during construction will cost $225,000. This amount represents the interest expense paid during the period of construction. This estimate is reasonable. HCR estimates $50,000 will be required for preopening expenses - those incurred in preparing the facility for the opening day. These expenses include marketing and the hiring of an administrator, a director of nursing, and other employees prior to opening. $50,000 is an adequate amount to cover the pre- opening expenses for the proposed facility. HCR's pro forma assumptions, proposed patient charges, projections of revenue and expense, staffing and projections of salaries are reasonable. Each HCR nursing home provides individual patient care plans for each patient, a statement of patients' rights and a resident council (which is a unit of individuals selected by the patients to afford an opportunity to have a formalized, direct method to state preferences, grievances and other opinions related to the operation of the nursing home), and each HCR nursing home has transfer agreements with local-hospitals. The planning director of the Local Health Council responsible for Brevard County performed an analysis of the need for nursing home beds in Brevard County. The results of the study demonstrate that the central part of Brevard County has a lower number of nursing home beds per thousand population over 65 than the remainder of Brevard County. If additional nursing home beds are to be approved for Brevard County, the beds should be located in the central part of the county because the need for nursing home beds in Brevard County is greatest in central Brevard. The HCR architectural design best accommodates the needs of the nursing home patient. Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., is a non-profit corporation affiliated with Wuesthoff Hospital, Inc., a 305-bed non-profit hospital serving Brevard County, through a common parent Wuesthoff Health Systems, Inc. Wuesthoff Hospital provides some indigent medical care in central Brevard County, and the Wuesthoff nursing home certificate of need application commits to providing some indigent care at the proposed nursing home facility. Wuesthoff, through its affiliated non-profit companies, operates within Brevard County a home health agency, a hospice, four family practice clinics, Life Line for the elderly or disabled who live alone, and Brevard Medical Transport, a no- cost transportation service for the elderly. It also operates a retail pharmacy through a for-profit affiliated corporation. The hospital has for several years maintained a senior citizens' advisory council which concerns itself with the needs of the elderly in Brevard County. It also intends to compete with other businesses in operating Brevard County's Meals On Wheels due to a recent expansion of the size of the Hospital's kitchen. The proposed nursing home will be located on a tract of land owned by Wuesthoff Hospital which will make the property available to Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., at either the nominal rental of $1 per year for the useful life of the nursing home or by outright contribution if required by HRS. The land has been owned for several years by Wuesthoff Hospital, but Wuesthoff included $48,000 for land costs in its original certificate of need application. The site for the Wuesthoff nursing home is part of a large tract of land which already has located thereon a 20,000 square feet ambulatory care center, diagnostic testing center, family practice physician, dental facility, and retail pharmacy, all of which are owned by one of the Wuesthoff corporations. The ambulatory care center includes laboratory services, physical therapy services, radiology services, two out-patient surgery suites, and 24- hour physician coverage. The nursing home will be connected to the ambulatory care center by an air conditioned, enclosed corridor through which the nursing home patients will be transported to receive any therapies or services which they require. The farthest distance from any patient room in the nursing home to the ambulatory care center, including physical therapy rooms, is approximately 400 feet. Wuesthoff's nursing home would be located in the area which the Local Health Council recognizes as having the greatest need for nursing home beds, i.e., central Brevard County in the Cocoa/Rockledge area. According to Wuesthoff's updated application the total project cost for its 120-bed nursing home would be $2,901,213, and the facility will consist of 37,500 square feet. The project size actually includes 1,000 square feet for the corridor which connects the nursing home to the ambulatory care center. Therefore, the facility itself consists of only 36,500 square feet. It is unclear whether that figure should be further reduced since Wuesthoff decreased the size of its kitchen in its amended application so that the nursing home would no longer have a full-service kitchen. Similarly, the total project cost was substantially higher in Wuesthoff's original application wherein the total project cost was given as $4,417,884. Wuesthoff made changes from its original to its updated application either because the applications were prepared by different persons or because decisions were made to change Wuesthoff's application, as follows: The original application included a full-service kitchen, while the updated application contemplates meals will be prepared at Wuesthoff Hospital and transported seven miles to the nursing home. The removal of the kitchen affects the square footage of the facility along with equipment costs, staffing costs and other costs associated with the operation of the proposed nursing home, such as the increased costs associated with transporting the food to the nursing home. In its original application, one individual was listed as both the nursing home administrator and director of nursing. In its updated application, Wuesthoff treated these as separate positions. Wuesthoff proposed $376,000 for equipment costs in its original application and projected $187,400 for equipment costs in its updated application. Wuesthoff projected 45 percent Medicaid and 15 percent Medicare in its original application and 50 percent Medicaid and 2 percent Medicare in its updated application without any evidence that the needs in the community had changed. Wuesthoff removed the debt service, in its updated application, thus reducing the financing costs. The underwriter's fees between the original and updated application were reduced based upon a dimunition of the bond size as a result of reduction of square footage in the facility and the elimination of the debt service. Wuesthoff reduced land cost from $48,000 in its original application to no cost in its updated application despite the fact that the land was owned by Wuesthoff at the time the original application was filed. Wuesthoff changed the equity contribution between its original and updated applications without any testimony of extrinsic factors while evidence showed that the funds were available to make the equity contribution at the time of the submittal of the Original certificate of need application. Although Wuesthoff's application' represents that approximately 3 percent of the revenues from private pay patients would be devoted to indigent or charity patients, the 3 percent actually applies to both charity and bad debt. Wuesthoff failed to demonstrate how much of its revenues, if any, would be allocated to charity care alone. Wuesthoff projected charges of $65 for a semi- private room for a private paying patient and $73 for a private room for a private paying patient. These charges, projected for mid-1989, are below existing (1987) charges at nursing homes in Brevard County. The projections of financial feasibility and the pro formas for the Wuesthoff facility are based upon the assumption that the Wuesthoff nursing home will be owned and operated by Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc. The only financial statements provided by Wuesthoff in support of its application are those relating to Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital. Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital is a corporation separate and distinct from Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc. Further, the financial statements of Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital provided by Wuesthoff do not include the "notes" normally appended to those statements. The "notes" to the audited financial statements are typically included in any complete financial statements and are required for a full understanding of the financial statements. The pro formas of Wuesthoff assume that 15 percent of salaries would be allocated to fringe benefits. This assumption is based upon the assumption that the employees of the nursing home will not be unionized and, therefore, their fringe benefits will not be as high as those for unionized employees. The nurses at Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital are unionized and have higher benefits than proposed for the nursing home. Unionization is a decision made by employees and not by management. Wuesthoff's assumptions for fringe benefits do not assume any increase in the fringe benefits from year to year. Wuesthoff agrees that there are required increases in fringe benefits, such as increases in required contributions to social security programs over the next few years. Thus, the amount for fringe benefits assumed by Wuesthoff understates the amount likely to be paid. A participant in the Medicaid reimbursement system is entitled to reimbursement on the basis of fair rental value of the nursing home. Although the fair rental value aspect of the reimbursement plan includes consideration of the value of land upon which a nursing home is situated, and although Wuesthoff assumes that it would receive reimbursement under this element of the plan, Wuesthoff does not include in that reimbursement any value for land value. Wuesthoff would be entitled to that form of reimbursement, but Wuesthoff was unable to specify "how that's going to be done." The Medicaid reimbursement system incorporates certain caps on reimbursement, including caps for patient care costs, operating costs and property costs. Wuesthoff is unable to specify which Medicaid reimbursement caps it utilized when calculating its Medicaid charges. It is not possible to calculate Wuesthoff's Medicaid reimbursement and Medicaid charges based upon the exhibits presented by Wuesthoff, including its applications. The Wuesthoff application does not contain any description of patient care costs or costs of operation of the Wuesthoff facility upon which Medicaid charges can be determined. Wuesthoff represented that certain services would be provided to the Wuesthoff nursing home by Wuesthoff Health Services or Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital at no charge to the nursing home. The exact nature of the services and their value are unspecified. Although Wuesthoff contends fewer staff will be needed at the nursing home, Wuesthoff has not determined how many additional staff would be required at the hospital and has not calculated the cost of transporting food to the nursing home. Ordinarily, a related entity providing services to a nursing home is entitled to reimbursement for the cost of those services under the Medicaid reimbursement system. Wuesthoff has not determined whether the Medicaid statutes and regulations will allow a related entity to waive its entitlement to such reimbursement. Wuesthoff's parent company, Wuesthoff Health Systems, and Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital will incur costs for providing those services to Wuesthoff which Wuesthoff represents will not be reimbursed. These entities' budgets and Medicaid reimbursement are regulated and audited by HRS and the Hospital Cost Containment Board. By providing services to the nursing home and no longer allocating 100 percent of costs to operation of the hospital, the hospital's reimbursement and budget will have to be adjusted. These required adjustments have not been taken into consideration by Wuesthoff. In preparing its budget to be submitted to the Hospital Cost Containment Board, the hospital will be required to allocate a certain amount of time for those persons providing services to the nursing home. The hospital will not be reimbursed for those services by Medicaid or Medicare. The total cost of providing care to nursing home residents must be reported by the nursing home in its Medicaid cost report. If a nursing home does not include allowable Medicaid costs in its cost report, HRS will include those costs when HRS audits the cost report. When those additional costs are included, the nursing home's reimbursement (Medicaid charge) will increase. It is not a generally accepted accounting principle to exclude allowable costs in a Medicaid cost report. By not including certain costs, expenses are understated and profit is overstated. Wuesthoff attempted to present evidence that a hospital-based nursing home facility maintains lower costs which can be passed on to its patients, because of an absence of taxation and the presence of group purchasing. However, this evidence also revealed that the hospital-based nursing home to which Wuesthoff sought comparison had patient care and operating costs which exceed the caps for Medicaid reimbursement. Additionally, Wuesthoff's Medicaid costs are higher than those of HCR. Wuesthoff proposes an architectural plan for its nursing home which has never been built in Florida. Wuesthoff is the only applicant which proposes three nurses' stations for 120 beds. The 120-bed nursing home with two nurses' stations is more efficient to operate than a 120-bed nursing home with three nurses' stations. Three nurses' stations result in a higher cost per patient day than two nurses' stations. Wuesthoff's architect was unable to estimate the cost of site preparation and was unable to specify the exact nature of site preparation required. However, site preparation will be required. There is confusion concerning the cost of equipment for the Wuesthoff project, particularly with regard to food service equipment. Although the Wuesthoff architect testified that Wuesthoff originally had consulted with him concerning the cost of equipment, the witness was unable to identify the equipment costs listed in the application. The equipment list relied upon by Wuesthoff and the list of used equipment and food service equipment was not prepared until the first week of the final hearing. Wuesthoff's