The Issue The issue is whether the Agency should approve the Certificate of Need applications filed by Manatee Memorial and/or HMA, each of which proposes to establish a new acute care hospital to serve the city of North Port in Sarasota County, Acute Care Subdistrict 8-6.
Findings Of Fact Parties Manatee Memorial Manatee Memorial, the applicant for CON 9767, is a subsidiary of Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS). UHS is a publicly-traded corporation that is headquartered in Pennsylvania. UHS is a financially-sound company. In 2003, its net revenues were approximately $3.6 billion, its net operating income was $355.7 million, and its after-tax net income was $199.2 million. Manatee Memorial is also financially-sound despite a net loss of $2.5 million in 2003. It had net income of $13.9 million in 2002, and its net revenues increased from $164.5 million in 2002 to $180.9 million in 2003. As of December 31, 2003, Manatee Memorial’s total assets exceeded its total liabilities by $56.3 million. UHS operates approximately 100 healthcare facilities in the United States and abroad. The facilities operated by UHS include behavioral health/psychiatric facilities, surgery centers, and 37 acute care hospitals. Three of the acute care hospitals operated by UHS are in Florida. They are Wellington Regional Medical Center in south Palm Beach County, Manatee Memorial Hospital (MMH) in Bradenton, and Lakewood Ranch Medical Center (Lakewood Ranch) in Manatee County, near the Manatee County/Sarasota County border. MMH and Lakewood Ranch are operated under a single license issued by the Agency. Manatee Memorial is the licensee. MMH started as a community hospital in the 1950’s. It was acquired by UHS in 1996 and has undergone significant capital improvements since the acquisition. MMH has 319 beds. It provides tertiary services, including open-heart surgery (OHS) and interventional cardiology services. It has a Level II neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and a full-service emergency department (ED) that operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (24/7). Lakewood Ranch opened in September 2004. It has 120 beds and a 24/7 ED. It offers obstetrical (OB) services, but it does not have any NICU beds. It does not provide any tertiary services. MMH and Lakewood Ranch are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). MMH and Lakewood Ranch accept all patients without regard to their ability to pay. MMH has been recognized as a “Top 100” hospital by Solucent, and it has received other accolades for the quality of care and community support that it provides. There is significant overlap in the medical staffs at Lakewood Ranch and MMH. The Lakewood Ranch CON application projected that the hospital would have an average daily census (ADC) of 46.8 in its first year of operation, which equates to a 39 percent utilization rate. Manatee Memorial’s witnesses acknowledged at the hearing that Lakewood Ranch would likely not meet those projections. The total cost of Lakewood Ranch was $48.7 million, which is $8.1 million more than was projected in the CON application for the hospital. Approximately $2.9 million of the “cost overrun” was attributed to additional IT systems beyond those specified in the CON application. HMA HMA, the applicant for CON 9768, is a subsidiary of Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA, Inc.) HMA, Inc., is a publicly-traded corporation that is headquartered in Naples. It operates 57 hospitals in 16 states. HMA, Inc., is a financially-sound company. Its net revenues increased from $1.1 billion in 1998 to $3.2 billion in 2004. Its net income increased from $137 million to $325 million over that same period. HMA, Inc., operates 14 acute care hospitals and two behavioral health/psychiatric facilities in Florida. It also has CON approval for new acute care hospitals in Brooksville and Naples. Most of the hospitals operated by HMA, Inc., are in non-urbanized areas. According to its 2004 annual report, HMA, Inc., “focuses on non-urban America because many of those communities are underserved medically, have populations that are growing faster than the national average, and offer competitive advantages compared to major urban areas.” The Florida hospitals operated by HMA, Inc., include Charlotte Regional Medical Center (Charlotte Regional) in Punta Gorda, Peace River Regional Medical Center (Peace River) in Port Charlotte, and Venice Hospital in Venice. Charlotte Regional has 208 beds, including 156 acute care beds and 52 psychiatric beds. It has a 24/7 ED and it offers OHS and inpatient psychiatric care. It does not offer OB services. Peace River has 212 beds, but only 170 of the acute care beds were available for use at the time of the final hearing. It has a 24/7 ED and a 20-bed skilled nursing unit. It offers OB services, but it does not have any NICU beds. Venice Hospital has 342 licensed beds. It has a 24/7 ED and a skilled nursing unit. It offers OHS and inpatient rehabilitation services. A majority of the beds at Charlotte Regional, Peace River, and Venice Hospital are in semi-private rooms. Charlotte Regional, Peace River, and Venice Hospital are all accredited by JCAHO, and they all accept patients without regard to their ability to pay. Charlotte Regional has been recognized as one of the top 100 cardiovascular hospitals in the country. Peace River and Venice Hospital were formerly not-for- profit hospitals operated by the Bon Secuors organization. Peace River was formerly known as Bon Secours St. Joseph’s Hospital (BS-St. Joe) and Venice Hospital was formerly known as Bon Secours Venice Hospital (BS-Venice). HMA, Inc., entered into an agreement to acquire BS-St. Joe and BS-Venice in November 2004. The acquisition, which was completed in February 2005, also included a hospital in Virginia, a nursing home in Port Charlotte, and “health parks” in northern Charlotte County, Venice, and North Port. BS-St. Joe and BS-Venice were not profitable at the time that they were acquired by HMA. The financial performance of those hospitals has improved significantly under HMA’s management, primarily through better management of accounts receivable. Englewood Englewood is owned and operated by HCA, Inc. (HCA). HCA is a publicly-traded corporation and the largest for-profit acute care hospital chain in the country. Englewood is located in the city of Englewood, which is in Sarasota County on the Cape Haze Peninsula near the Sarasota County/Charlotte County line. Englewood has 100 beds and a 24/7 ED. It does not offer OB services. Its largest service lines are cardiology, general medicine, orthopedics, and pulmonology. Englewood is accredited by JCAHO. It has received special accreditation for its chest pain center and certification from the American Stroke Association for its stroke care. Englewood accepts all patients without regard to their ability to pay. Englewood’s building has one floor. All of its beds are in semi-private rooms, except for four isolation rooms. Englewood is authorized to use its acute care beds as “swing beds” to provide skilled nursing care. Englewood’s primary service area (PSA) includes the Cape Haze Peninsula. Its secondary service area (SSA) includes south Venice and the mostly-undeveloped portion of North Port to the west of the Myakka River in zip code 34287. Englewood’s census ranges from 30 to 90 patients, depending upon the time of the year. During the “season” in 2005, its census peaked at 93 patients and averaged 73 patients. At the time of the final hearing, Englewood’s census was in the mid-50’s. Fawcett Fawcett is owned and operated by HCA. Fawcett is located in Port Charlotte, directly across the street from Peace River and five miles south of the city of North Port. Fawcett has 238 beds, a 24/7 ED, a 20-bed intensive care unit (ICU), a 20-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR) unit, and a diagnostic cardiac cath lab. Fawcett does not offer OB services. It will be opening an ambulatory surgical center in December 2005. Fawcett is accredited by JCAHO, and it was recently designated as a primary stroke center. Its oncology unit is affiliated with the Moffitt Cancer Center. Fawcett accepts all patients without regard to their ability to pay. Fawcett’s building has four floors. All of its beds are in semi-private rooms, except for the ICU beds and two isolation rooms. Fawcett suffered significant damage during Hurricane Charley in August 2004. The hospital’s fourth floor, which had 78 beds (including 10 ICU beds), was closed as a result of the damage. At the time of the final hearing, Fawcett was still in the process of repairing the damage to the fourth floor, and it had only 165 beds (including the CMR beds and 14 ICU beds) available for use. Fawcett’s PSA includes two of the North Port zip codes, 32486 and 32487. Those zip codes encompass the vast majority of the city’s geographic area. Agency The Agency is the state agency that administers the CON program. It is responsible for reviewing and taking final agency action on CON applications. Application Submittal and Review and Preliminary Agency Action Manatee Memorial and HMA each filed letters of intent and CON applications in the February 2004 batching cycle for hospital beds and facilities. Each application sought Agency approval to establish a new acute care hospital in Subdistrict 8-6 to serve the city of North Port. The fixed need pool published by the Agency for the February 2004 batching cycle identified a need for zero new acute care beds in Subdistrict 8-6. There were no challenges to the fixed need pool. HMA’s letter of intent was filed in the “grace period” established by Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(1)(d) in direct response to Manatee Memorial’s earlier-filed letter of intent. Manatee Memorial’s application was designated CON 9767, and HMA’s application was designated CON 9768. The applications complied with the technical submittal requirements in the statutes and Agency rules, and they were properly accepted for review by the Agency. The Agency comparatively reviewed the CON applications filed by Manatee Memorial and HMA. The Agency’s review of the applications complied with the applicable statutes and Agency rules. The Agency’s review culminated in a State Agency Action Report (SAAR) issued on June 11, 2004. The SAAR recommended denial of Manatee Memorial’s CON 9767 and approval of HMA’s CON 9768. The SAAR was issued prior to HMA’s acquisition of BS- St. Joe and BS-Venice. The Agency’s preference for HMA’s application over Manatee Memorial’s application was primarily based upon its assessment that HMA’s projected utilization was more reasonable and attainable than Manatee Memorial’s projected utilization. The SAAR recommended that the approval of HMA’s application be conditioned upon HMA providing 6.9 percent of the patient days at its North Port hospital to Medicaid patients and 2.9 percent of the patient days to charity patients. Those percentages were derived from the payor-mix assumptions used in the revenue projections in Schedule 7A of HMA’s CON application. The Agency published notice of its decisions on the CON applications in the Florida Administrative Weekly on June 25, 2004. The petitions for administrative hearing were all timely filed. The Agency reaffirmed its support for HMA’s application and its opposition to Manatee Memorial’s application at the final hearing through the testimony of Jeffrey Gregg, the bureau chief over the Agency’s CON program. Mr. Gregg testified that the Agency’s support of HMA’s application is unaffected by HMA's acquisition of BS-St. Joe and BS-Venice even though he acknowledged that the acquisition may have implications on the competition for acute care services in market in and around the city of North Port. Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6 District 8 is comprised of Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Lee, Glades, Hendry, and Collier Counties. There are six subdistricts in District 8, only two of which are relevant to this case. They are Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6. Subdistrict 8-6 is comprised of Sarasota County. There are no other counties in the subdistrict. There are four acute care hospitals in Subdistrict 8-6: Sarasota Memorial Hospital (Sarasota Memorial), Doctors Hospital of Sarasota (Doctors), Venice Hospital, and Englewood. Sarasota Memorial and Doctors are in northern Sarasota County in the city of Sarasota. Venice Hospital and Englewood are in southern Sarasota County. Sarasota Memorial is a not-for-profit, taxpayer supported hospital. Doctors is an HCA hospital. Sarasota County is bordered on the south by Charlotte County, which is the only county in Subdistrict 8-1. There are three acute care hospitals in Subdistrict 8-1: Peace River, Charlotte Regional, and Fawcett. There are a total of 1,776 licensed acute care beds at the seven hospitals in Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6. That number has remained constant since at least 2002. The overall annual occupancy rate for the hospitals in Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6 was 49.53 percent in 2002. In 2003 and 2004, the overall annual occupancy rate was approximately 46.4 percent. Between 2002 and 2004, Charlotte Regional had the highest occupancy rate of any of the hospitals in Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6, but its occupancy rate did not exceed 67 percent in any of those years. In 2004, its annual occupancy rate was only 56.6 percent. The occupancy rates at the existing hospitals is higher during the “season,” but the evidence was not persuasive that any of the existing hospitals are routinely at or over capacity during the “season” or at any other time during the year. In 2002, there were a total of 321,696 patient days at the hospitals in Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6. By 2004, the total number of patient days had declined to 301,099. Some, but not all, of that decline is attributable to Hurricane Charley, which directly hit the Port Charlotte area in August 2004 causing significant damage to Fawcett and disrupting service at the other hospitals in the area. There are no geographic barriers between Sarasota and Charlotte Counties. The service areas of the hospitals in southern Sarasota County and the hospitals in northern Charlotte County overlap, and there is significant cross-migration of patients between the counties. There is significant competition for acute care services in both Charlotte and Sarasota Counties. No hospital organization has a dominant market position. In 2004, for example, Sarasota Memorial had a 47 percent market share in Sarasota County, the HCA hospitals had a 22.8 percent market share, and the HMA hospitals (including the former Bon Secours hospitals) had a 21.4 percent market share. In the combined Sarasota County/Charlotte County “market,” the HMA hospitals (including the former Bon Secours hospitals) had a 33.7 percent market share, Sarasota Memorial had a 31.4 percent market share, and the HCA hospitals had a 25.6 percent market share. City of North Port (1) Generally The city of North Port is located in southern Sarasota County. The southern border of the city is the Sarasota County/Charlotte County line. The city roughly corresponds to the area encompassed by zip codes 34286, 34287, and 34288. Zip code 34289 is also a North Port zip code, but there is no geographic area assigned to that zip code. The city was platted in the 1960’s by General Development Corporation. The plats covered approximately 75 square miles of land and included approximately 70,000 residential lots, only 20 percent of which have been developed. There are also several large "developments of regional impact" under construction or in the planning stages within the city that together are projected to add at least 15,000 more residential units to the city over the next 15 to 20 years. A number of the streets that were constructed when the city was originally platted have fallen into disrepair, which hampers the provision of police, fire, and EMS. The city is currently conducting a comprehensive street inventory to assess the extent of the problem. Additional undeveloped land has been annexed into the city over the years, which has increased the city's size to 103 square miles. Currently, North Port is the fourth largest city in the state in terms of landmass. The Myakka River runs through the western portion of the city. The land to the west of the Myakka River is mostly undeveloped and includes the Myakka State Forest. Residential lots and open space make up approximately 95 percent of the city’s platted land area. The non-residential uses are clustered in five “activity centers” around the city. Major roadways through North Port include Interstate 75 (I-75), which runs east-west in the vicinity of the northern city limit and then north-south in the vicinity of the eastern city limit; U.S. Highway 41 (US 41), which runs parallel to I-75 in the southern portion of the city; Price Boulevard, which runs parallel to I-75 and US 41 through the center of the city; and Toledo Blade Boulevard and Sumter Boulevard, which run north- south near the center of the city. Toledo Blade, Sumter, and Price Boulevards are in need of widening, and there are several intersections on those roads that are operating below their adopted levels of service. It is not clear when the widening will occur, and the city’s concurrency management ordinance may soon require a moratorium on the issuance of building permits in the geographic areas impacting those intersections. The city is also in the process studying how to control its growth. The possibility of a moratorium is part of that study, but no recommendations had been formulated on that issue as of the date of the hearing. As a result, the likelihood of a moratorium on building permits in areas other than those which impact the intersections referenced above is unknown. Two of the activity centers are located on Toledo Blade Boulevard, two are located on Sumter Boulevard, and the other is located US 41. Hospitals are considered a permitted use in the activity centers. There is currently no acute care hospital or 24/7 urgent care facility in North Port. The North Port Health Park, which was acquired by HMA in February 2005 along with BS-St. Joe and BS-Venice, offers a variety of outpatient services and diagnostic procedures (e.g., echocardiography, mammograms, and “CAT scans”). It also includes approximately 20 physician offices and a clinical laboratory. The volume of diagnostic procedures at the North Port Health Park increased significantly between 1999 and 2004. There has also been steady growth in its laboratory volume over that period. Patients frequently come to the North Port Health Park with conditions requiring emergency services or hospitalization, which requires an ambulance to be called to transport the patient to one of the existing hospitals in the area. North Port city officials have been actively pursuing the establishment of a hospital in the city for several years. In 2003, the city engaged health planner Gene Nelson to study the feasibility of a hospital in the city. At the time, the City was considering filing its own CON application. Mr. Nelson presented a report to the City Council in June 2003, in which he concluded that it was “premature” for a hospital in North Port at that time. He projected that a hospital in North Port could “eventually” reach census levels to support a 59-bed to 74-bed hospital, and that even under more “aggressive” or “optimistic” assumptions, there would be a need for only 84 beds in 2010. The city ultimately decided to devote its efforts to encouraging an existing hospital company to build a hospital in the city and, in that regard, the City Commission voted to actively support those efforts through a “locally based campaign to collect letters of support for the hospital.” In January 2004, the City Council adopted a resolution reaffirming its “objective” to get a hospital in the city and expressing its support for Manatee Memorial’s proposal to build the hospital. There is considerable support for the establishment of a hospital in North Port from the residents of the city. The Agency received more than 20,000 letters and petitions from city residents urging the Agency to approve a hospital in the city. A community’s desire for a new hospital does not mean there is a “need” for a new hospital. Under the CON program, the determination of need for a new hospital must be based upon sound health planning principles, not the desires of a particular local government or its citizens. There are approximately 40 physicians who practice in North Port, but only nine of those physicians have full-time practices in the city. The others have part-time practices, meaning that they are in their North Port office for only part of the week. Most of the physicians practicing in North Port are primary care physicians, but there are also specialists in cardiology, oncology, general surgery, radiology, and other fields. Many of the physicians have their offices in the North Port Health Park. Population The city of North Port has grown steadily since 1970. In 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the city’s population was 22,797. Approximately 31 percent of the city’s residents are in the 65 and older (65+) age cohort. The largest percentage of the residents in the 65+ age cohort are in zip code 34287, which is growing at a slower rate than the other zip codes in the city. The median age in the city is declining. In 1990, the median age was 49, and in 2000, the median age was 41. In 2004, according to the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), the city’s population was 35,721. BEBR publishes the “official” population estimates for cities and counties in Florida. It does not project future populations and it does not provide population data by zip code. Claritas is a national demographic research firm. It projects future population by zip code, by age cohort, and with other demographic information. Health planners commonly rely upon the population projections from Claritas in preparing CON applications. Claritas projects future population in five-year increments, and it updates its population projections annually. At the time Manatee Memorial and HMA filed their CON applications, the most current Claritas data was for the period of 2003-2007. Population projections beyond 2007 were extrapolated based upon the annual population increases reflected in the available Claritas data. At the time of the final hearing, the most current Claritas data was for the period of 2004-2008. The North Port Planning and Zoning Department uses its own methodology to project future population for the city. The population projections are used in the city’s capital improvement planning and in the development of its comprehensive plan. The city’s methodology uses Census data as the starting point and then projects the future population by using a “rolling average” of the number of residential building permits issued in the previous five years to develop a projected number of residential building permits for each future year. A factor of 2.48 individuals per household (which is a North Port- specific figure from the U.S. Census Bureau) is then used to project the annual increase in population for each year in the future. A factor of 10 percent is added to the projection for seasonal residents. The evidence was not persuasive that the projections based upon the city's methodology are reliable. The city’s methodology typically results in population projections that are materially higher than the official BEBR estimates. For example, the city’s methodology projected a 2004 population of 39,662, which is approximately 11 percent higher than the official BEBR estimate of 35,721. The city’s methodology is based upon building permits, not certificates of occupancy or some other measure that would indicate that the residence was completed and, more importantly, inhabited. The city’s methodology also assumes continued growth at the historical rate and does not take into account the possibility of a moratorium on the issuance of building permits, which was being studied by the city at the time of the final hearing. The Claritas population projections are not entirely accurate either. Claritas typically under-projects future population in fast-growing areas, such as North Port. For example, the 2003-2007 Claritas data projected that the city’s 2004 population would be 32,487, which was approximately 9.1 percent lower than the official BEBR estimate of 35,721. The variance between the Claritas population projections and the projections based upon the city’s methodology are more pronounced in the later years. In 2010, for example, the city’s projected population based upon an extrapolation of the 2003-2007 Claritas data was 39,446 as compared to 72,066 based upon the city’s methodology. The population projections based upon the 2003-2007 Claritas data are too low and the projections based upon the city’s methodology are too high. On balance, the most reasonable population projections for the city of North Port contained in the record are those in Exhibit EF-10. Those projections, which were based upon the updated Claritas data for 2004-2008 and then extrapolated for 2009 and 2010, are as follows: 36,733 in 2004; 38,613 in 2005; 40,601 in 2006; 42,703 in 2007; 44,928 in 2008; 47,283 in 2009; and 49,777 in 2010. The 2004-2008 Claritas data better takes into account the city’s historically-high growth rate than does the 2003-2007 Claritas data, but it results in a more realistic projection of the city’s 2010 population than does the city’s methodology. Hospital Discharges There were 4,473 non-tertiary patients from the North Port zip codes discharged from a hospital in Florida in 2004.1 Only 1,356 (or approximately 30.3 percent) of the non-tertiary patients from the North Port zip codes were discharged from a hospital in Subdistrict 8-6, which means that almost 70 percent of the patients “out-migrated” from the subdistrict. Approximately 86.9 percent of the patients who “out-migrated” were discharged from a hospital in Subdistrict 8-1, which is adjacent to the city’s southern border. Overall, in 2004, approximately 91 percent of the non-tertiary patients from the North Port zip codes were discharged from a hospital in Subdistrict 8-1 (60.5 percent) or Subdistrict 8-6 (30.3 percent). Those percentages were similar in 2002 and 2003. The average length of stay (ALOS) related to those discharges was approximately 4.5 days, which means that North Port patients generated approximately 20,129 non-tertiary patient days in 2004. If a hospital had captured 100 percent of North Port’s non-tertiary patients in 2004, it would have had an ADC of 56 patients. There were 499 OB patients from the North Port zip codes discharged from a Florida hospital in 2004. Those discharges resulted in 1,172 OB patient days, which means that the ALOS for the OB patients from the North Port zip codes was 2.34 days. Approximately 95 percent of the North Port OB patients were discharged from either Sarasota Memorial (56.5 percent) or BS-St. Joe (38.3 percent), which is now Peace River. If a hospital captured 100 percent of the North Port OB patients in 2004, its OB unit would have had an ADC of 4 patients. The Proposed North Port Hospitals (1) HMA Generally HMA’s proposed North Port hospital (hereafter “North Port HMA”) will be an 180,167 square foot (SF) facility with 80 beds. All of the beds at North Port HMA will be in private rooms. The rooms are large enough to be converted into semi- private rooms, if necessary. The design of North Port HMA is similar to that of other HMA hospitals, but the size of the hospital and scope of the services offered at North Port HMA was tailored based upon North Port's demographics. North Port HMA will have a 9-bed OB unit, a 12-bed ICU, a 24/7 ED, and it will offer some outpatient services. The hospital will not have a cardiac cath lab or a dedicated pediatric unit, and it will not offer tertiary services. The total project cost for North Port HMA will be approximately $78 million, or $975,730 per bed. The project will be funded by HMA, Inc., from its “existing cash, future cash flow, and possible proceeds from the issuance of debt [by HMA, Inc].” HMA’s CON application includes a letter from the Corporate Comptroller of HMA, Inc., confirming that HMA, Inc., “will provide any and all funding or financial resources which may be required for the completion and continued operation of [North Port HMA].” HMA did not commit in its CON application to build North Port HMA in the city of North Port, but its witnesses testified at the final hearing that the hospital will be built in the city. The precise location of the hospital was not specified. North Port HMA will have three floors. The first floor will include the ED, operating rooms, radiology department, the clinical laboratory, outpatient services, and ancillary space such as kitchen/dining, medical records, and administrative offices. The second floor will include patient rooms and the ICU. The third floor will include patient rooms. North Port HMA is designed and engineered for vertical expansion, and it will be “pre-stressed” for additional floors. North Port HMA will utilize a picture archive communication system (PACS) and other digital IT systems. Patient clinical information will be maintained electronically, updated at the point of care, and will be available to clinicians through a secure network in the hospital. Service Area and Utilization Projections The PSA for North Port HMA is the city of North Port, which is comprised of zip codes 34286, 34287, 34288, and 34289. The PSA is reasonable. A SSA is not geographically defined, but HMA projected in the application that 20 percent of the admissions at North Port HMA would come from outside of the PSA. The projected 20 percent in-migration from the SSA is somewhat optimistic for a non-tertiary community hospital, but it is nevertheless reasonable under the circumstances.2 HMA used Claritas' population projections to project the utilization of North Port HMA. The utilization projections assumed that North Port HMA will have a 55 percent market share in the PSA in its first year of operation and a 70 percent market share in the PSA in its second year of operation. These market share assumptions are reasonable and attainable based upon HMA's historical experience and the considerable community support for a hospital in the city. North Port HMA was projected to open in 2007, and HMA’s CON application includes utilization projections for the hospital’s first two years of operation in 2007 and 2008. The application projected that North Port HMA would have 15,695 patient days in its first year of operation and 20,629 patient days in its second year of operation, which is an ADC of 43 patients and a utilization rate of 53.8 percent in year one (2007) and an ADC of 57 patients and a utilization rate of 70.6 percent in year two (2008). The methodology used to calculate those figures was as follows: first, the projected patients from the PSA were calculated by applying the 2003 age-cohort specific use rates to the PSA’s projected 2007 and 2008 populations; then, the market share assumptions were applied and a factor of 20 percent was added to reflect “in-migration” from the SSA; and finally, an ALOS of 4.6 was used to convert the discharges to patient days. The 4.6 ALOS, which is based upon the actual 2003 discharge data for residents of the PSA, is reasonable even though the 2004 discharge data reflects a slightly lower ALOS of 4.5. Use of age-cohort specific use rates to project future discharges is reasonable. However, application of the 2003 use rates to the projected 2007 and 2008 populations is not reasonable because the median age in the city of North Port is declining, and as the population’s age declines, so does its use rate. Nevertheless, the utilization projections for North Port HMA are reasonable and attainable. The utilization projections in HMA's CON application are more conservative than the projections based upon the updated Claritas population projections, a declining use rate, and the lower 2004 ALOS of 4.5.3 (2) Manatee Memorial (a) Generally Manatee Memorial’s proposed North Port hospital (hereafter “North Port Hospital”) will be a 200,000 SF facility with 120 beds. It will have a mix of private and semi-private rooms. North Port Hospital will have a 20-bed “women’s center,” a 20-bed ICU/critical care unit (CCU), a 24/7 ED, and a diagnostic cardiac cath lab. It will not offer tertiary services. The “women’s center” will be more than an OB unit. It will offer range of services related to women’s health, including general gynecological care, pre-natal and post-natal care, delivery of babies, mammography and other breast cancer services, and gynecological surgery. The total project cost for North Port Hospital will be approximately $59.7 million, or $497,448 per bed. The funding for the project will be provided by UHS from its “net cash flow from operation.” Manatee Memorial’s CON application includes a letter from UHS’s Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer confirming that UHS will finance North Port Hospital. Manatee Memorial committed in its CON application to build North Port Hospital in the city of North Port, but no specific site was identified. Manatee Memorial has not yet acquired or contracted to purchase any property in the city. North Port Hospital will have three floors. The first floor includes the “women’s center,” ED, laboratory, outpatient services, cardiac cath labs, surgery suites, and ancillary space such as medical records, kitchen/dining, and administrative offices. The second floor includes the ICU/CCU, pediatric unit, and patient rooms. The third floor includes patient rooms. The design, space plan, methods of construction, and equipment at North Port Hospital will be similar to that at Lakewood Ranch. Indeed, Manatee Memorial’s witnesses described North Port Hospital as a “mirror image” of Lakewood Ranch, which is also a 120-bed non-tertiary hospital with a 20-bed ICU/CCU and a 20-bed “women’s center.” North Port Hospital is designed for horizontal expansion, which causes less disruption to the ongoing operations of the hospital than does vertical expansion. North Port Hospital will utilize a PACS and other “state of the art” IT systems. Patient clinical information will be maintained electronically, updated at the point of care, and will be available to clinicians through the hospital’s secure wireless network. The mechanical and engineered systems at North Port Hospital are appropriate, as is the hospital's design.4 Manatee Memorial will not fully equip North Port Hospital at start-up. Instead, as it did with Lakewood Ranch, it will minimally equip each patient room with the required equipment (e.g., bed, headwall, etc.) but it will only provide the specialized equipment necessary to serve the projected patient census for the first year of operation. Additional equipment will be incrementally added as census increases. (b) Service Area and Utilization Projections The PSA and SSA for North Port Hospital, which are the same as the PSA and SSA for North Port HMA, are reasonable. North Port Hospital was projected to open in 2008, and Manatee Memorial’s CON application includes utilization projections for the first three years of operation, 2008-2010. The utilization projections assume that North Port Hospital will have a 45 percent market share in the PSA in its first year of operation, a 60 percent market share in its second year of operation, and a 70 percent market share in its third year of operation. These market share assumptions, which are slightly more conservative than those projected for North Port HMA, are reasonable and attainable. Manatee Memorial projected in its CON application that North Port Hospital would have 17,413 patient days in 2008; 25,798 patient days in 2009; and 33,327 patient days in 2010. Those patient days equate to ADCs of 48 patients in 2008, 71 patients in 2009, and 92 patients in 2010, which, in turn, equate to utilization rates of 39.7 percent in 2008, 58.9 percent in 2009, and 76.1 percent in 2010. The methodology used by Manatee Memorial to calculate those figures was as follows: first, the 2008-2010 populations were projected by using the 2003 BEBR estimate as a starting- point and then applying the city’s building permit-based methodology described in Part D(2) above; then a use rate of 142 was applied to the 2008-2010 populations to calculate the discharges from the PSA; then, after applying the market share assumptions, a 20 percent factor was added to reflect “in- migration” from the SSA; and, finally, the discharges were converted to patient days by applying an ALOS of 4.2. The results of this methodology are not reasonable. As discussed in Part D(2), the city’s methodology for projecting future population is not reliable and tends to overstate the future population. Moreover, the use rate is overstated because it is not age-cohort specific and it did not take into account the declining age of the city’s population. The combined effect of applying an overstated use rate to the overstated 2008-2010 populations is a significant overstatement in the projected patient days and utilization rates at North Port Hospital. The most reasonable projections of the discharges from the PSA for 2008-2010 are those in Exhibit EF-10 (pages XI- 1, XII-1, and XII-2): 5,433 in 2008; 5,709 in 2009; and 6,000 in 2010. Those projections are based upon the updated Claritas population projections and a declining use rate. Applying the market share assumptions and ALOS used in the methodology in Manatee Memorial’s CON application to those more reasonable discharge projections results in projected patient days at North Port Hospital of 12,835 in 2008; 17,983 in 2009; and 22,050 in 2010.5 If an ALOS of 4.5 were used (rather than the 4.2 ALOS used in Manatee Memorial’s CON application), the projected patient days would be 13,752 in 2008; 19,268 in 2009; and 23,625 in 2010.6 The utilization rate at North Port Hospital based upon those patient-day projections will be between 29.3 and 31.4 percent in 2008, between 41.1 and 44 percent in 2009, and between 50.3 and 53.9 percent in 2010. Statutory and Rule Criteria There was no credible evidence that there is a need for two new acute care hospitals in the city of North Port or in southern Sarasota County. Therefore, if either of the CON applications at issue in this proceeding is to be approved, it should be the one that best satisfies the applicable statutory and rule criteria. (1) § 408.035(1), (2), and (5), Fla. Stat. (2005),7 and Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. (a) Generally Subsections 408.035(1), (2), and (5), Florida Statutes, are interrelated and require an evaluation of the availability and accessibility of the existing hospitals in the district and the extent to which the proposed new hospital would “enhance access” for residents of the district. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. also requires consideration of those issues, as well as population demographics and dynamics and market conditions. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. is implicated when the Agency does not have a rule methodology or policy for calculating need, which is now the case for acute care beds. The utilization levels at the existing hospitals is a measure of their availability, but the Agency does not focus on utilization levels to the same extent that it did before the recent “deregulation” of acute care bed additions at existing hospitals. North Port Population Growth and Demographics There has been steady population growth in the city of North Port since 2000, and that the growth is projected to continue over the applicable planning horizon. The city's population grew by 56.7 percent between 2000 and 2004, and it is projected to grow by an additional 39.3 percent between 2004 and 2010. These percentage growth rates are misleading, however, because of the city’s small size.8 The actual population figures are a better measure of the city’s projected growth for CON purposes. Those figures reflect an increase of only an additional 14,000 persons between 2004 and 2010, which is a modest amount of growth. In 2010, the city’s population is still projected to be less than 50,000. The percentage of the city’s population in the 65+ age cohort is declining, as is the median age of the city’s population. These declines are significant because the elderly generally utilize hospital services at a higher rate than younger persons. The projected population growth in the city of North Port through 2010 is not in and of itself a basis for approving a new hospital in the city, and the declining elderly population and median age in the city also weigh against the approval of a hospital in the city. Quality of Care and Utilization at the Existing Hospitals and Market Conditions Manatee Memorial and HMA do not contend that there are problems with the quality of care at the existing hospitals currently serving the city of North Port, and the evidence establishes that the existing hospitals, which are all JCAHO- accredited, provide high quality care. There is not a shortage of acute care beds in the existing hospitals serving the city of North Port, and the evidence establishes that there are more than enough available beds at the existing hospitals, even during the “season.” The capacity constraints experienced at several of the hospitals during the 2004-2005 “season” are attributable to the impacts of Hurricane Charley, which resulted in the loss of 78 beds (including a 10-bed ICU) at Fawcett and also caused strains on the other hospitals. Even though the utilization rates at the existing hospitals are not as significant now as they once were, it is still noteworthy that none of the hospitals in Charlotte and Sarasota Counties had a occupancy rate above 57 percent in 2004 and that the number of patient days in those hospitals decreased by approximately 20,000 between 2002 and 2004. Availability and Accessibility of the Existing Hospitals and Enhancing Access The accessibility of the existing hospitals in an area is typically evaluated in terms of geographic, programmatic, cultural, and financial access. Geographic access concerns arise when there are substantial impediments to patients obtaining services at the existing hospitals in a timely manner, and typically involve distance, travel time, geographic barriers, or other similar factors. Programmatic access concerns arise when specific programs or services are not available at the existing hospitals or when the quality of the existing programs or services is inadequate. Cultural access concerns arise when cultural factors, such as race, ethnicity, and/or national original, impede patients from obtaining services at the existing hospitals. Financial access concerns arise when indigent patients are denied or have difficulty in obtaining care because of policies or practices in place at the existing hospitals. Manatee Memorial and HMA did not contend in their CON applications, nor is the evidence persuasive that a hospital in North Port is needed to address programmatic, cultural, or financial access concerns. Manatee Memorial and HMA contend that a hospital is needed in North Port to address existing geographic access problems and/or to enhance geographic access to acute care and emergency services for North Port residents. Geographic Access, Generally There are no significant geographic barriers between North Port and the existing hospitals, although it is necessary to cross a drawbridge over the Intracoastal Waterway to get to Venice Hospital. There are five acute care hospitals within 20 miles of North Port. Two of the hospitals, Peace River and Fawcett, are less than five miles south of the city’s southern border. As discussed in Part D(3) above, there is significant "out-migration" of patients from North Port in Subdistrict 8-6 to hospitals outside of the subdistrict. "Out-migration" of patients from one subdistrict to hospitals in another subdistrict can be an indication of an access problem. The proximity of North Port to Peace River and Fawcett explains the significant level of “out-migration” of patients from the city to those hospitals in Subdistrict 8-1. Indeed, in 2004, approximately 72.2 percent of the North Port patients who were discharged from a hospital outside of Subdistrict 8-6 were discharged from either BS-St. Joe (now Peace River) or Fawcett.9 Thus, the significant level of “out- migration” of patients from the city to hospitals outside of Subdistrict 8-6 does not, in and of itself, indicate an access problem. The CON applications indicate that there are as many as six hospitals within a 30-minute drive of North Port, and that four are within a 17-minute drive. Those drive times were corroborated by several of the witnesses who testified at the hearing. A 30-minute drive time is the generally accepted standard for access to acute care services. There was anecdotal testimony that the drive times can be significantly longer if there is an accident on US 41 or I-75, but the more persuasive evidence was that the “typical” drive times are those reflected in the CON applications. The evidence was not persuasive that the current drive times will be longer in the future even though the city’s population is expected to increase. Indeed, although there was testimony that the city is considering a moratorium on development due, in part, to the congestion on the city’s roads, there was also testimony that there are planned or ongoing capital improvements to expand the capacity of the roads. A hospital in North Port is not necessary to address a geographic access problem. As recognized by Mr. Nelson in his report to the city regarding the need for a hospital in North Port, “[t]he proximity of two hospitals within 10 miles negates a geographic access argument.” It cannot be determined whether, or to what extent, a hospital in North Port will enhance geographic access because it is unknown where the hospital will be located. Indeed, it is possible that because of the city’s large landmass some North Port residents will be as close to one or more of the existing hospitals even if there is a hospital within the city limits. Access to Emergency Care Another “access” argument advanced by Manatee Memorial and HMA focuses on perceived problems with access to emergency care in the existing hospitals. One measure of access to emergency care is the length of time that patients stay in the ED from the time of their arrival to the time of their discharge (hereafter “ED-LOS”). A related measure of access to emergency care is the number of patients who leave the ED without treatment or against medical advice (collectively “LWOTs”). A longer ED-LOS does not directly correlate to a “delay” in access to emergency care because the ED-LOS includes not only the time that the patient is waiting to be seen, but also the time that the patient is being assessed and treated, which can vary based upon the complexity or severity of the patient’s medical condition. A two to three-hour ED-LOS is a reasonable standard. HMA has established a two-hour “goal” for ED-LOS at its hospitals. Charlotte Regional, Peace River, and Venice Hospital have been unable to meet the two-hour goal. ED-LOS fluctuates throughout the year. It is higher between December and April, which generally corresponds to the “season” in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties. The number of LWOTs also fluctuates throughout the year and, like ED-LOS, LWOTs are typically higher during the “season.” This indicates that, as would be expected, there is a correlation between longer ED-LOS and LWOTs. The ED-LOS at Charlotte Regional has increased over the past several years. For example, its average annual ED-LOS increased from two hours and 46 minutes in 2003 to three hours and 16 minutes in 2005 (through March), and its average ED-LOS in March 2005 was three hours and 45 minutes. The ED-LOS at Venice Hospital has also increased over the past several years. In 2003, its average annual ED-LOS was 2.94 hours and, in 2005 (through March), its average ED-LOS was 3.55 hours. The average ED-LOS in February 2005 was 4.18 hours. The record does not reflect the average ED-LOS at Peace River, although there was anecdotal testimony that the ED- LOS can be as long as six to eight hours during the “season.” The number of LWOTs at Charlotte Regional has been increasing over the past several years, as has the number of LWOTs at Venice Hospital. LWOTs have also been a problem at Peace River. The ED-LOS at Fawcett was approaching two hours prior to Hurricane Charley, but it has increased since the hurricane. The anecdotal testimony that the ED-LOS at Fawcett is “routinely” six-to-eight hours during the “season” was not persuasive. The ED-LOS at Englewood is two-to-three hours. Charlotte Regional’s ED has 12 beds and had approximately 19,000 visits in 2004. The ED has long been in need of expansion and/or renovation, but there are no current plans to expand the ED. Expansion of the ED would be difficult because of the age of the hospital, its location in a floodplain, and limited space on the current site. Peace River’s ED was expanded in December 2003 to include 24-beds and a 10-bed observation unit. Its patient volume has grown from 16,000 visits in 1990 to 32,000 visits in 2004, and despite the expansion, Peace River’s ED continues to be overburdened during the “season.” Fawcett’s ED is 5,700 SF and has 13 treatment “rooms,” some of which are separated by curtains. The ED has not been expanded since 1992 despite increasing volumes. In 2004, Fawcett’s ED had 21,000 visits. In April 2005, Fawcett received approval from HCA for a $7.3 million expansion to its ED. The expansion will increase the size of the ED to 12,500 SF and 20 treatment rooms. Architectural plans for the expansion had not been prepared at the time of the final hearing, but it was expected that construction on the expansion would begin by the end of 2005 and be completed by December 2006. The expansion of Fawcett's ED will help to enhance access to emergency care at Fawcett. Englewood’s ED has eight beds and two “fast