projection of construction cost ($57 per square foot) was not prepared by Wuesthoff's architect and the source of the projection is unspecified. The project is not based upon any actual experience of nursing home construction in Florida. The original estimate was provided by the architect to Wuesthoff several years earlier and was lower than $57 per square foot. Wuesthoff proposes to connect its nursing home to a nearby ambulatory surgical center by a corridor. There are no physical therapy or Occupational therapy rooms provided at the nursing home. Although recreational therapy and speech therapy must be provided at the nursing home, only small meeting rooms are available for these purposes. A nursing home patient transported from a nursing home to a location outside the nursing home for therapies must remain in the care of nursing home staff. This mode of operation requires more staff than one in which all therapies are provided within the physical confines of the nursing home. Wuesthoff did not include in its estimate of project development cost any estimate for attorney's fees or consulting fees of the planners and financial consultants retained for the purpose of obtaining a certificate of need. The shared services referred to by Wuesthoff are not free services, and no evidence was offered to show that the sharing of those services would be cost efficient. The corridor between the ambulatory surgical center and the nursing home is estimated by Wuesthoff to be 1,000 square feet. The cost for the corridor is -included in the costs projected for the nursing home, and the corridor is included in the total size (37,500 square feet) of the nursing home. Wuesthoff proposes to equip the nursing home with used equipment and furniture. The used hospital beds which Wuesthoff proposes to use at the nursing home are eight to twelve years old. Although Wuesthoff proposes to provide therapy through professional staff from Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital, Wuesthoff could not estimate how many additional therapists must be hired by the hospital in order to provide therapy for the nursing home patients. Wuesthoff contends that it will provide a high level of charity care in its nursing home at the same level that is provided at the hospital. However, when calculating the percentage of charity care at the hospital, Wuesthoff included care provided within programs where some form of governmental funding was available to pay for care. For instance, Brevard County contributes funding toward the care of patients who are not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare reimbursement. There is also a state fund for indigent care and Wuesthoff expects to receive revenues from that fund. The total allowance for bad debt and charity care proposed by Wuesthoff is 1.1 percent of gross patient revenues. Wuesthoff will require financial screening of patients prior to admission. Unicare proposes as total project cost in both its original and updated applications the amount of $3,360,000. The project cost cannot be relied upon, however, since it will be necessary for Unicare to modify its design. As further set forth below, Unicare's projected revenues and expenses are suspect. Unicare has never constructed a new nursing home in Florida or built the design proposed. When filing a cost report and determining Medicaid reimbursement for a new nursing home, all costs incurred throughout the process of developing and constructing the project, including feasibility studies, attorney's fees, accounting fees, consulting fees and certificate of need fees must be included. Unicare failed to include all project development costs in its application. The pro formas and projections of revenues and expenses for Unicare were prepared solely by Unicare's certificate of need consultants, based upon the consultants' experience in their own nursing homes and not upon any information (other than home office costs) concerning the operation of Unicare nursing homes. Unicare's in-house financial expert agreed that it is difficult to project revenues and expenses for operation of the proposed Unicare nursing home without having knowledge of what Unicare's general costs and expenses are. Two Unicare homes have failed to comply with the isolation room requirements of Rule 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code, which governs the licensure of nursing homes. The Unicare design does not provide any single, licensed isolation room as required by HRS licensure regulations. The Unicare architectural design provides only one toilet room between two patient rooms to meet the needs of four nursing home patients. The company which designed and expects to construct the Unicare facility has not performed any nursing home construction work in Florida since 1983 or 1984 when the company remodeled a nursing home. The last nursing home which this company completed for Unicare was prior to 1985. This company did not prepare the construction cost estimates relied upon by Unicare. Calculation of the size of the Unicare facility did not include a reduction of 9 square feet for each indented, V-shaped window in the facility. There are 23 such windows proposed for the Unicare facility. Accordingly, the Unicare facility is 207 square feet smaller than represented in the application. Licensure regulations require an unobstructed view (vista) of 20 feet from the window of a nursing home resident's room. At least four Unicare patient rooms have an unobstructed view of less than 20 feet. Therefore, the design presented by Unicare at final hearing does not comply with the rules for licensure of a new nursing home, pursuant to Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. The Unicare design has never been built, although it was prepared more than five years ago. The design was intended for patient programs not now proposed by Unicare. The original facility design accommodated residents who require a degree of care below and can participate in activities above typical nursing home residents, such as residents found in adult congregate living facilities. The design and location of the sinks in the Unicare patient rooms do not allow sufficient space for a patient in a wheelchair to have access to the sink at the same time that the door to the toilet room is open. Unicare proposes to locate its facility in the Titusville area in north Brevard County. The local health plan shows the greatest need for additional nursing home beds to be in central, not north, Brevard County. Unicare's selection of Titusville as the area for location of its nursing home was not based upon any demographic analysis or determination of need for additional nursing home beds in the Titusville area. Rather, the selection of Titusville would avoid competition with another of Unicare's facilities located in the Rockledge/Cocoa area. In determining equipment needs, Unicare's certificate of need consultants did not refer to the design of the Unicare nursing home. Unicare projects that its facility will reach 97 percent occupancy in the first nine months of operation. However, the last nursing home to open in the Titusville area, Vista Manor, did not reach 97 percent occupancy until after the first year of operation. Unicare will staff at skilled levels. Its proposed staff salaries are reasonable. Unicare has not yet settled on any site in the Titusville area although it has narrowed its search down to four sites which vary between four and seven acres with prices ranging from $25,000 to $90,000 per acre. Its current total project cost of $3,360,000 computes to a project cost per bed of exactly $28,000. Unicare's parent, United Health, Inc., is the entity that must fund this project and has, by resolution, committed to such funding "provided that said expenditure shall not exceed $28,000 per bed." Consequently, it is highly likely that the proposed design, which has never been built anywhere, which must be redone to comply with HRS codes, and which will be built on land that is yet to be acquired but which will likely require a zoning variance, will cost more than $28,000 per bed. The HCR nursing home is larger and provides more area for patient care than the facilities proposed by Wuesthoff and Unicare. The HCR facility will provide more gross square feet per bed and a larger nursing unit area (which includes patient rooms, the nursing support unit and corridor areas). The entire facility proposed by HCR will be 40,000 square feet, 2,000 of which is allocated to day-care; the day-care area will be available to nursing home residents during those hours in which the day-care area is not in use by day- care residents. The Wuesthoff facility is said to be 37,500 square feet, but 1,000 square feet consists of an outside corridor; thus, the net usable space at the Wuesthoff nursing home is only 36,5' 00 square feet. The smallest proposed facility is the Unicare facility, said to be 34,121.5 square feet, but actually less than 34,000 feet when accurately measured. The nursing homes proposed by Wuesthoff and Unicare are at or below the low gross square foot average determined by HRS. Larger patient care areas are desirable. It is not desirable to place only one toilet room between two patient rooms to accommodate four patients, as proposed by Unicare. It is a generally accepted standard for nursing home skilled nursing units to be organized in groups of 60 beds. Units of this size offer the best efficiencies of operation in terms of economics and quality of care. Each nursing unit must include, in addition to patient bedrooms, toilet rooms and bathing facilities, one nurses' station, a clean utility room, a soiled utility room, a medication preparation room, a nourishment room, a janitors closet, an equipment storage room, a stretcher and wheel chair alcove, a clean linen closet and a nurses' toilet and lavatory. By providing three nursing units, Wuesthoff must devote more space to meet these requirements than would be required for two nursing units.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order: Granting HCR's application for a certificate of need; Denying Unicare's application for a certificate of need; Denying Wuesthoff's application for a certificate of need; and Dismissing the Petition to Intervene of Brevard Medical Investors, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 30th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2686, 86-2687, 86-2688 and 86-2690 Unicare's proposed findings of fact numbered 14, 22, and 25 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The remainder of Unicare's proposed findings of fact have been rejected as follows: 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, and 13 as being contrary to the evidence in this cause; 2, 4-7, 12, 15-17, 19-21, 23, 24, and 26 as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause; 9 and 18 as being subordinate to the issues in this cause; and 27 as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or a conclusion of law. Wuesthoff's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-6, 36, 39, and 40 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The remainder of Wuesthoff's proposed findings of fact have been rejected as follows: 31 as being contrary to the evidence in this cause; 1, 7-18, 22-30, 32, 34, and 41 as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause; 19-21, 33, 35, 37 and 38 as being subordinate to the issues in this cause; and 42 - 43 as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or a conclusion of law. HCR's and HRS' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-66, 68, 70-81, 83, 85- 92, 94, 96-104, and 106-123 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The remainder of HCR's and HRS' proposed findings of fact have been rejected as follows: 67 as being subordinate to the issues in this cause; 69 as being cumulative; 82 and 95 as being irrelevant; 84 as being unnecessary; 93 as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or a conclusion of law; and 105 as being not supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Kenneth Hoffman, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Richard Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Frank J. Santry, Esquire Post Office Box 14129 Tallahassee, Florida 3231 Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Dempsey & Goldsmith, P.A. Post Office Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Valerie Humphrey is a Licensed Practical Nurse holding License No. 27860-1 issued by the Florida State Board of Nursing. Notice of the formal hearing in the above style cause was provided to the parties in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. On October 25, 1975 Valerie Humphrey was employed as a Licensed Practical Nurse at Florida Convalescent Home, Melbourne, Florida. On that date, Valerie Humphrey was observed by Alma Bourne, then employed as a Nurses' Aide at Florida Convalescent Home, attempting to give medication, to wit, an aspirin, to a patient at said convalescent home. When the patient refused to take the medication, Mrs. Humphrey took the patient's walker away from her. The patient was eighty (80) years old and needed the walker to move about. On the same date, Mrs. Bourne observed Valerie Humphrey attempt to administer a laxative to a male patient, Ernest Price, who spit out the laxative twice, whereupon Valerie Humphrey slapped him hard enough to bring a welt to the side of his face. After striking the patient, Humphrey did not try to administer the laxative again. The Director of Nursing at Florida, Convalescent Home testified that physical injury and intimidation were not necessary or appropriate to force medications on patients at the nursing home. Other means of administering the medications to include giving them in combination with foods or drinks, were generally used with uncooperative patients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the license of Valerie Humphrey, L.P.N., License Number 27860-1, be suspended for a period not to exceed six (6) months; further, that the order of the Florida State Board of Nursing be communicated to any other State or territory of these United States in which Valerie Humphrey is also licensed. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of December, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1130 American Heritage Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway - Bldg B Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Valerie E. Marsh Humphrey, L.P.N.
The Issue Whether Petitioners' applications for Certificates of Need should be approved?