track” beds. It had approximately 17,000 visits in 2004. Englewood’s ED is approximately the same size as Fawcett’s ED, but with fewer beds. There are no plans to expand the ED at Englewood because, as noted above, ED-LOS has not been a problem at Englewood. Another measure of access to emergency care is the frequency that the existing hospitals are on “diversion.” A hospital goes on diversion when it is unable to receive any additional emergency patients and the EMS providers are instructed to take additional patients to another hospital. There are a number of reasons that a hospital may go on diversion. Common reasons include an overcrowded ED, a lack of ICU beds or inpatient beds to move ED patients into, or a piece of equipment (such as a CT scanner) being unavailable. A hospital may be on “full” diversion status, meaning that it is unable to accept any patients, or it may be on diversion status for only certain types of patients, such as OB patients or patients in need of CT scans. Diversion has not been a significant problem in Charlotte County, but it is becoming more common for one or more of the hospitals in the county -– Charlotte Regional, Peace River, and Fawcett -– to be on diversion, particularly during the “season.” When one of the hospitals goes on diversion, there is often a “domino” effect at the other hospitals resulting in all three of the hospitals being on diversion at the same time. When all of the hospitals are on diversion at the same time, EMS requires each hospital to take patients on a rotational basis. The most common reason that Charlotte Regional goes on diversion is a lack of inpatient beds to receive patients admitted through the ED, which results in a “bottleneck” of patients in the ED. The length of time that Charlotte Regional remains on diversion typically ranges from two to 12 hours. The most common reason that Fawcett goes on diversion is a lack of inpatient beds to move patients into from the ED. This problem was exacerbated by the damage to the hospital caused by Hurricane Charley and, as a result, Fawcett has been on diversion considerably more since the hurricane than it was prior to the hurricane. For example, in February 2005, Fawcett was on diversion for a total of 260 hours, as compared to 13 hours in February 2004 and 62 hours in February 2003. Fawcett also has gone on diversion when its CT scanner is unavailable. Fawcett recently received approval from HCA to add a second CT scanner, which should alleviate the need to go on diversion based upon the unavailability of its CT scanner. The expansion of Fawcett's ED will help to reduce Fawcett's need to go on diversion, as will the completion of the repair work to the fourth floor of the hospital. Englewood rarely has to go on diversion. In 2005, it was only on diversion three times and, in 2004, it was only on diversion twice. The primary reason that Englewood goes on diversion is when its CT scanner is unavailable. Emergency patients from North Port do not significantly contribute to the ED overcrowding issues faced by the Charlotte County hospitals. The only persuasive evidence regarding the number of emergency patients from North Port who utilized the EDs at the existing hospitals was the transport data compiled by North Port EMS. That data reflects that between March 1, 2004, and March 1, 2005, 706 patients were transported by North Port EMS to BS-St. Joe/Peace River and 701 patients were transported by North Port EMS to Fawcett, which is less than two patients per day to each hospital and only a small fraction of the total ED visits at Peace River (32,000 in 2004) and Fawcett (21,000 in 2004). On average, a North Port EMS ambulance is “out of service” for 86 minutes when it is transporting a patient to an area hospital. That time starts when the ambulance is dispatched on a call and ends when the ambulance returns to the city. The average “out of service” times for transports to Peace River and Fawcett (which are the two closest hospitals to the city) are 67 minutes and 82 minutes, respectively. The only variable portion of the “out of service” time is the time that the ambulance is in transit from the location where the patient is picked up to the hospital and the time that it is in transit from the hospital back to the city. The remainder of the “out of service” time is fixed in the sense that it will occur no matter where the patient is ultimately transported. As reflected in Exhibit HMA-14 (page 14-22), the fixed portion of the out of service time can be 31 to 36 minutes, and includes the time between dispatch and arrival at the patient’s location, the time that it takes the paramedics to deliver the patient to the hospital’s nursing staff and exchange report information, and the time that it takes the paramedics to clean and restock the ambulance. The North Port EMS system is strained when one of its ambulances is out of service because the city only has three ambulances. North Port EMS is expected to get another ambulance in 2005. A hospital in North Port may reduce the strain on the North Port EMS system by reducing the variable component of the “out of service” time for its ambulances. However, the evidence was not persuasive as to the extent of the reduction since it is unknown where the hospital would be located in the city. Approval of a hospital in North Port would not eliminate the strain on the North Port EMS. Even if one of the proposed hospitals at issue in this proceeding were approved, trauma patients and patients in need of tertiary services would still need to be transported to another hospital in the area. Even though the EDs at the existing hospitals are heavily utilized and, at times, overcrowded, the evidence was not persuasive that there is a significant access problem for emergency services in the area. The evidence was also not persuasive that the approval of a hospital in North Port would materially enhance access to emergency services. Access to OB Service The evidence was not persuasive that there are access problems for North Port residents with respect to OB services, and, to the contrary, the evidence establishes that OB services are available and reasonably accessible at Peace River and Sarasota Memorial. A hospital in North Port would provide more convenient access to OB services for North Port residents, at least those who are closer to the North Port hospital than they are to Peace River. OB patients would also benefit from having more convenient pre-natal care and other OB/GYN services that are proposed as part of the “women’s center” center at Manatee Memorial’s North Port Hospital. However, it is not necessary to provide many of those services in a hospital setting, and the inclusion of those services does not justify the approval of a hospital in North Port. More convenient or enhanced access to OB services resulting from a hospital in North Port does not, in and of itself, justify the approval of the CON applications. In 2010, there are projected to be only 686 OB discharges from the North Port zip codes, which, based upon the 2004 ALOS of 2.34, will generate 1,606 patient days. If a North Port hospital captured 100 percent of those patients, its OB unit would have an ADC of only five patients in 2010. There is more than enough capacity at the existing hospitals that offer OB services to accommodate those patients, and it is unlikely that a hospital in North Port would get 100 percent of the OB patients from the city because the high-risk patients will likely go to a hospital that has a NICU. Summary In sum, the evidence was not persuasive that there is a “need” for a hospital in North Port due to the projected population growth in the city or that there are significant problems in accessing emergency or other care at the existing hospitals in the area that would be materially enhanced through the approval of a hospital in North Port. As a result, and in light of the relatively low utilization rates at the existing hospitals, the criteria in Subsections 408.035(1), (2), and (5), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C- 1.008(2)(e)2. strongly weigh against the approval of either CON application. (2) § 408.035(3), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(3), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicants’ ability to, and record of, providing quality of care. Manatee Memorial and HMA each has a history of providing a high quality of care at its existing hospitals, and it is reasonable to expect that each would provide a high quality of care at its proposed North Port hospital. All of the existing hospitals that currently serve North Port are JCAHO-accredited, and it is undisputed that they provide a high quality of care. The evidence was not persuasive that the quality of care provided at either of the proposed North Port hospitals would be materially higher than that provided at the existing hospitals currently serving North Port.10 In some respects, the quality of care provided at the proposed North Port hospitals will be lower than that provided at the existing hospitals. For example, neither hospital will offer interventional cardiology services, which is (or is becoming) the standard of care for treating heart attack patients, and neither hospital will have any NICU beds to provide “back-up” for high-risk deliveries. The evidence was not persuasive that the quality of care provided at North Port HMA will be materially higher than that provided at Manatee Memorial’s North Port Hospital, or vice versa.11 In sum, Manatee Memorial and HMA each satisfies the criteria in Subsection 408.035(3), Florida Statutes, and that statute does not materially weigh in favor of either CON application over the other. (3) § 408.035(4), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(4), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the availability of staff, funds, and other resources necessary to establish and operate the proposed hospitals. It was undisputed that, with the assistance of their parent companies, Manatee Memorial and HMA have the financial and managerial wherewithal to establish and operate their respective North Port hospitals. Schedule 6 of Manatee Memorial's CON application projects that North Port Hospital will have 252.93 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in its first year of operation and 399.96 FTEs by its third year operation. The number of “nursing” FTEs –- registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical nurses, nursing aides, etc. -- in each of those years are 124.01 and 225.48. Schedule 6 of HMA's CON application projects that North Port HMA will have 307.7 FTEs in its first year of operation and 352 FTEs in its second year operation. The number of “nursing” FTEs in each of those years are 158.8 and 180.07. The staffing projections, including the number of “nursing” FTEs, in each of the CON applications are reasonable. The salary projections in each of the CON applications are reasonable.12 There has been an adequate supply of RNs and other clinical staff in Charlotte and Sarasota Counties despite the nursing shortage in Florida. Although some of the existing hospitals in the area experienced increased vacancy rates after Hurricane Charley, they generally have had relatively low vacancy and turnover rates. For example, the pre-Hurricane Charley vacancy rate at Fawcett was only four percent and, even after the hurricane, the vacancy rate at Englewood was only three percent. Manatee Memorial and HMA will each be able to attract the nurses and other personnel necessary to staff their proposed North Port hospitals at the FTE and salary levels identified in their respective CON applications. The evidence was not persuasive regarding the extent to which a hospital in North Port would draw staff from or otherwise impact the operations of the existing hospitals from a staffing perspective. The testimony offered by Englewood and Fawcett witnesses on these issues was imprecise and largely speculative. With respect to attracting physicians to the proposed North Port hospitals, it is significant that there are a number of specialists and other physicians who already have offices in the city of North Port and who have expressed support for a hospital in the city. It is reasonable to expect that many of those physicians will obtain staff privileges at a North Port hospital and, indeed, several testified that they would do so. HMA is in a better position to attract physicians to its proposed North Port hospital with minimal impact on the existing hospitals than is Manatee Memorial because HMA already employs physicians at the three hospitals it operates in the area from which it can draw medical staff (as Manatee Memorial did from MMH when Lakewood Ranch opened), and HMA also owns the North Port Health Park where a large number of the physician offices in the city are located. In sum, Manatee Memorial and HMA each satisfy the criteria in Subsection 408.035(4), Florida Statutes, and between the two competing applications, the criteria in that subsection marginally weigh in favor of HMA. (4) § 408.035(6), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(6), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the short-term and long-term financial feasibility of the proposed hospitals. Generally A CON project is financially feasible in the short- term if the applicant has the ability to fund or secure the funding for the capitalized project costs and initial working capital needs of the project in conjunction with the applicant’s other ongoing and planned capital projects. A CON project is financially feasible in the longterm if it will at least break-even in the second year of operation. If the project continues to show a loss in the second year of operation, it is not financially feasible in the longterm unless it is nearing break-even and it is demonstrated that the hospital will break even within a reasonable period of time. HMA It is undisputed that North Port HMA is financially feasible in the shortterm. Schedule 8A of HMA's CON application projects that North Port HMA will have an after-tax net profit of approximately $3.05 million in its second year of operation. The reasonableness of the revenue and cost projections that resulted in that projected net profit was not contested and, as discussed in Part E(1)(b) above, the underlying patient days and utilization are reasonable and attainable. Therefore, North Port HMA is financially feasible in the longterm. Manatee Memorial Manatee Memorial’s North Port Hospital is financially feasible in the shortterm. Even if the construction and other start-up costs for North Port Hospital are materially higher than projected in the CON application (see Part F(6) below), UHS has the financial wherewithal to fund the project. With respect to long-term financial feasibility, Schedule 8A of Manatee Memorial's CON application projects that North Port Hospital will generate a net profit of approximately $3.5 million in its second year of operation (2009), and that by its third year of operation (2010), the hospital will generate a net profit of approximately $12.3 million. It is not unreasonable to look at North Port Hospital’s third year of operation (rather than its second year) in evaluating the hospital’s long-term financial feasibility because, unlike North Port HMA, North Port Hospital is not projected to “mature” until its third year of operation. For example, North Port Hospital is not projected to obtain a 70 percent share of the North Port market until its third year of operation, whereas North Port HMA is projected to have a 70 percent market share by its second year of operation. The projected net profits in Schedule 8A of Manatee Memorial’s CON application are overstated because, as discussed below, the underlying revenues have been overstated and the underlying expenses have been understated in several material respects. First, the revenues are based upon unreasonable and overstated utilization projections. The 2010 ADC at Manatee Memorial’s North Port Hospital will likely be no more than 64.7 patients (see Part E(2)(b) above), rather than the ADC of 76.1 projected in the CON application. The financial impact of the overstated utilization is an overstatement of the hospital’s projected 2010 net profit by at least $4.7 million.13 Second, the revenues attributable to the cardiac cath lab are based upon significantly overstated projections of cardiac cath volume. The cardiac cath lab at North Port Hospital is projected to have 10,359 inpatient and outpatient “procedures” in 2010, which, according to an expert in the administration of cardiac cath labs, is an “unheard of” number for a single cardiac cath lab at a non-tertiary hospital. The projections of cardiac cath procedures are based upon the experience at MMH. For example, the ratio of inpatient to outpatient procedures at MMH is 2.43, which is the same ratio projected for North Port Hospital. It is not reasonable to base the projected volume of cardiac caths and/or cardiac cath “procedures” at North Port Hospital on the experience at MMH because MMH has an OHS program and hospitals with OHS programs perform considerably more cardiac caths than hospitals without OHS programs. In 2004, for example, the District 8 hospitals without OHS programs averaged only 190 cardiac caths, as compared to an average of 1,476 cardiac caths for hospitals with OHS programs. Manatee Memorial acknowledges in its PRO that the projected cath procedures in the CON application are “on the high side,” but it contends that it is “not materially out of line” with the lab’s capacity because MMH did 24,629 inpatient and outpatient procedures in its two cardiac cath labs in 2003. In 2003, MMH did 17,467 inpatient "procedures" and had 1,387 cardiac cath cases, which is a ratio of 12.6 procedures per case. Manatee Memorial’s North Port hospital will likely have a ratio closer to 4.5 procedures per case, which is the ratio at Englewood and Fawcett and, as reflected in Exhibit HMA-59, is more in-line with the experience at the other hospitals in the area that do not offer OHS. The most reasonable projection of the number of cardiac cath procedures at North Port Hospital is contained in Exhibit EF-12 (at pages 6-7) which projects that the hospital will have a total of 1,473 inpatient and outpatient cardiac cath “procedures” in 2010. Indeed, that projection is likely slightly overstated because it is based upon the overstated population projections in Manatee Memorial’s CON application. The financial impact of the overstatement of cardiac cath procedures is an overstatement of the 2010 net income at North Port Hospital by approximately $5.5 million. Third, the revenues attributable to the OB unit are based upon overstated projections of OB patient days. The application projects that Manatee Memorial’s North Port hospital will have 3,770 OB patient days in 2010, which equates to 1,573 births. The record does not reflect how those figures were calculated. The health planner who prepared Manatee Memorial’s CON application testified that she did not project the number births and/or OB patient days that would likely be generated by North Port residents between 2008-10. The most reasonable projections of the number of births and OB patient days generated by North Port residents in 2010 are those referenced in Part D(3) above, which were derived from the data in Exhibit EF-10, at pages XV-1 through XV-3. The overstatement of OB patient days in Manatee Memorial’s CON application results in an overstatement of OB “charges” by approximately $1.81 million.14 The record does not reflect the degree to which net profit is overstated as a result of the overstatement in OB charges because the OB costs referenced in Manatee Memorial’s CON application are not projected on a patient-day basis. Finally, depreciation expenses are understated due to the significant understatement of the total project cost for North Port Hospital discussed in Part F(6) below. The understatement of the total project cost directly impacts North Port Hospital’s net profit by understating the depreciation expense by approximately $3.9 million per year. North Port Hospital will more likely than not generate a net loss in its third year of operation as a result of the overstated revenue projections and understated depreciation expense. Therefore, North Port Hospital is not financially feasible in the longterm. Summary In sum, the criteria in Subsection 408.035(6), Florida Statutes, weighs in favor of HMA because its proposed North Port hospital is financially feasible. (5) § 408.035(7), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(7), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of “[t]he extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost effectiveness.” The market for acute care services in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties is competitive, as is the North Port market. There are multiple hospitals (and hospital companies) serving the area, none of which has a dominant share of the market. The 2004 market shares of the acute care discharges from the North Port zip codes were as follows: BS-St. Joe (26.9 percent); Fawcett (20.19 percent); Sarasota Memorial (14.7 percent); BS-Venice Venice (13.78 percent); Charlotte Regional (6.94 percent); Englewood (5.9 percent); Doctors Hospital (2.39 percent); all other providers (9.19 percent). Thus, in 2004, the Bon Secours hospitals had a 40.68 percent market share, HMA had a 6.94 percent market share, HCA had a 28.48 percent market share, and Sarasota Memorial had a 14.7 percent market share. The hospitals’ respective market shares were similar in 2002 and 2003, which reflects a relatively stable market for acute care services. HMA now has the largest market share of the North Port market (approximately 47.6 percent) as a result of its acquisition of the Bon Secours hospitals in February 2005. The stated purpose of HMA’s acquisition of the Bon Secours hospitals was to create a “strategic southwest Florida network encompassing Collier County, Lee County, Charlotte County, and Sarasota County.” According to HMA, “these strategic networks will provide patients and communities with an improved continuity of care and access to even more quality health care close to home.” The evidence was not persuasive that the addition of North Port HMA to this “strategic network” will give HMA inordinate leverage with physicians or payors, although the possibility will exist. The approval of North Port HMA will increase HMA’s share of the North Port "market" from 47.6 percent to 82.7 percent. It will also increase HMA’s share of the Sarasota County "market" (from 21.4 to 29.1 percent) and HMA's share of the Sarasota County/Charlotte County "market" (from 33.7 to 39 percent). The evidence was not persuasive that the approval of North Port HMA would be anti-competitive even though it would result in HMA becoming a dominant provider in North Port. Indeed, there will still be healthy competition for acute care services in the broader Sarasota County or Sarasota County/Charlotte County "markets". Nevertheless, the approval of North Port HMA will certainly not “foster” competition. The approval of North Port Hospital would add a new competitor to the market and, to that end, it would “foster” competition. However, the evidence was not persuasive as to how or to what extent the competition fostered by Manatee Memorial’s entry into the market would promote cost effectiveness. In sum, the criteria in Subsection 408.035(7), Florida Statutes, marginally favors Manatee Memorial over HMA, but this criteria is not given significant weight because of the significant competition that currently exists in North Port and the surrounding areas and that will continue to exist in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties even if a hospital is approved in North Port. (6) § 408.035(8), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(8), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction. It was stipulated that the site development costs contained in the CON applications are reasonable and appropriate even though neither of the applicants has identified a site for its proposed North Port hospital. It was undisputed that the construction costs ($39.8 million or $221 per SF) and the total project costs ($78 million) for North Port HMA are reasonable. The reasonableness of the construction costs and the total project costs for North Port Hospital is in dispute. Schedule 1 of Manatee Memorial’s CON application reflects that the construction costs for North Port Hospital will be $32.9 million, which equates to $165 per SF. The $165/SF construction cost includes “bricks and mortar only.” Manatee Memorial’s architect unequivocally testified that the cost does not include any equipment costs. The $165/SF construction cost is not reasonable, and as described by one construction cost expert, it is “way off the Richter scale.” The $165/SF construction cost would be even more unreasonable if, as suggested by several Manatee Memorial witnesses, that figure includes fixed equipment costs, notwithstanding the unequivocal testimony of Manatee Memorial’s architect that the $165/SF construction cost does not include