Findings Of Fact Ocala Ocala is a general partnership composed of three partners: Ocala Health Care Associates, Inc., Casterfield, Ltd., and Big Sun Healthcare Systems, the lessee and operator of Munroe Regional Medical Center. Ocala is the current holder of an approved CON for 35 community beds in Marion County. If the 21-bed transfer of sheltered beds to community beds is approved, Ocala intends to operate a 56-bed facility. A 56-bed facility is more viable than a 35-bed facility. At the time of the hearing, there were 642 approved and licensed beds and 215 approved not yet licensed beds in Marion County. The 215 beds include Ocala's 35-bed CON. A patient needing subacute care is one who has been released from acute care status by a physician and is ready to be released from a hospital (acute care) to a less costly facility, e.g. a skilled nursing home. Subacute care patients are those needing, e.g., intravenous tubes, respirators, IV medication, decubitus ulcer care, tracheotomy tubes, or antibiotic therapy. Patients needing subacute care should be placed in a nursing home, since this is less costly than hospital care and it allows for acute care beds in a hospital to be used for patients needing acute care. Skilled nursing homes are authorized to provide subacute care, but are not required to do so. In order to provide subacute care, a nursing home may need additional staff and equipment. There is a problem in Marion County with the placement of subacute care patients in nursing homes. This problem is caused by a variety of factors and usually results in a patient remaining in a hospital longer than is necessary. One factor is that some of the existing nursing homes will not accept patients needing certain types of subacute care, e.g., patients needing ventilators or feeding tubes. Another equally important factor is that the nursing homes want to make sure they will get paid and there is usually some delay in determining how the nursing home will be compensated. Other factors include the patients inability to pay and, on occasion, the unavailability of beds. Ocala intends to use its 35-bed approved CON to provide subacute care. Country Club While the application shows the applicant's name as "Country Club Retirement Center," that is the name of the project. The applicant is Mr. J. E. Holland. Mr. Holland's application is for a 60-bed nursing home which will be part of a 250-apartment continuing care community. The facility is to be located in Clermont, in Lake County. Lake County is in Planning Area VII of HRS District III. Planning Area VII also includes Sumter County. Mr. Keach, the only witness presented by Country Club, is Vice President of National Health Care. National Health Care operates a nursing home in Gainesville, Florida. In addition to operating the nursing home, National Health Care assists persons seeking a CON with preparation of the CON application. Mr. Keach and other National Health Care employees assisted Mr. Holland with the preparation of the CON application submitted in this case. National Health Care will not own or operate Mr. Holland's facility. Mr. Keach is of the opinion that there is need in Clermont for a 60- bed nursing home. He bases his opinion on letters of support for the construction of the facility, on petitions signed by persons attending a public hearing, and on four or five visits to the area. Mr. Keach never performed a study which would indicate the number of persons with a "documented need" for nursing home services who have been denied access to a nursing home. At the time HRS issued its State Agency Action Report there were 958 beds approved and licensed in Planning Area VII. Of these, 838 are located in Lake County, with 142 located in a nursing home in Clermont. Also these are swing-beds providing long-term care at a hospital in Clermont. Finally, there were 236 beds approved not yet licensed in Planning Area VII, with 176 to be located in Lake County. The occupancy rate for the nursing home facility located in Clermont is approximately 89 percent. For the six months ending March, 1988, the occupancy rate for Planning Area VII was below 80 percent. There are at least two nursing homes in operation within a 20-mile radius of Clermont. These two nursing homes are located in Winter Garden and one of them has received a CON to add 89 beds. Twenty-Eight Corporation The applicant in this case is Twenty-Eight Corporation. "The owner of the nursing home will be the Levy Nursing Care Center, a limited partnership, which will be owned and secured by Twenty-Eight Corporation." (28 Corporation, Composite Exhibit 1.) Twenty-Eight corporation seeks approval of a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be operated as part of a continuing care project which will include a 50-unit apartment complex. The facility is to be located in Chiefland, Florida, in Levy County. Levy County is in Planning Area II of HRS District III. Planning Area II also includes Alachua, Gilchrist and Dixie counties. At the time HRS issued its State Agency Action Report, there were 1112 licensed nursing home beds in Planning Area II. Of these, 120 are located in Trenton, in Gilchrist County, 180 are located in Williston, in Levy County, and the rest are located in Alachua County. Also, there are 147 beds approved not yet licensed to be located in Alachua County. Chiefland is approximately 12 miles from Trenton. Williston is approximately 27 miles from Trenton. Mr. Keach was the only witness who testified on behalf of Twenty-Eight Corporation. Mr. Keach is vice-president of National Health Care. (See Finding of Fact 17, supra.) Mr. Keach is of the opinion that there is need in the Chiefland area for a 60-bed nursing home. His opinion is based on letters of support and petitions of support he received for the project. Also, his opinion is based on the fact that there is no nursing home located in Chiefland and the nearest nursing home is located in Trenton, 12 miles away. The 1986 District III Health Plan shows the Trenton facility having an occupancy rate of 99.93 percent. Mr. Keach never performed a study which would indicate the number of persons with a "documented need" for nursing home services who have been denied access to a nursing home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order denying Petitioners' applications in these three cases. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 3rd day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-1862, 88-1863, 88-1864 Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Ocala's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Accepted. 2-4. Supported by competent, substantial evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. 5-7. Accepted. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. There is not an absolute absence of facilities willing to accept all patients needing subacute care. Irrelevant. "Serious concerns" are not what is needed under the Rule. First sentence rejected as recitation of testimony. Second sentence irrelevant; issue is whether nursing homes will accept patients, not whether nursing homes will enter into agreement with MRMC. 13-16. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. (a) Rejected to the extent it implies that the approved facilities would not provide subacute care. Mr. Bailey's testimony is that the facilities refused to enter into a relationship with MRMC; this does not establish that the facilities would not provide subacute care. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. The weight of the evidence shows that some facilities would accept same subacute patients. True, but it is unclear if these are the physician's notations the HRS witness referred to. True that charts and logs were provided, but they did not establish the number of patients in need of subacute care in excess of licensed or approved beds. 19-26. Irrelevant. 27-29. Accepted-for what they are, but insufficient to establish need. Twenty-Eight Corporation's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4 Accepted. Irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as hearsay. But see Finding of Fact 31. Mr. Keach testified that Chiefland is 40 miles from Williston. The road map published by the Department of Transportation shows the distance between the two cities at 27 miles. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. However, this special consideration should be given only where numeric need has been established in the District. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as hearsay. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as hearsay. Also, a determination by a family member does not establish medical "need". True that this is Mr. Keach's opinion. However, Mr. Keach's opinion is rejected. His opinion of need is not based on what the Rule requires or on what health planners rely on to establish need. Mr. Keach is not able to testify as to the financial feasibility of the facility because he has no first- hand knowledge of the finances. 21-22. Irrelevant. 23. Rejected. See ruling on 10., supra. 24-26. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. Irrelevant; this is not a rule challenge. Irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as hearsay. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected as argument. Also, unable to determine what the "second portion" is. 37-38. Irrelevant. First phrase accepted. Second phrase rejected to extent implies that only need to show that no other facility exists within 20 miles. Irrelevant. Country Club's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. However, this special consideration should be given only where numeric need has been established in the District. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. 14-17. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. True, but irrelevant. See ruling on 11, supra. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Irrelevant. The Rule also recognizes this. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. 33-34. True, but irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. 35-39. Irrelevant. 40. Rejected as argument. Also, unable to determine what the "second portion" is. 41-42. Accepted 43. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 44. True, but irrelevant. Also, there are approved beds within 20 miles, but located in a different HRS District. Leesburg's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-7. Accepted. Rejected as not a finding of fact. Accepted. 10-15. See Conclusions of Law section of RO. Accepted. Rejected as argument. Accepted. Rejected. Fact that need does not exist under HRS rule doesn't necessarily mean that that facility will not be financially feasible. In any event, Country Club was not able to establish financial feasibility. 20-21. See Conclusions of Law. 22. Rejected as argument. 23-28. Supported by competent substantial evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Accepted.- HRS's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-19. Accepted. Rejected. The HRS witness did not specifically state that HRS needs to see the actual physician referral. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 22-28. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 29. Not a finding of fact. 30-37. Accepted. 38. Irrelevant. 39-42. Unnecessary to the decision reached. Irrelevant. Accepted. 45-46. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. Accepted. Not a finding of fact. 50-65. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 66. Not a finding of fact. 67-71. Accepted, but Ocala's Exhibits 6 & 7 are not amendments to the application but simply more of the same information that was provided with the application. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Darrell White, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 First Florida Bank Building Suite 600 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore Mack, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire 307 West Park Avenue Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Grafton Wilson, II, Esquire 711 NW 23rd Avenue, Suite #4 Gainesville, Florida 32609 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues are thus whether the acts and omissions charged occurred, whether they constitute violations of Section 400.022(1)(j) and 400.141, Florida Statutes, and related rules, and whether an administrative fine is appropriate pursuant to 400.102(c) and Section 400.121, Florida Statutes. Upon the commencement of the hearing, the petitioner moved to amend paragraph 8 of its Complaint, so that the date "March 4" would read March 14." The motion was granted on the basis that there was only a clerical error involved and paragraph 8 correctly alleges that there-was a nursing staff shortage from February 20 to March 14, 1980. Eight witnesses were called by the Petitioner, and two by the Respondent. Ten exhibits were adduced as evidence. The Respondent has submitted and requested rulings upon ninety-five proposed findings of fact. In that connection, all proposed findings, conclusions, and supporting arguments of the parties have been considered. To the extent that the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the parties, and the arguments made by them, are in accordance with the findings, conclusions and views stated herein they have been accepted, and to the extent such proposed findings and conclusions of the parties, and such arguments made by the parties, are inconsistent therewith they have been rejected.
Findings Of Fact Manhattan Convalescent Center is a nursing home facility located in Tampa and licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On January 22, February 20, February 25, March 3, March 6, and March 14, 1980, a number of Department employees representing the Department's medical review team, and the Office of Licensure and Certification, consisting of registered nurses, hospital consultants and Department surveillance team members, made inspections of the Respondent's facility for the purpose of ascertaining whether the premises, equipment and conduct of operations were safe and sanitary for the provision of adequate and appropriate health care consistent with the rules promulgated by the Department and whether minimum nursing service staff standards were being maintained. Thus, on January 22, 1980 a member of the medical review team, witness Maulden, observed a rat run across the floor in one of the wings of the nursing home facility. On February 20, Muriel Holzberger, a registered nurse and surveyor employed by the Petitioner, observed rodent droppings in one of the wings of the facility and on February 20, March 12 and March 14, 1980, numerous roaches were observed by various employees of the Department making inspections throughout the facility. On February 20, 1980 strong urine odors were present on the 200, 300 and 400 wings of the facility as well as in the lobby. The odor was caused by urine puddles under some patients' chairs in the hallway, wet sheets, and a spilled catheter. On February 20 and 25, 1980 the grounds were littered with debris and used equipment, the grass and weeds on the grounds needed cutting and there was a build up of organic material, food spills and wet spots on the floors. The Respondent's witness, Ann Killeen, as well as the Petitioner's hospital consultant, Joel Montgomery, agreed that a general state of disrepair existed at the Respondent's facility, consisting of torn screens, ill fitting exterior doors with inoperative or missing door closers and missing ceiling tile. Interior and exterior walls were in need of repair and repainting. Additionally, eleven bedside cords for the nurse paging system were cut, apparently by patients, and on February 25, 1980, a total of 36 nurse paging stations were inoperative. A substantial number of these cords were cut by a patient (or patients) with scissors without the knowledge of the Respondent and steps to correct the condition were immediately taken. On January 22, 1980 Petitioner's representatives, Mary Maulden and Alicia Alvarez, observed a patient at the Respondent's facility free himself from physical restraints, walk down the hall and leave the facility. A search for nursing staff was made but none were found on the wing. After three to five minutes the Assistant Director of Nurses was located and the patient was apprehended. Nurse Alvarez's testimony revealed that the Respondent's nursing staff was in and out of, and working in that wing all that morning except for that particular point in time when the patient shed his restraints and walked out of the facility. On March 3, 1980 Department employee, William Musgrove, as part of a surveillance team consisting of himself and nurse Muriel Holzberger, observed two patients restrained in the hall of the facility in chairs and Posey vests, which are designed to safely restrain unstable patients. The witness questioned the propriety of this procedure, but could not establish this as a violation of the Respondent's patient care policies required by Rule 10D-29.41, Florida Administrative Code. The witness reviewed the Respondent's written patient care policy required by that Rule and testified that their policy complied with it and that the policy did not forbid restraining a patient to a handrail in the facility as was done in this instance. The witness was unable to testify whether patients were improperly restrained pursuant to medical orders for their own or other patients' protection. A hospital consultant for the Department, Bill Schmitz, and Marsha Winae, a public health nurse for the Department, made a survey of the Respondent's facility on March 12, 1980. On that day the extensive roach infestation was continuing as was the presence of liquids in the hallways. On February 20, 1980 witness Joel Montgomery observed a lawn mower stored in the facility's electrical panel room which is charged as a violation in paragraph 3 of the Administrative Complaint. The lawn mower was not shown to definitely contain gasoline however, nor does it constitute a bulk storage of volatile or flammable liquids. Nurse Holzberger who inspected the Respondent's nursing home on February 20, February 25, March 3 and March 6, 1980, corroborated the previously established roach infestation and the presence of strong urine odors throughout the facility including those emanating from puddles under some patients' chairs, the soaking of chair cushions and mattresses and an excess accumulation of soiled linen. Her testimony also corroborates the existence of 36 instances of inoperative nurse paging devices including the 11 nurse calling cords which had been cut by patients. This witness, who was accepted as an expert in the field of proper nursing care, established that an appropriate level of nursing care for the patients in this facility would dictate the requirement that those who are incontinent be cleaned and their linen changed more frequently and that floors be mopped and otherwise cleaned more frequently. Upon the second visit to the facility by this witness the nurse call system had 9 paging cords missing, 11 cords cut, and 15 of the nurse calling devices would not light up at the nurses' station. This situation is rendered more significant by the fact that more than half of the patients with inoperative nurse paging devices were bedridden. On her last visit of March 6, 1980 the problem of urine puddles standing on the floors, urine stains on bed linen, and resultant odor was the same or slightly worse than on the two previous visits. An effective housekeeping and patient care policy or practice would dictate relieving such incontinent patients every two hours and more frequent laundering of linen, as well as bowel and bladder training. On March 6, 1980 controlled drugs were resting on counters in all of the facility's four drug rooms instead of being stored in a locked compartment, although two of the drug rooms themselves were locked. The other two were unlocked, but with the Respondent's nurses present. Ms. Holzberger participated in the inspections of March 3 and March 6, 1980. On March 3, 1980 there were no more than 14 sheets available for changes on the 4:00 p.m. to midnight nursing shift. On March 6, 1980 there were only 68 absorbent underpads and 74 sheets available for changes for approximately 65 incontinent patients. The unrefuted expert testimony of Nurse Holzberger established that there should be available four sheets for each incontinent patient per shift. Thus, on these two dates there was an inadequate supply of bed linen to provide changes for the incontinent patients in the facility. On March 6, 1980 Nurse Holzberger and Nurse Carol King observed 12 patients who were lying on sheets previously wet with urine, unchanged, dried and rewet again. This condition is not compatible with generally recognized adequate and appropriate nursing care standards. Incontinent patients should be examined every two hours and a change of sheets made if indicated. If such patients remain on wet sheets for a longer period of time their health may be adversely affected. On March 6, 1980 these same employees of the Petitioner inspected a medical supply room and found no disposable gloves, no adhesive tape, no razor blades and one package of telfa pads. There was no testimony to establish what the medical supply requirements of this facility are based upon the types of patients it cares for and the types and amounts of medical supplies thus needed. The testimony of Robert Cole, the facility's employee, who was at that time in charge of dispensing medical supplies, establishes that in the medical supply room (as opposed to the nurses' stations on the wings) there were at least six rolls of tape per station, 50 razors, four boxes or 80 rolls, 300 telfa pads and 200 sterile gloves. Nurses Holzberger and King made an evaluation of the Respondent's nurse staffing patterns. Ms. Holzberger only noted a shortage of nursing staff on February 24, 1980. Her calculations, however, were based on an average census of skilled patients in the Respondent's facility over the period February 20 to March 4, 1980 and she did not know the actual number of skilled patients upon which the required number of nursing staff present must be calculated on that particular day, February 24, 1980. Further, her calculations were based upon the nurses' "sign in sheet" and did not include the Director of Nurses who does not sign in when she reports for work. Therefore, it was established that on February 24 there would be one more registered nurse present than her figures reflect, i.e., the Director of Nurses. Nurse King, in describing alleged nursing staff shortages in the week of March 7 to March 13, 1980, was similarly unable to testify to the number of skilled patients present on each of those days which must be used as the basis for calculating required nursing staff. She rather used a similar average patient census for her calculations and testimony. Thus, neither witness for the Petitioner testifying regarding nursing staff shortages knew the actual number of patients present in the facility on the days nursing staff shortages were alleged. In response to the problem of the roach infestation, the Respondent's Administrator changed pest control companies on March 26, 1980. The previous pest control service was ineffective. It was also the practice of the Respondent, at that time, to fog one wing of the facility per week with pesticide in an attempt to control the roaches. Further, vacant lots on all sides, owned and controlled by others, were overgrown with weeds and debris, to which the witness ascribed the large roach population. The problem of urine odors in the facility was attributed to the exhaust fans for ventilating the facility which were inoperable in February, 1980. She had them repaired and, by the beginning of April, 1980 (after the subject inspections), had removed the urine odor problem. The witness took other stops to correct deficiencies by firing the previous Director of Nurses on March 14, 1980, and employing a new person in charge of linen supply and purchasing. A new supply of linen was purchased in February or March, 1980. The Respondent maintains written policies concerning patient care, including a provision for protection of patients from abuse or neglect. The Respondent's Administrator admitted existence of the torn screens, broken door locks, missing ceiling tiles and the roach infestation. She also admitted the fact of the cut and otherwise inoperable nurse paging cords in the patients' rooms, but indicated that these deficiencies had been repaired. The various structural repairs required have been accomplished. All correction efforts began after the inspections by the Petitioner's staff members, however.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the evidence in the record, it is RECOMMENDED that for the violations charged in Counts I, II, IV, VI, IX and X of the Administrative Complaint and found herein to be proven, the Respondent should be fined a total of $1,600.00. Counts III, V, VII and VIII of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1981. (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: AMELIA PARK, ESQUIRE JANICE SORTER, ESQUIRE W. T. EDWARDS FACILITY 4000 WEST BUFFALO AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR TAMPA, FLORIDA 33614 KENNETH E. APGAR, ESQUIRE EDWARD P. DE LA PARTE, JR., ESQUIRE 403 NORTH MORGAN STREET, SUITE 102 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc. (FCC), filed an application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), on October 14, 1983, seeking a certificate of need authorizing the construction of a 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home facility in Manatee County, Florida. /1 The proposed project carries an estimated cost of $3,530,000. After reviewing the application, HRS issued its proposed agency action on February 21, 1984, in the form of a state agency action report in which it advised petitioner that it intended to deny the application. The report stated in part that "(e)xisting and approved bed capacity in Manatee County... is sufficient to satisfy projected need for 1986," that 240 nursing home beds had just been approved for the county, and when added to the existing nursing home supply, would "maintain a reasonable subdistrict occupancy level through 1986 and satisfy the need for additional beds in Manatee County." The service area in which FCC proposes to construct its new facility is the Manatee County subdistrict of HRS District 6. That district contains five counties, including Manatee. In order to determine need, HRS has adopted Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, which contains a formula (or methodology) for determining need at both the district and subdistrict level. Under that formula, HRS is required to utilize the "most recent 6 month nursing home utilization in the subdistrict." In this regard, HRS prepares on an on- going basis an internal document entitled "Quarterly Report" which contains the latest available data over a six-month period. In this proceeding, HRS used a report containing data for the period October, 1983, through March, 1984. This was the most current and complete available data at the time of hearing. According to the methodology in Rule 10-5.11(21), there is a gross need in District 6 for 7,336 nursing home beds. At the same time, there are presently 4,910 licensed and 960 approved beds in the District. Therefore, this results in a district-wide shortage of 1,466 nursing home beds through the year 1987, which is the three year planning horizon used by HRS in determining need. Evidenced introduced by HRS indicated there are presently 765 licensed and 240 approved beds in Manatee County. Under the rule, the methodology reflects a need for 1,518 beds, or a subdistrict deficiency of 513 beds through the year 1987. But even if beds are mathematically required under the formula at the subdistrict level, the rule requires that the current utilization of existing facilities be at least 85 percent, and the prospective utilization rate exceed 80 percent. If they do not, no additional beds may be authorized. The current utilization rate in Manatee County is 91.7 percent which meets the 85 percent threshold. However, the prospective utilization rate for the existing and approved operating nursing homes within the county is 69.8 percent, or substantially less than the minimum threshold of 80 percent called for by the rule. If petitioner's proposed beds are added to the calculation, the prospective utilization rate drops to 62.9 percent, or far below the requisite minimum rate. Therefore, there is no need for additional beds in Manatee County. FCC points out that special circumstances are present which justify a deviation from the rule. These include the allocation under the rule of only 15 percent of the district beds to Manatee County even though 21 percent of the elderly population (over 65 years) resides within the county, and the fact that Manatee has the highest percentage of people over 75 years of age of any county within the district. FCC also contends that the county has more persons in poverty than the statewide average, and that it will dedicate some 50 percent of its beds to Medicaid patients if the application is approved. However, these factors are taken into account in the formula devised by HRS, and do not constitute special circumstances that would warrant a departure from the need calculation encompassed in the rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., for a certificate of need to construct a 120-bed skilled and intermediate care nursing home facility in Manatee County, Florida be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 31st day of October, 1984.