such costs. The $165/SF cost is only slightly higher than the construction cost of Lakewood Ranch, as reflected on the Final Project Cost Report (Cost Report) for that hospital, even though Lakewood Ranch was completed in 2004 and the construction of North Port Hospital will not begin until 2008. The Cost Report reflects that the actual construction costs for Lakewood Ranch were $33,111,591 and that the facility had 185,000 SF. The Cost Report indicates that that the $33 million figure includes fixed equipment costs, but it does not itemize those costs. The fixed equipment costs were estimated in the Lakewood CON application at $4 million, and using that figure, the “bricks and mortar” construction costs at Lakewood Ranch were approximately $157/SF.15 Inflating the $157/SF cost of Lakewood Ranch to 2008 would result in construction costs of approximately $180/SF. A construction cost of $180/SF is more reasonable than the $165/SF estimate in Manatee Memorial’s CON application, but it is still lower than would be expected for a hurricane-hardened hospital in southwest Florida. A more reasonable construction cost for North Port Hospital is between $200/SF and North Port HMA’s $221/SF. Thus, North Port Hospital’s construction costs are understated by $7.1 million to $11 million. Schedule 1 of Manatee Memorial’s CON application estimates $12 million of equipment costs for North Port Hospital. That cost includes fixed and movable equipment costs. The $12 million figure does not include all of the IT systems and other “state-of-the-art” equipment identified in Manatee Memorial’s CON application. Manatee Memorial’s equipment expert testified that the total budget for the IT equipment alone will be $10 million to $14 million. The $12 million figure only includes the cost of the equipment necessary for the hospital’s first year of operation because UHS typically does not fully equip its hospitals before they open. Manatee Memorial followed a similar approach -– i.e., incrementally equipping the hospital as census increased -– at Lakewood Ranch. The reasonableness of that approach is not specifically addressed in the Lakewood Ranch Recommended or Final Orders. This approach has the effect of understating the total cost of the project by including only a portion of the equipment costs that will be necessary to fully equip the hospital. A more reasonable estimate of the equipment costs for North Port Hospital is between $23 million to $29 million, which includes the costs of movable equipment, the IT systems, and the other “state of the art” equipment described in Manatee Memorial’s CON application. Thus, Manatee Memorial’s equipment costs are understated by as much as $17 million. Schedule 1 of Manatee Memorial’s CON application projects pre-opening expenses of $250,000. Lakewood Ranch had pre-opening expenses of approximately $3.2 million. It is reasonable to expect similar pre-opening expenses at North Port Hospital since it was modeled after Lakewood Ranch. When Lakewood Ranch's pre-opening expenses adjusted for inflation, the pre-opening expenses at North Port Hospital will likely be $3.5 million. As a result, the pre-opening expenses for North Port Hospital have been understated by approximately $3.25 million. In sum, the total cost of Manatee Memorial’s proposed North Port hospital is understated by as much as $32 million. Each of the proposed hospitals has certain design features that are better than the other hospital. For example, North Port HMA has a full complement of private rooms and shorter hallways, whereas North Port Hospital has a better separation of its various patient entrances. The evidence was not persuasive that either hospital is materially superior to the other from a design perspective.16 In sum, the criteria in Subsection 408.035(8), Florida Statutes, weighs in favor of HMA because its project costs are more reasonable than those projected by Manatee Memorial. (7)_ § 408.035(9), Fla. Stat. and Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.030(2) Subsection 408.035(9), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicants’ past and proposed commitment to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Similarly, Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C- 1.030(2) requires consideration of the impact of the proposed projects on the ability of low-income persons and other medically underserved groups to access care. The statutory reference to “the medically indigent” encompasses what are typically referred to as charity patients. HMA, Inc., and Manatee Memorial each provide a significant level of care to Medicaid and charity patients at their existing hospitals. HMA, Inc., provided approximately $101 million in uncompensated charity care at its Florida hospitals for the 12- month period ending September 30, 2004, which is approximately four percent of its gross patient revenues. For that same period, approximately 7.6 of the gross patient revenues at those hospitals were attributable to Medicaid patients. Manatee Memorial provides more than 90 percent of the charity care in Manatee County, which is not surprising since MMH is the largest and one of the oldest hospitals in the county. In 2004, Manatee Memorial provided approximately $16.6 million in charity care, which is approximately three percent of its gross charges. That figure was offset by a $2.8 million subsidy that Manatee Memorial received from Manatee County for indigent care. Neither HMA nor Manatee Memorial conditioned the approval of its CON application on the provision of a particular level of care to Medicaid or charity patients. HMA offered to condition the approval of its application on a commitment to “accept all Medicaid and indigent patients that are clinically appropriate for services offered by [North Port HMA].” Similarly, Manatee Memorial offered to condition the approval of its application on a commitment that “[a]ll Medicaid & indigent patients will be accepted as are clinically appropriate for services.” The Agency reasonably construed those proposed conditions to be offering nothing more than the law currently requires. Moreover, it is unclear how the proposed conditions could be monitored by the Agency. The Agency did not accept the condition proposed by HMA. Instead, in the SAAR, it conditioned the approval of HMA’s application on the provision of 6.9 percent of the patient days at North Port HMA to Medicaid patients and 2.9 percent of the patient days to charity patients. Those figures were derived from Schedule 7A of HMA’s CON application and the notes thereto. HMA did not challenge those conditions and, therefore, is bound by them if its CON application is ultimately approved notwithstanding the recommendation herein. Mr. Gregg testified that if Manatee Memorial’s application is ultimately approved, the approval should include conditions similar to those imposed in the SAAR on the approval of HMA’s application. The revenues projected in Schedule 7A of Manatee Memorial’s CON application were calculated based upon the assumption that 7.25 percent of the patient days at North Port Hospital will be attributable to Medicaid patients. The percentage of patient days at North Port Hosptial attributable to charity care is not specified on Schedule 7A or the notes thereto,17 but it appears that the percentage is approximately 2.6 percent.18 Thus, if contrary to the recommendations herein, the Agency ultimately approves Manatee Memorial’s CON application, it should condition the approval North Port Hospital providing 7.25 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients and 2.6 percent of its patient days to charity patients. A new hospital in North Port is not necessary to address any financial access problems in the area. There was no persuasive evidence that there is an access problem for Medicaid, charity, or other traditionally medically underserved patients at the existing hospitals in south Sarasota County and north Charlotte County. To the contrary, the evidence reflects that all of the existing hospitals in the area provide access to patients without regard to their ability to pay. As a result, the criteria in Subsection 408.035(9), Florida Statutes, is given minimal weight in determining whether a hospital is needed in North Port. The criteria in Subsection 408.035(9), Florida Statutes, do not materially weigh in favor either CON application over the other. Each applicant has a history of providing Medicaid and charity care and each has proposed to provide approximately 9.8 percent of its patient days to Medicaid and charity patients combined. (8) § 408.035(10), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(10), Florida Statutes, which requires consideration of the applicant’s designation as a Gold Seal Program nursing facility, is not applicable because HMA and Manatee Memorial are not proposing to add nursing home beds. Impact of the Proposed North Port Hospitals on the Existing Hospitals in the Area North Port is in the PSA of both Fawcett and Englewood, if, as is common, the PSA is defined as the zip codes from which the hospital receives 75 percent of its admissions. In 2004, approximately 12 percent of Fawcett’s non- tertiary patients came from the North Port zip codes, and approximately 6.6 percent of Englewood’s non-tertiary patients came from the North Port zip codes. The approval of either of the proposed North Port hospitals will have an adverse impact on Englewood and Fawcett because they will lose patients to the new hospital. The impact on Englewood and Fawcett will be materially the same, no matter which application is approved because, as discussed above, Manatee Memorial is unlikely to achieve its more aggressive utilization projections. If Manatee Memorial somehow achieved its utilization projections, its North Port Hospital would have a significantly greater impact on the existing providers than would North Port HMA. The existing providers’ shares of the North Port market have remained relatively stable since at least 2002 and, therefore, it is reasonable to expect that they would have similar market shares in the future absent a significant change of circumstances, such as the approval of a new hospital in the area. As a result, it is reasonable to use the current market shares when assessing the impact of the proposed North Port hospitals on the existing providers. The approval of North Port HMA will result in a loss of 227 patients (1,046 patient days) at Englewood and a loss of 772 patients (3,553 patient days) at Fawcett in 2008, which will be the North Port hospital’s second year of operation. The financial impact of that lost patient volume is approximately $807,000 at Englewood and $3.1 million at Fawcett. The approval of North Port Hospital will result in a loss of 259 patients (1,191 patient days) at Englewood and 883 patients (4,064 patient days) at Fawcett in 2010, which will be the North Port hospital’s third year of operation.19 The financial impact of that lost patient volume is approximately $917,000 at Englewood and $4 million at Fawcett.20 Those figures only take into account the patients in the North Port zip codes that Englewood and Fawcett will “lose” to the new North Port hospital. They do not take into account additional patients that Englewood and Fawcett are likely to “gain” through growth in the population in the other zip codes in their service areas. The population growth in Englewood and Fawcett’s service area will largely off-set the patient volume that the hospitals would lose from the North Port zip codes. For example, if North Port HMA is approved, Englewood is projected to have only 16 fewer patients in 2008 than it did in 2004, and Fawcett will have only 28 fewer patients in 2008 than it had in 2004. Fawcett is a profitable hospital. Its earnings before depreciation, interest, taxes, and amortization (EBDITA) was approximately $14 million in 2004, and its operating income was $7.7 million in 2002, $5.1 million in 2003, and $1.7 million in 2004. The lower operating income in 2004 was due to the impacts of Hurricane Charley. Englewood is a less profitable hospital than Fawcett. It had operating losses of $1.7 million in 2002, $2.8 million in 2003, and $1.3 million in 2004. Its highest net income before taxes in any of those years was $631,000 in 2004. However, Englewood’s EBDITA (which is the financial indicator that its chief financial officer “really concentrate[s] on”) was approximately $3.6 million in 2004 and was budgeted to be “a little over 3 million” in 2005. The financial impact of the lost patient volume from the North Port zip codes on Englewood and Fawcett is not significant when compared to the EBDITA at those hospitals. The financial impact is even less significant when the population growth in the other zip codes in Englewood and Fawcett’s service area are taken into account. Indeed, the projected net loss of 28 patients at Fawcett equates to a reduction in net income of only $126,700, and the projected net loss of 16 patients at Englewood equates to a reduction in net income of only $56,624. The approval of a hospital in North Port would also impact Peace River and Venice Hospital. In terms of lost patient volume, the impact on Peace River would be slightly greater than the impact at Fawcett and the impact on Venice Hospital would be slightly less than the impact at Fawcett and slightly more than the impact on Englewood. The record does not reflect the financial impact of that lost patient volume at Peace River or Venice Hospital, which experienced significant operating losses prior to their acquisition and financial turn- around by HMA. In sum, the approval of a hospital in North Port will adversely impact the existing hospitals serving the area, including Englewood and Fawcett. The impacts are significant enough to give Englewood and Fawcett standing in this proceeding, but the impact on Englewood and Fawcett (and the other existing hospitals) is not so significant that it independently warrants denial of the CON applications. Stated another way, the adverse impact on the existing hospitals is a factor weighing against approval of the applications, but that factor is given minimal weight.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order denying Manatee Memorial’s CON 9767 and also denying HMA’s CON 9768. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2005.