The Issue As stated in the Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties, the "issue to be litigated is whether Petitioner is entitled to a Superior or Standard rating on its license for the period September 1, 1986 through August 31, 1987"?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, The Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center, is a 210-bed nursing home located in a four-story building in Pensacola, Florida. It is licensed as a nursing home by the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Howard Bennett and his wife have been the owners of the Petitioner since it was built in 1978. On April 28-30, 1986, and May 1-2, 1986, the Department conducted an annual Licensure and Certification survey (hereinafter referred to as the "Annual Survey") of the Petitioner's nursing home as required by Section 400.23, Florida Statutes. Based upon the Annual Survey conducted by the Department, the Department determined that the Petitioner's facility failed to meet nursing home licensure requirement numbers (NH) 100 and 102, as identified on the Department's Nursing Home Licensure Survey Report, DHRS exhibit 2. The deficiencies found by the Department and which in fact existed during the Annual Survey relating to NH 100 and 102 were as follows: The charge nurse for each shift on each of the four floors of the facility is responsible, under direction from Director of Nursing, for the total nursing activities in the facility during each tour of duty. The charge nurses are thus responsible for ensuring that nursing personnel carry out the direct nursing care needs of specific patients and assist in carrying out these nursing care needs. This responsibility is not always met in that: On the day of the survey, there were urine odors noted on the halls, rooms of fourth and third floors, indicating lack of attention by nursing. Other instances of lack of personal attention by nursing on the above mentioned floor in that: One patient required oral hygiene. Fourteen residents required fingernail care, one resident's fingernails were long, thick, and black indicating a need for attention. Two residents had redden buttocks, three residents were wet, three residents needed shaving, three residents needed hair cuts. One resident needed colostomy bag changed. One resident had a small amount of feces on backside, and was not properly cleaned around the rectum and scrotum. Several residents had on clothing that was too tight, zippers open, buttons not fasten, soil wrinkled and threads hanging around the bottom. It is also noted, that there are 116 total care, and 17 self care residents in the facility indicating a need for constant intensive nursing care to the residents. Ref. 10D-29.108(3)(d)(1) Based upon the totality of these deficiencies, it was concluded that the Petitioner failed to comply with the standard of care to be provided by the charge nurse. The deficiencies cited by the Department during the Annual Survey were classified as Class III deficiencies. The Annual Survey was conducted by Christine Denson. Ms. Denson had conducted nine to ten annual surveys of the Petitioner prior to the survey which is the subject of this proceeding. During Ms. Denson's inspection of the Petitioner's nursing home, Ms. Denson pointed out the deficiencies which are noted above to the director of nursing who accompanied Ms. Denson during her inspection. Ms. Denson normally records in some manner the identity of a resident to whom a deficiency relates; by noting the room number or bed number. Ms. Denson did not follow this procedure during the Annual Survey. Ms. Denson met with Howard Bennett, the owner of the Petitioner, at the conclusion of the Annual Survey. After Ms. Denson had explained the deficiencies she had found during her inspection, Judge Bennett stated to Ms. Denson: "I know the place is going down hill. We are letting it slide. Judge Bennett did not ask Ms. Denson for any information concerning the identity of the residents to which deficiencies related. The Petitioner had policies in effect at the time of the Annual Survey which addressed each of the deficiencies cited by the Department. Those policies were not, however, followed. Ms. Denson did not know when the residents to which the deficiencies she found related had been admitted to the Petitioner, their medical condition, how long the fingernail problems had existed or how long the residents had resided at the Petitioner. Ms. Denson did not speak to the residents about the problems she noted, review their medical or dental records or talk to any residents' physician. Finally, Ms. Denson did not remember whether any of the residents were continent or incontinent. On August 13, 1986, a letter was issued by the Department informing the Petitioner that its license rating was being converted from a superior rating to a standard rating. The August 13, 1986, letter from the Department also indicated that the deficiencies noted in the Annual Survey had been corrected based upon a July 31, 1986, follow-up inspection conducted by the Department. The Petitioner requested an administrative hearing challenging the proposed rating of its license by letter dated September 24, 1986.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued assigning a standard rating on the Petitioner's license for the period September 1, 1986, through August 31, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 19th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4182 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Accentance or Reason for Rejection 1-3, 6-7, 81 These are matters included in the Prehearing Stipulation. They are hereby accepted. 4-5 Statement of the issue in this case 8 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Ms. Denson testified at pages 48-49 of the transcript that whether a nursing home was considered to be out of compliance depended on the totality of the deficiencies and that she considered all of the deficiencies she found at the Petitioner's facility. 9 12. 10-11 10. 12-13 7. 14 Irrelevant. 15-16, 19-20, 22-23, 25, 29-31 10. 17 Hearsay. 18, 28, 33-34, 36-37, 39, 41-43, 45 Hereby accepted. 21, 24, 26-27, 32, 48, 54-66, 71, 73-77 These proposed findings of fact are generally true. They all involve, however, possible explanations for the deficiencies found at the Petitioner's facility. In order for these proposed findings of fact to be relevant it would have to be concluded that the Department had the burden of dispelling any and all possible explanations for the deficiencies. Such a conclusion would not be reasonable in this case. The Department presented testimony that the deficiencies cited existed and that, taken as a whole, they supported a conclusion that the Petitioner was not providing minimum nursing care. This evidence was credible and sufficient to meet the Department's burden of proof and to shift the burden to the Petitioner to provide proof of any explanations for the deficiencies. 35 9. 38, 40, 49-51, 53, 82-83, 86-87 Irrelevant and/or argument. 43-44 1. 46-47, 51, 56, 66-67, 71-71 These proposed findings of fact are true. They are not relevant to this proceeding, however, because they involve situations at the Petitioner's facility which may explain the deficiencies. The Petitioner failed to prove that they actually were the cause of any of the deficiencies. 70, 78-80, 84-85 Conclusions of law. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 2-3. 2 11-12. 3 4 and 6. 4 4. 5-7 Irrelevant, summary of testimony, conclusion of law. 8 9. 9 8. 10 Irrelevant. 11 8. 12 Summary of testimony and facts relating to the weight of Ms. Mayo's testimony. 13-14 Hereby accepted. 15 Argument. 16-17 Conclusions of law. 18 4. 19-20 Conclusions of law, argument and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Dempsey & Goldsmith, P.A. Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael O. Mathis Staff Attorney Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly changed Petitioner's licensure status to conditional on June 23, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a nursing home in Venice, Florida. Respondent conducted a relicensure survey of Petitioner's nursing home on June 12, 1997. On June 23, 1997, Respondent issued Petitioner a new license, effective June 12, 1997, through October 31, 1997, for a skilled nursing facility. However, as a result of the deficiencies found in this survey, Respondent rated the renewal license as conditional. A resurvey on August 6, 1997, revealed that Petitioner had corrected all of the cited deficiencies, so Respondent issued a standard license, effective August 6. There are three ratings for a license: superior, standard, and conditional. Prior to the June 12 renewal, Petitioner's license was rated superior. The issuance of a conditional license adversely affects a licensee in one and possibly two ways. First, the conditional license hinders marketing and employee recruiting and retention. Second, the conditional license may affect Medicaid reimbursement levels. Even though Respondent rerated the nursing home as standard, the earlier conditional rating remains meaningful because it means that Petitioner cannot gain a superior rating for the next licensing period. Another factor militating against a determination that the present proceeding is moot is Respondent's procedure by which it does not provide licensees with an opportunity for a hearing prior to changing the rating of their nursing home licenses. As an incidental complaint to the issuance of a conditional license, Petitioner also complains of the procedure by which this Respondent issues this conditional license. Without having given Petitioner an opportunity for a hearing based on a proposed or tentative decision to change Petitioner's rating, Respondent simply issued the conditional license and gave Petitioner an opportunity to challenge this action, after the fact, in a formal administrative hearing. A mootness determination on these facts would insulate Respondent's initial action from effective challenge, despite the obvious economic impacts of the initial action. The June 12 survey reports cites three sets of Class II deficiencies, which were identified as Tags F 225, F 309, and F 314. These three tags were the sole bases for the issuance of a Conditional license. Tag F 225 concerns the investigation and documentation of an alleged incident of abuse of a resident by one of Petitioner's employees. The survey report asserts that Petitioner did not satisfy applicable legal requirements by failing, in violation of its own policies, to document in the resident's file the results of an abuse investigation report. Tag F 225 and the testimony of Respondent's witnesses at the hearing are vague as to whether the issue under Tag F 225 is that Petitioner failed to conduct an appropriate investigation or failed to document adequately that it had conducted an investigation. When pressed, Respondent's witnesses chose failure to document, perhaps in deference to the fact that Petitioner's employees clearly conducted an investigation. The alleged incident underlying this issue did not constitute abuse. A staffperson grabbed a resident's arm for an appropriate purpose and did not injure or harm the resident. Petitioner's investigation properly concluded that there was no abuse. As discussed under the conclusions of law, the subsubsubparagraph of the federal regulation allegedly violated under this tag requires only that Petitioner report to appropriate authorities any knowledge of actions by a "court of law" against an employee suggestive of unfitness to serve as facility staff. There is no proof of action by a court of law; this missing fact alone ends the inquiry under this tag. Additionally, Petitioner nonetheless reported the unfounded allegations to the state agency charged with investigating allegations of abuse, and the state agency concluded that the charge was unfounded. Tag F 309 concerns the quality of care received by six residents. As to Resident Number 6, who was in the final stages of a terminal illness, the survey report asserts that Petitioner kept him in isolation and did not offer him opportunities for socialization. Testimony at the hearing revealed that the resident was dying and did not want to socialize, but Respondent's witness opined that this was not an appropriate option. No evidence suggested that the dying resident suffered any diminution of ability to eat or use language. Respondent's witness labored under the misconception that the cited federal regulation addresses socialization (as opposed perhaps to the role of socialization in facilitating the more specific activities actually mentioned by the regulation, which is discussed in the conclusions of law). Even if the federal regulation were so broad, which it is not, the evidence certainly suggests that any diminution in socialization was unavoidable due to the resident's terminal clinical condition. The evidence reveals that Resident Number 6, who had had a gangrenous foot, suffered a staph infection of his gangrenous right foot. He was depressed, fatigued, and in pain; however, he was freely visited by staff and family. As to Resident Number 8, who had had a stroke, the survey report asserts that Petitioner failed to provide him his restorative therapy of walking and failed to document this therapy. At the time of the survey, Petitioner was short of restorative staff due to a scheduled vacation and an unscheduled bereavement absence due to the suicide of an employee's brother. When a restorative aide, who was on vacation, appeared at the nursing home and attempted to provide Respondent's surveyor with documentation concerning the therapy administered to Resident Number 8, the surveyor rejected the documentation on the grounds that it did not sufficiently identify the resident or therapist. Resident Number 8 suffered some loss of functioning--i.e., the ability to walk 400 feet--but the record does not link this loss of functioning to any brief interruption in his restorative therapy. As to Resident Number 9, the survey report states that, during the two days that surveyors were at the facility, she did not ambulate, even though her restorative nursing plan called for daily ambulation. However, she suffered no harm during this insignificant interruption in her program, from which she was successfully discharged a couple of weeks after the survey. As to Resident Number 13, who was 102 years old, the survey report notes that he was supposed to ambulate in a wheelchair. One of Respondent's surveyors noticed that a staffperson was pushing this resident's wheelchair. However, staff had assumed the responsibility of pushing this resident's wheelchair for him after he had developed pressure sores on his heels. The evidence fails to show that Petitioner's care for the treatment of Resident Number 13 had anything to do with his loss of function. As to Resident Number 26, the survey report asserts that his physician had ordered an increase in dosage of Prilosec, which aids digestion by treating the acidity associated with peptic ulcers. Three weeks passed before Petitioner's staff noticed that the change, which was on the resident's chart, had not yet been implemented. They implemented the change prior to the survey, and notified the resident's physician of the error in medication administration a couple of days later. The survey report states that Petitioner's staff documented, on May 30, 1997, that Resident Number 26 had lost 4.8 pounds, or 5.7 percent of his body weight, in one week. This weight loss occurred during the latter part of the period during which Resident Number 26 was receiving less than his prescribed amount of medication. Two of Petitioner's witnesses testified, without elaboration, that the medication error did not cause the weight loss. The survey report implies otherwise, although Respondent's witnesses were not as pronounced as Petitioner's witnesses in dealing with any link between the medication error and the weight loss. Absent the weight loss, the medication error-- consisting of a failure to raise a digestive medication--would have been insignificant and insufficient grounds for a Class II deficiency on the cited basis. However, there was a serious weight loss while the resident was undermedicated. The lack of evidence in the record proving that there was or was not a causal link between the weight loss and undermedication means that the party bearing the risk of nonpersuasion loses on this issue. As discussed in the conclusions of law, Respondent has the burden of proof; thus, for this reason alone, Petitioner prevails on this issue. As to the last resident under Tag F 309, who was not identified, the survey asserts that a restorative aide commented that he used to walk 440 feet, but does not anymore because he thinks that he does not have to. This scanty allegation provides no basis for citing Petitioner with a deficiency, even if it applies to Resident Number 8, as appears probable. Tag F 314 also concerns a quality-of-care issue-- specifically, the development and treatment of pressure sores in three residents. As to Resident Number 1, who had been in the nursing home for three years, the survey report states that, on May 12, 1997, he had developed a Stage II pressure sore on his right outer ankle. The survey report asserts that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient care to prevent the development of this pressure sore, that Resident Number 1 had suffered pressure sores in 1995, and that Petitioner should have known and treated Resident Number 1 on the basis of his being at risk for developing pressure sores. Despite a failure to document, Petitioner's staff adequately treated Resident Number 1 once the pressure sore developed. Nursing assistants required that he wear silicone pressure booties and that lotion be rubbed on the irritated skin. In addition, Petitioner has shown that the clinical condition of Resident Number 1 made pressure sores unavoidable. One of Petitioner's Assistant Directors of Nursing testified that Resident Number 1 had poor pedal pulses, indicative of poor circulation, and a history of peripheral neuropathy. The resulting decreased sensation in his feet would prevent him from feeling increased pressure and thus the need to move his feet. Despite preventative measures, Resident Number 1 developed pressure sores due to these clinical conditions. As to Resident Number 7, who had been in the nursing home for six years, the survey report asserts that she had a Stage II pressure sore--meaning that the skin was broken--but was allowed to remained seated in the same position for two hours in a position in which the pressure on the sore on her buttock was not relieved. The survey report does not allege that this pressure sore developed while Resident Number 7 resided in the nursing home. Resident Number 7 had severe dementia and was a total-care patient. She could not move independently. In fact, she sat, unmoved, in a chair for at least 4 and 3/4 hours on one of the days of the survey. The failure to move Resident Number 7 raises serious questions about the adequacy of Petitioner's treatment. However, Petitioner's Assistant Director of Nursing answered these questions when she testified that the one- centimeter pressure sore healed five days after the survey. Thus, Petitioner provided Resident Number 7 with the necessary treatment and services to promote healing. As to Resident Number 13, who had been in the nursing home for less than three months, the survey report alleges that he had developed pressure sores while in the nursing home. Resident Number 13 was the 102-year-old resident who is also discussed in Tag F 309. The survey report alleges that, on April 24, 1997, Resident Number 13 had a red left heel, red right foot, and pink right heel; on May 1, 1997, he had soft and red heels; on May 7 and 14, 1997, his pressure sores could not be staged due to dead tissue surrounding the sores; on May 20, 1997, his left heel was documented as a Stage II pressure sore, but the right heel could not be staged due to dead tissue; and Petitioner's staff did not implement any treatment until May 12, 1997. Respondent proved the allegations cited in the preceding paragraph except for the last concerning a failure to implement any treatment until May 12. Petitioner's Assistant Director of Nursing testified that Patient Number 13 was frail and debilitated. If this is a clinical condition, it is the only statement of Patient Number 13's clinical condition contained in the record. The Assistant Director of Nursing testified that the pressure sore on the left heel healed by June 3 after the usual treatment measures of turning and repositioning and heel protectors. She testified that the pressure sore on the right heel improved somewhat, but had not healed by the time of his death in January 1998 of presumably unrelated causes. The testimony of the Assistant Director of Nursing rebuts any evidence concerning inadequate treatment of Resident Number 13, but does not establish that the development of his pressure sores was clinically unavoidable. Her testimony as to Resident Number 1 identified clinical conditions that, when coupled with the early implementation of preventative measures, established that Resident Number 1's pressure sore was unavoidable. As to Resident Number 13, the Assistant Director of Nursing also testified of early implementation of preventative measures, but, in contrast to her testimony concerning Resident Number 1, she described little, if anything, of any clinical condition making the pressure sores unavoidable. If the intent of the Assistant Director of Nursing was to imply that old age coupled with frailty and debilitation provide the necessary clinical justification, she failed to establish the necessary causal relationships among pressure sores, advanced age, and frailty and debilitation-- even if the frailty and debilitation were relative to other 102-year-olds, which the record does not reveal, as opposed to the frailty and debilitation, relative to the general population, that one might expect in a 102-year-old. Without more detailed evidence concerning Resident Number 13's clinical condition, Petitioner effectively invites the creation of a safe harbor from liability for the development of pressure sores in 102-year-olds or even 102-year-olds who are frail and debilitated for their age, and the administrative law judge declines either invitation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the petition filed by Petitioner and rating Petitioner's license as conditional for the relevant period. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 7th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna H. Stinson Broad and Cassell Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Karel Baarslag Agency for Health Care Administration State Regional Service Center 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229
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 ultimate issue, by comparative hearing, is which applicant has submitted an application best meeting the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes and Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code. STIPULATIONS At the formal hearing, all parties stipulated that, as a matter of law and fact, there are 60 nursing hone beds needed to be allocated to one of the parties in these proceedings; that the criteria in Section 381.494(6)(c)(4), (6), (10), and (11) Florida Statutes were not applicable to this case and that the parties need not demonstrate compliance therewith.
Findings Of Fact The stipulations immediately above are adopted in toto as a finding of fact. (See January 30, 1984 Order herein). It is typically more cost-efficient to add 60 beds to an existing nursing home than to construct a free-standing 60-bed nursing home. In comparing competing projects' costs, total cost per bed (including financing, development, and construction costs) is a more accurate indicator of true financial cost of a project than is cost per square foot. Also, cost per bed is more accurate reflection of what the community must pay for a nursing facility than cost per square foot, since cost per bed takes into account the financing, developing, and construction costs. By comparison, BEVERLY's cost per bed is $19,000, FLC's cost per bed is 21,083 and FLNC's cost per bed is .$18,335. 1/ BEVERLY is a for-profit corporation. By its revised CON application, it proposes a 60-bed addition to its existing 120-bed nursing home, Longwood Health Care Center, located in Seminole County, Florida. BEVERLY has operated the Longwood facility for only 3 years. It is operated under an assumption of lease. Dan Bruns, Director of Acquisitions and Development for BEVERLY, testified that the corporate resolution (B-3) is the authorization for BEVERLY's CON application but that exhibit does not reference the revised 60 bed CON application. Upon the lease terms at Longwood and the corporate resolution, BEVERLY's authority to carry through with a 60 bed addition is suspect. FLC is a six-person investment group which has as yet selected no site and has no firm commitment to a specific site or geographic area within Seminole County for its project. Indeed, the entity which will own the FLC project's physical plant has not yet been created. FLC's revised CON application proposes construction of a 120-bed facility with 60 skilled nursing home beds and 60 beds dedicated for an "adult congregate living facility" (ACLF). ACLFs are exempt from Florida statutory and Florida Administrative Code requirements of qualifying for a CON through Respondent HRS. An effect of this exemption is to make FLC's 60/60 plan generally cost-competitive in light of this order's Fact Paragraph 2, above. 2/ FLC's ACLF portion is designed to comply with all regulations for a skilled nursing facility. FLNC, is a not-for-profit corporation. FLNC is within the health and educational hierarchy of the Seventh Day Adventist faith. Under a recent lease, FLNC is currently operated by Sunbelt Health Care Systems, which operates 26 hospitals and 4 nursing homes, two of which are in Florida. FLNC proposes a 60- bed addition on the same level as its existing 104-bed nursing home in Forest City, Seminole County, Florida. This is to be accomplished by constructing on the north side of the existing nursing home a two story structure with 60 nursing beds on the second floor and the bottom or first floor to be shelled-in space. Shelled-in space in nursing homes is permitted by HRS policy and FLNC proposes this bottom or first floor will be designed to meet all construction and fire codes for a nursing home as well as for an ACLF. Since FLNC's property falts off severely to the north, this proposal constitutes the best and highest use of the property owned by FLNC from an architectural and design point of view. The roofing concept is energy-efficient and the top floor or proposed 60-nursing bed area will be accessible from the existing facility without ever leaving covered or heated space. There will be no significant emergency evacuation problem resulting from this FLNC design and no undue inconvenience to visitors utilizing the parking lot. FLC's and FLNC's proposals have the potential advantage for future "CON competitions" of conversion space if HRS ever allocates more nursing beds to Seminole County in the future. This aspect is immaterial to the issues presented by the present CON applications. BEVERLY is the largest nursing home corporation in the United States and encourages the inference to be drawn that its centralized management has the plus of "corporate giant" purchasing power enabling it to obtain best prices for commodities and to obtain the choicest of staff applicants. FLC asserts similar superiority in national recruitment and hiring practices although upon a much narrower base. Neither of these applicants' assertions was established as a significant variable by competent substantial evidence. FLNC makes no similar assertions. FLC further asserts that it is in an advantageous position with regard to quality of care because it is able to transfer nurses and much of its other staff from facility to facility among its several nursing homes. This assertion has some merit but its financial advantage is offset by FLC's pattern of staffing at a higher level than necessary, the costs of which must eventually be passed on to the patients. As to affirmatively demonstrating superior quality of care, it has limited weight as applied to the facts of this case. BEVERLY's projected total cost for the 60-bed addition is $1,140,000. On a per bed basis, that computes to $19,000 per bed. BEVERLY's total construction cost (including labor, material, contingency, and inflation) is $804,000 but an unknown amount per square foot. By this finding, BEVERLY's premise that its total projected construction cost computes at $50.77 per square foot and the other parties' contention that BEVERLY's cost is $61.84 per square foot are both specifically rejected. 3/ FLC's projected total cost of its facility is $2,300,000. BEVERLY's premise with regard to a contingency fund for FLC was not affirmatively demonstrated, but FLC somewhat arbitrarily allocates 55 percent of its total (or $1,265,000) to the 60-bed nursing home segment. On a per bed basis, this is $21,083 per bed contrary to FLC's assertion of $19,166 per bed. FLC's projected total construction cost of the total proposed facility (nursing wing and ACLF) is $1,488,800, which FLC breaks down as $818,840 or $44.82 per square foot within the nursing home segment/wing. This testimony is, however, somewhat suspect because FLC's architect, Monday, admitted he had not personally prepared these construction costs and because the figure set aside by FLC for land/site acquisition is pure speculation in light of FLC's failure to commit to a specific geographical location. Real property prices and availability are clearly notstatic, known factors, and fluctuations in price have not been adequately accounted for by this FLC estimate. Further, FLC admits its figures on the basis of 55 per cent, are not as accurate as using dollar figures. FLNC's projected total cost for its 60-bed nursing home segment/wing addition is $1,100,113. On a per bed basis, that computes to $18,335 per bed. FLNC's total construction cost is $854,913 or a projected $51.00 per square foot within the new nursing segment/wing addition. FLNC is the only applicant whose projected cost per square foot falls within the HRS' experience concerning average cost per square foot of nursing homes. BEVERLY's premise that FLNC should have allowed a contingency fund for adjustments in design and construction so as to comply with local ordinances, for sewerage connection, for drainage, for retainage walls and for a variety of other purely speculative construction problems which BEVERLY failed to affirmatively demonstrate would inevitably develop from FLNC's existing site or proposed project is specifically rejected. Also rejected hereby is BEVERLY's suggestion that FLNC's method of calculating fixed and moveable equipment costs together somehow camouflages FLNC's construction costs. While that may be the ultimate result of this method in some situations, both HRS regulations and good accounting practices permit fixed equipment to be broken out as either construction or equipment costs. It is not appropriate for the finder of fact to adjust a reasonably allowable calculation of an applicant in the absence of clear evidence rendering such reasonably allowable calculation inappropriate to specific circumstances. BEVERLY provided only an outline of its existing Longwood building on the site. It gives no elevations. (B-13) FLC submitted a schematic drawing (FLC-12) but did not submit a site plan. FLNC submitted both a site plan and a schematic drawing of its existing facility as well as its proposed facility (FLNC-11). Further, FLNC-2 (Table 16) shows FLNC's ancillary areas as adequate and available to that applicant's proposed 60 nursing bed addition. 4/ As stated, BEVERLY did not submit floor or site plans for its existing 120 nursing bed facility. Without such plans, it is difficult to analyze the existing ancillary areas or the proposed room relationships/configuration which will result from construction of the new 60 bed nursing segment/wing. BEVERLY proposes to add 60 beds to the Longwood facility by "repeating" a patient wing. The existing facility currently consists of right and left patient wings branching off from an ancillary area hub. The new 60-bed segment wing is planned to contain 28 semi-private (2 bed) rooms and four private (1 bed) rooms, but since there is no architect's design schematic drawing, blueline, etc., to establish precisely how the rooms will be laid out, to a degree, the configuration must be conjectured on whether a left or right wing is the wing repeated. Because of the lack of a clear architectural plan, there is no resolution of much conflicting evidence offered by BEVERLY's own expert witnesses including total square footage. Also, for its new proposed segment/wing, BEVERLY only submitted a site plan drawing so that particularly wanting is any valid method by which the undersigned may compare BEVERLY's application and proposed plans for its bathroom facilities to be located in the new 60 nursing bed segment/wing proposed for the BEVERLY Longwood facility with bathroom facilities proposed by the other two CON applicants. BEVERLY's architect, Fletcher, testified there will be two central baths in the new wing to serve the private rooms, but even he could not confirm the number of baths in the new wing. Therefore, much information concerning bathroom facilities is missing from BEVERLY's revised application. FLC's nursing home segment will amount to 18,270 square feet of new construction which computes to 305 gross square feet per bed unless the shared ancillary areas are considered. Because ancillary areas must be considered, the foregoing figures are reduced by 5,500 square feet to 12,770 square feet or a low of 212.8 gross square feet per bed in FLC's proposed nursing home segment/wing. FLNC's proposed 60 nursing bed segment/wing will amount to 16,763 square feet, or 279 gross square feet per bed. FLNC's existing ancillary facilities will also adequately and efficiently service the proposed 60 nursing bed segment/wing. One reason for this is that FLNC's existing ancillary facilities space is excessive by current licensure requirements. For instance, modern regulations require only 9 square feet per bed for the dining area. Due to Hill-Burton grant standards requiring 30 square feet when FLNC's existing facility was built, this and all other existing ancillary areas at FLNC were built considerably larger than if the existing facility were being constructed today solely to comply with HRS licensure requirements. FLNC's proposal takes advantage of this situation to reduce construction costs. FLC's floor plan is a "cookie-cutter" concept already successfully applied by this corporate applicant in several locations. In particular, it differs from BEVERLY's plan (or lack of plan) and FLNC's plan because it contemplates allocating four beds instead of two beds per toilet and provides a communal shower layout for the same four beds. FLNC's application plans contemplate 26 semiprivate (2 bed) rooms and eight private (single bed) rooms. Each room, regardless of designation, will have its own toilet. At FLNC, the maximum number of patients obliged to share a toilet or lavatory will be two. All three applicants meet the state minimum requirements of ratio of toilets to beds, but it is axiomatic that the two persons per toilet ratio as apparently proposed by BEVERLY and as definitely proposed by FLNC is a preferable factor in rating quality of care than is the four persons per toilet proposed by FLC. FLC's plan is less desirable for encouraging privacy, dignity, and independence of nursing home patients than are the other two plans. BEVERLY's proposed wing will be 100 per cent financed by a bank letter of credit with an interest rate of 13 percent over 20 years, however, this letter only references BEVERLY's original 120 new-bed CON application and is silent as to its subsequent (revised) 60-bed application. In short, its financing commitment is dependent upon BEVERLY's being named the successful CON applicant. FLC's financing situation involves a combination of equity and bank financing and is not firm. Its investment group will seek a loan for 90 percent of the amount needed from Barnett Bank. Financing is not solidly committed as to loan amount, loan term, or interest rate and is therefore inadequate. Analyses of "creditworthiness" of an applicant and "financial feasibility" pronouncements by a lending institution do not equate with a firm commitment to loan amount, term and interest. FLNC's financing is guaranteed up to $1,300,000 by a letter of commitment from the Florida Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists at 12 per cent interest for 20 years. The background of FLNC's relationship with this denominational financial "parent" provides an encouraging prognosis for long range as well as immediate success and stability of FLNC's project if it is the successful CON applicant. The projected Medicaid and Medicare utilization figures of all three of the applicants contain elements of speculation. 5/ Moreover, after a facility has been opened for 5 or 6 years there is a greater incentive to seek private pay patients because the reimbursement is higher than Medicaid. However, the actual commitment figures provided by the parties does provide a valid comparison factor. BEVERLY's commitment to Medicare is 2 percent. BEVERLY has not committed and is not prepared to commit a specific percentage of the stipulated 60 beds to Medicaid participation. Although BEVERLY's application projects 33 percent Medicaid in the second year of operation, its Director of Acquisitions and Development, Dan Bruns, could not definitely commit to continue admission of 83 percent Medicaid beds in the 120 + 60-bed configuration using Longwood. FLC has committed 10 percent of the total stipulated 60 beds to Medicare., FLC has committed 52 percent of the stipulated 60 beds to Medicaid participation, but in light of FLC's withdrawal from Medicaid participation at one of its facilities and subsequent transfer of Medicaid patients, FLC's commitment here may be viewed as revocable as well. Although FLNC does not project strong Medicare involvement, FUN will be Medicaid and Medicare certified and has committed 50 per cent (50 percent) of the beds in the total facility [existing beds (104) + proposed beds if it is the successful CON applicant (60) for a total commitment of 164/2 = 84 beds] to Medicaid participation. FLNC intends only to enlarge Medicare beds in its existing 104 bed facility. FLNC intends to seek Veteran's Administration Certification. Moreover, FLNC's existing facility was principally funded with Hill-Burton grant money and FLNC annually repays its original loan through delivery of free service to indigent persons. Among the three applicants, FLNC's Hill-Burton obligation, enforced by financial considerations, demonstrates both a strong (14 years) "track record" of FLNC's accessibility to the medically indigent and traditionally underserved in the community as well as a strong indicator of continued accessibility to this segment of the community. FLNC has the lowest charge rate of all three applicants while spending more dollars on patient care than the respective averages of the other two applicant's facilities and this ratio is significant in assessing and comparing both quality of care and availability to the medically underserved of the Seminole County "community." BEVERLY's existing Longwood facility has been a BEVERLY operation less than three years (since August, 1982) and has had a "standard" rating up through the date of hearing. FLC plans to construct an entirely new facility and so has no current license to review. All of its existing homes have standard ratings. FLNC's existing facility has been operating 14 years and has had a "standard" or equivalent rating except for a three months "conditional" rating before return to "standard". BEVERLY staffs all of its beds for skilled patients and commingles its skilled and intermediate patients. FLC staffs all its beds for skilled patients. Although HRS encourages "higher" staffing, this policy can increase costs to patients. FLNC's plan is to create a discreet intermediate wing which, although licensed for skilled beds, will be primarily used for intermediate level patients. Except as indicated infra geographic location of BEVERLY's Longwood facility and of FLNC within Seminole County is not a significant variable. FLC cannot be compared geographically because it has not yet selected a site. FLC proposes one administrator for the combined ACLF and nursing home. The administrator's salary will be allocated between the ACLF and the nursing home. FLC does not specify the proportion of salary attributable to the ACLF. FLNC has had the same administrator for fourteen years BEVERLY's Longwood facility and FLNC have established monthly in- service training for staff members. All three applicants project in-service training and volunteer activity programs if granted the CON. FLC has demonstrated its other existing nursing homes have the most varietal and aggressive patient activity programs utilizing outside community volunteers This and its in-service programs are part of an internal quality control system labelled "Quest for quality". FLC also embraces the idea of using numerous visiting contract consultants in a variety of disciplines such as psychology and nutrition. FLC nursing homes also are active members of a number of national quality control professional groups. By contract, the Orange County Board of Education uses FLNC's existing nursing home as a laboratory for nurses' aide training for the Apopka High School. Also, FLNC permits use of its existing facility as a laboratory for the geriatric training program of Florida Hospital's Licensed Practical Nurse School. These programs could be extended to include the proposed segment/wing and are symbiotic relationships significantly benefiting the quality of care of nursing home patients as well as the student interns. FUC participates with HRS in a program for those adjudicated to do community service in Seminole County. BEVERLY's recent creation of an assistant to the president slot to oversee quality of patient life is commendable, but located at the highest corporate level, and in another state, this benefit will be somewhat diluted at the point of delivery in Seminole County, Florida. This individual's first responsibility is to the corporate shareholders not to a specific nursing home's patients and staff. As to all three applicants, administrative complaints by themselves are both irrelevant and immaterial to this de novo proceeding. Particularly, complaints are immaterial unless they result in an adjudication. Dismissals and settlements without adjudication or admission of guilt are of no probative value. Moreover, in light of testimony of the HRS licensure representative that there is no nursing home in Florida which has not been cited at least once, deficiency ratings brief in duration in proportion to many years of operation are of little significance or probative value. 6/ BEVERLY and FLC contended that FLNC's affiliation with the Christian religious denomination of Seventh Day Adventists somehow diminishes FLNC's application. This position was not established by direct credible evidence on any of the strategic tangents it took at the formal hearing. Admission data provided for the existing FLNC facility indicates that whether measured by policy and statistics or by admissions, FLNC is not restricted by religious faith or affiliation. By this finding of fact, a convenient "draw" of FLNC from a nearby Seventh Day Adventist retirement center has not been ignored nor has evidence that many of the admissions drawn from this retirement community appear to be "repeaters" at the existing FLNC nursing home been ignored, but this corollary may be attributed to the natural proclivity of the retired and elderly to account for a large percentage of the nursing home beds consumed in any locality, and upon this analysis the 15 per cent to 20 per cent (15-20 percent) draw of FLNC from this source could be as much geographically as religiously induced. Failure to repeat attempts at placement of patients at FLNC color the credibility of the testimony of most witnesses who infer a religious barrier to placement of patients at FLNC. Teresa S. Shaw is Director of Social Services, Florida Hospital, Altamonte. In light of that acute care hospital being Part of the Seventh Day Adventist faith's health and educational hierarchy, somewhat greater weight might be placed on her analysis if she felt religion played a part in FLNC's acceptance or rejection of patients. However, she testified she did not know of FLNC's affiliation. This, together with the actual admissions data provided by FLNC, supports this finding of no religious barrier. Unavailability of beds at FLNC has no probative value for charges of religious discrimination either. 7/ Suggestions that the Seventh Day Adventist dietary restrictions against consumption of animal-protein and caffeine and against tobacco-smoking in its nursing homes somehow reduces the quality of nursing home care at FLNC are rejected as unproved. First, it was never established that smoking benefits quality of care, but in any case, FLNC, like all certified nursing homes, complies with the requirement of providing a smoking area. Second, consumption of caffeine and animal-protein can obviously create numerous health and sanitary problems for those incontinent patients who often comprise a large percentage of any nursing home population. Third, it was never established that caffeine or animal-protein benefits the quality of nursing home care. Moreover testimony of FLNC's administrator clearly indicates that at FLNC patients' diets are established by the attending physician and that patients' families may bring in items not normally served by FLNC if this supplementation is permitted on the diet prescribed by the attending physician. It is the physician, not the nursing home, that has ultimate dietary authority.
Recommendation After considering all submissions of counsel, and upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law determined after reviewing those submissions, it is, RECOMMENDED: That HRS issue a certificate of need for a 60-bed addition to FLORIDA LIVING NURSING CENTER, INC's Seminole County facility, with total project cost not to exceed $1,100,113.00 and area not to exceed 16,763 square feet and deny the other applications. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 1985.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Plantation was a licensed nursing home facility and participated in the Medicaid program. A nursing home that receives a superior rating is entitled to incentives based on the Florida Medicaid Reimbursement Plan. Plantation has met all the requirements for a superior rating that are enumerated in Rule lOD-29.128, Florida _Administrative Code. The only reason Plantation was not granted a superior rating was based on the Medicaid Inspection of Care, Team report. (stipulated facts) From August 21 through August 31, 1984, Plantation underwent a routine inspection by the HRS Medicaid Inspection of Care (IOC) Team. The purpose of the inspection was to review the care and treatment of Medicaid recipient patients in accordance with state and federal standards in order for the facility to receive Medicaid payment for those individuals. During the course of the inspection, several deficiencies were found by IOC Team. The deficiencies were summarized in the Medicaid Inspection of Care Team report, entitled Facility Evaluation Summary, prepared by Ms. Tranger. The report listed the deficiencies as follows: Fifteen skilled and two intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have medication revalidated by the attending physician within the proper time frame Four of forty-six records reviewed failed to have available documentation that laboratory tests were completed in accordance with doctors' orders and medication regimen, Fourteen skilled and thirteen intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have the Plan of Care reviewed within the proper time frame: Ten medical records were not certified within the proper time frames and fifteen medical records were not current for recertification. As to the first deficiency noted, the problem was not that the physician failed to revalidate medication, but that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician appropriately dated the revalidation. In almost all of the cases, the problem was that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician had personally entered the date because the date was written with a different color of ink than the doctor's signature or the handwriting appeared to be different. Ms. Tranger did not know whether the dates were written by someone in the physician's office or someone at the nursing home. It is very difficult for a nursing home to get a physician to sign and date orders properly. Plantation had a procedure for securing the doctor's signature and having records dated. When a record was received that was not properly signed and dated, Plantation returned the record to the doctor with a letter or note telling the doctor what needed to be done. When returned by the doctor to Plantation, the record would bear the later date, which caused some records to be out of' compliance with the required time frames. The return to the doctor of records that were not properly dated may also explain why some of he dates were written in a different color ink than the doctor's signature. In those few cases where the dates on the report were not within the proper time frame, the dates were only a few days off. In one case a 34 day period, from July 7, 1984 to August 10, 1984, elapsed before the medication was revalidated. In another case, there were 33 days between the dates. In both cases the medication should have been revalidated every 30 days. The problem with the revalidation dates was strictly a paperwork problem and not one that affected the care of the patients. As stated before, in the majority of the cases the medication was revalidated within the proper time frame. The problem was simply that it appeared that someone other than the doctor had written down the date. The second deficiency was a finding by the surveyors that 4 of the 46 medical records reviewed failed to have available documentation regarding laboratory tests being completed in accordance with doctors' orders. However, Jean Bosang, Administrator of Plantation, reviewed all of the records cited by the IOC Team as the basis for these deficiencies and could only find two instances in which laboratory tests were not performed. HRS did not present any evidence to establish the two other alleged instances. Dr. Lopez reviewed the medical records of the two residents in question and determined that there was no possibility of harm to the patient as a result of failure to perform these tests. One of the two residents is Dr. Lopez' patient, and he normally sees her every day. He stated that the test, an electrolyte examination, was a routine test, that the patient had had no previous problems, and if any problem had developed, she would have had symptoms which would have been observable to the nurses. The tests performed before and after the test that was missed were normal, and the failure to perform the one test had absolutely no effect on the patient. Dr. Lopez was familiar with the other resident upon whom a test was not performed and had reviewed her records. This resident was to have a fasting blood sugar test performed every third month. Although this test was not performed in April of 1984, it was performed timely in every other instance. All tests were normal, and the failure to perform this test did not have any effect on the resident. Had she been suffering from blood sugar problems, there would have been physical signs observable to the nurses. The fourth deficiency listed in the report was a paperwork problem similar to the first deficiency. Patients in a nursing home are classified by level of care and must be recertified from time to time. Certification does not affect the care of the resident. The recertification must be signed and dated by the physician. Again, there was a problem on the recertification because some of the dates were in a different color ink than the physician's signature. Again, the problem was primarily caused by difficulty in getting proper physician documentation. The deficiency did not affect the care of the residents. Mr. Maryanski, who made the decision not to give Plantation a superior rating, testified that of the four deficiencies cited in the IOC report, he believed that only the third deficiency listed, in and of itself, would have precluded a superior rating. An analysis of that deficiency, however, shows that it also was mainly a paperwork deficiency and had no impact on patient care. The third deficiency listed involved a purported failure to have the plans of care reviewed within the proper time frames. Patient care plans are to be reviewed every 60 days for "skilled" patients, those that need the most supervision, and every 90 days for "intermediate" patients, those that need less supervision. A patient's plan of care is a written plan establishing the manner in which each patient will be treated and setting forth certain goals to be reached. A discharge plan is also established, which is basically what the nursing home personnel believe will be the best outcome for the patient if and when he or she leaves the hospital. The patient plan of care is established at a patient care plan meeting. Patient care plan meetings are held by the various disciplines in the nursing home, such as nursing, dietary, social work and activities, to review resident records and discuss any problems with specific residents. The manner in which the problem is to be corrected is determined and then written down on the patient's plan of care record. The evidence revealed that the basis of the deficiency was not a failure to timely establish or review a plan of care, but a failure to timely write down and properly date the plan of care. During the time in question, care plan meetings were held every Wednesday, and all of the disciplines attended the meetings. However, all disciplines did not write their comments on the patients' records at the meeting; some wrote them later. Usually, when they were added later, the comments were dated on the day they were written, rather than on the day the meetings were held. The evidence presented did not show any case in which all disciplines were late in making notes, but revealed only that specific disciplines were tardy. Since all the disciplines attended one meeting, it is apparent that when the date for any discipline was timely, the later dates of other disciplines merely reflected a documentation or paperwork problem. In late 1984 or early 1985, Plantation changed its system to avoid the problem in the future. There appeared to be problems with some of the discharge plans being untimely. The discharge plan is not utilized in the day-to-day care of the resident. Discharge plans at Plantation were kept in two places, and Ms. Tranger recognized that she may have overlooked some plans if they had been written only on the separate discharge sheet. The four deficiencies cited all involved time frames. There are innumerable time frames that must be met by a nursing home. The great majority of the deficiencies involved a failure to properly document. None of the deficiencies affected the care of the patients. Indeed, Ms. Tranger indicated that the patients were all receiving proper nursing care. The decision to give Plantation a standard rating was made by Mr. Maryanski based solely on the IOC report. He relied upon section 400.23,(3) Florida Statutes, which states: "The department shall base its evaluation on the most recent annual inspection report, taking into consideration findings from other official reports, surveys, interviews, investigations and inspections." There are no regulations or written or oral policies implementing this provision. Mr. Maryanski looked solely at the face of the IOC report and did not do any independent investigation. He never visited the nursing home, and he never talked to the on-site surveyors to determine whether the deficiencies cited by the IOC Team were significant. He never saw the underlying documentation which formed the basis of the report. Mr. Maryanski has no background either in nursing or medicine and had no knowledge of purpose the tests that were allegedly not performed. On October 4, 1984, the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification (OLC) conducted the annual survey of the facility. Mr. Maryanski did not determine whether the deficiencies found by the IOC Team had been corrected at the time of the annual survey. An IOC Team surveyor returned on November 21, 1984, and found that all of the deficiencies cited during the IOC inspection had been corrected. A resurvey of the facility was conducted on December 27, 1984, by OLC. All deficiencies noted in OLC's original inspection had been corrected. All nursing home facilities in Florida are rated by HRS as conditional, standard, or superior. In addition to its financial significance, the rating of a facility is important because it affects the facility's reputation in the community and in the industry. The rating for a facility goes into effect on· the day of the follow-up visit of OLC if all deficiencies have been corrected. Therefore, Plantation would have received a superior rating, effective December 27, 1984, had it not been for the IOC report Mr. Maryanski never tried to determine whether the deficiencies in the IOC report had been corrected subsequent to the report being issued. Under rule lOD-29.128, Florida Administrative Code, there are extensive regulatory and statutory requirements which must be met for a facility to be granted a superior rating. Plantation met all of the enumerated requirements, yet it received only a standard rating. Mr. Maryanski based his determination on the IOC report despite the fact that it was outdated and the deficiencies in that report were corrected by November, 1984, prior to the December, 1984, resurvey by the OLC. There was nothing in the annual survey report of the OLC to preclude a superior rating. This is the first time a facility has been denied a superior rating based upon a report other than the annual report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Plantation Nursing Home be given a superior rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, 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 3rd day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Post Office Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Braynon; Esquire District X Legal Counsel, 201 West Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Accepted as set forth in Finding of Fact 21. 5-6. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22-23. 7-9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. 10. Rejected as immaterial. 11-12. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24-25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 26. 15-16. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 20 and 24. 17-19. Accepted generally as set forth in Finding of Fact 26. In Background section. Cumulative. Accepted in Finding of Fact 18. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. 25-31. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 4-7. 32-43. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 8-10. 44. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 45-46. Accepted in Finding of Fact 11. 47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 48-49. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 50-57. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 13-16. 58. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 1, 20, 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Finding of Fact 19 and Background. 5-8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 13 except as to time frame for intermediate patients which should be 90 days. Accepted that the documentation showed a gap, but proposed finding rejected in that the evidence did not show that, in fact, the patient was not reviewed with the proper time frame. Accepted, without naming the patients, and explained in Finding of Fact 6.