The Issue Whether Oak Hill Hospital should be awarded certificate of need 6383 to add 54 additional acute care beds in Hernando County, HRS District III. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This cause was initiated by Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Oak Hill Hospital challenging HRS' preliminary decision to deny its application for CON 6383 filed on February 7, 1991 with the HRS department clerk and referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. By Order of April 19, 1991, Hernando Healthcare Inc., d/b/a Brooksville Regional Hospital was granted intervention in the cause. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stated that a stipulated settlement had been reached, but a short additional period of time was needed to reduce the stipulated facts to writing and present same to the Hearing Officer. Accordingly, the hearing was adjourned, and the parties subsequently submitted a proposed recommended order signed by all parties. Based upon the stipulated facts the following is submitted.
Findings Of Fact On August 10, 1990, HRS published in Volume 16, Number 32 edition, of the Florida Administrative Weekly, a fixed need pool of zero needed acute care hospital beds for HRS District III, Subdistrict VI, Hernando County. Thereafter, Oak Hill Hospital timely and properly filed a letter of intent requesting the addition of 56 acute care beds in Hernando County District III. The letter of intent was followed by a timely filed application to add 54 acute care beds at Oak Hill Hospital at a project cost of $4,498,690. The addition of 54 acute care beds will be accomplished by the addition of a fifth floor of 19,800 gross square feet to the existing hospital. The application was properly deemed complete effective November 13, 1990, and the application was preliminarily denied on January 11, 1991. Oak Hill Hospital is a 150 bed acute care hospital located in Hernando County, Florida, HRS District III. There are three existing acute care facilities in Hernando County. In addition to Oak Hill Hospital, Hernando Healthcare, Inc., operates Brooksville Regional Hospital and its Satellite facility, Springhill Hospital, with 166 combined licensed beds. Pursuant to the bed need formula in the Acute Care Rule, the projected need for acute care beds in the relevant horizon is 4,785 beds in District III. Because the base period occupancy rate for the district was less than 75 percent, the net need for acute care beds defaulted to zero in accordance with the terms of the rule. During the base period, calendar year 1989, Oak Hill Hospital experienced a 93.87 percent occupancy rate. This occupancy level would allow the facility to seek beds pursuant to the provisions of Rule 10-5.038(7)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Oak Hill Hospital has demonstrated a need for an additional 54 acute care beds. Oak Hill Hospital is JCAHO accredited. It provides quality care at its facility. Likewise, Brooksville Regional Medical Center and its satellite facility provide quality of care in those facilities. The proposed costs and methods of construction contained in the application are reasonable. Oak Hill Hospital can properly equip its proposal for the amount contained in the application. Oak Hill Hospital's proposal is financially feasible in both the short and the long term. Oak Hill Hospital can achieve the utilization level it projects in its application, which is reasonable. Oak Hill Hospital has committed to provide a minimum of 1.5 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid patients and a minimum of 1.0 percent of total annual patient days to indigent patients.
Recommendation It is recommended that CON 6383 be issued to Oak Hill Hospital to construct and operate an additional 54 acute care beds at a cost of $4,498,690 by the addition of a fifth floor of 19,800 gross square feet to the existing hospital in Hernando County, Florida. It is further recommended that the CON be conditioned upon the requirement of a minimum of 1.5 percent total annual Medicaid patient days and a minimum of 1 percent total annual charity patient days, as reported to the Health Care Cost Containment Board. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert S. Cohen, Esquire 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Leslie Mendelson, Esquire 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Stephen Ecenia, Esquire Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed as a physician in the State of Florida having been issued license number ME0040318. Respondent completed a residency in internal medicine and later was a nephrology fellow at Mayo Clinic. He was recruited to Florida in 1952 by Humana. In 1984 he became associated with a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in an administrative position but took over treating patients when the owner became ill. This HMO was affiliated with IMC who assimilated it when the HMO had financial difficulties. At all times relevant hereto Respondent was a salaried employee of IMC and served as Assistant Medical DIRECTOR in charge of the South Pasadena Clinic. On October 17, 1985, Alexander Stroganow, an 84 year old Russian immigrant and former cossack, who spoke and understood only what English he wanted to, suffered a fall and was taken to the emergency Room at a nearby hospital. He was examined and released without being admitted for inpatient treatment. Later that evening his landlady thought Stroganow needed medical attention and again called the Emergency Medical Service. When the ambulance with EMS personnel arrived they examined Stroganow, and concluded Stroganow was no worse than earlier when he was transported to the emergency Room, and refused to again take Stroganow to the emergency Room. The landlady then called the HRS hotline to report abuse of the elderly. The following morning, October 18, 1985, an HRS case worker was dispatched to check on Stroganow. Upon arrival, she was admitted by the landlady and found an 84 year old man who was incontinent, incoherent, and apparently paralyzed from the waist down, with whom she could not engage in conversation to determine his condition. She called for a Cares Unit team to come and evaluate Stroganow. An HRS Cares Unit is a two person team consisting of a social worker and nurse whose primary function is to screen clients for admission to nursing homes and adult congregate living facilities (ACLF). The nurse on the team carries no medical equipment such as stethoscope, blood pressure cuff, or thermometer, but makes her evaluation on visual examination. Upon arrival of the Cares Unit, and, after examining Stroganow, both members of the team agreed he needed to be placed where he could be attended. A review of his personal effects produced by his landlady revealed his income to be above that for which he could qualify for medicaid placement in a nursing home; that he was a member of IMC's Gold-Plus HMO; his social security card; and several medications, some of which had been prescribed by Dr. Dayton, Respondent, a physician employed by IMC at the South Pasadena Clinic. The Cares team ruled out ACLF placement because Stroganow was not ambulatory, but felt he needed to be placed in a hospital or nursing home and not left alone with the weekend approaching. To accomplish this, they proceeded to the South Pasadena HMO clinic of IMC to lay the problem on Dr. Dayton, who was in charge of the South Pasadena Clinic, and, they thought, was Stroganow's doctor. Stroganow had been a client of the South Pasadena HMO for some time and was well known at the clinic as well as by EMS personnel. There were always two, and occasionally three, doctors on duty at South Pasadena Clinic between 8:00 and 5:00 daily and, unless the patient requested a specific doctor he was treated by the first available doctor. Stroganow had not specifically requested to be treated by Respondent. When the Cares unit met with Respondent they advised him that Stroganow had been taken to Metropolitan General Hospital Emergency Room the previous evening but did not advise Respondent that the EMS squad had refused to return Stroganow to the emergency Room when they were recalled for Stroganow the same evening. Respondent telephoned the Metropolitan General Emergency Room and had the emergency Room medical report on Stroganow read to him. With the information provided by the Cares unit and the hospital report, Respondent concluded that Stroganow needed emergency medical treatment and the quickest way to obtain such treatment would be to call the EMS and have Stroganow taken to an emergency Room for evaluation. When the Cares unit arrived, Respondent was treating patients at the clinic. A clinic, or doctors office, is not a desirable or practical place to have an incontinent, incoherent, and non-ambulatory patient brought to wait with other patients until a doctor is free to see him. Nor is the clinic equipped to perform certain procedures that may be required for emergency evaluation of an ill patient. At a hospital emergency Room such equipment is available. EMS squads usually arrive within minutes of a call being placed to 911 for emergency medical treatment and it was necessary that someone be with Stroganow when the EMS squad arrived. Accordingly, Respondent suggested that the Cares team return to Stroganow and call 911 to transport Stroganow to an emergency Room for an evaluation. Upon leaving the South Pasadena clinic the Cares team returned to Stroganow. Enroute they stopped to call a supervisor at HRS to report that the HMO had not solved their problem with Stroganow. The supervisor then called the Administrator at IMC Tampa Office to tell them that one of their Gold-Plus HMO patients had an emergency situation which was not being property handled. Respondent left the South Pasadena Clinic around noon and went to IMC's Tampa Office where he was available for the balance of the afternoon. There he spoke with Dr. Sanchez, the INC Regional Medical Director, but Stroganow was not deemed to be a continuing problem. By 2:00 p.m. when no ambulance had arrived the Cares Unit called 911 for EMS to take Stroganow to an emergency Room. Upon arrival shortly thereafter the EMS squad again refused to transport Stroganow. The Cares team communicated this to their supervisor who contacted IMC Regional Office to so advise. At this time Dr. Sanchez authorized the transportation of Stroganow to Lake Seminole Hospital for admission. Although neither Respondent nor Sanchez had privileges at Lake Seminole Hospital, IMC had contracted with Lake Seminole Hospital to have IMC patients admitted by a staff doctor at Lake Seminole Hospital. Subsequent to his meeting with the Cares team Respondent received no further information regarding Stroganow until well after Stroganow was admitted to Lake Seminole Hospital. No entry was made on Stroganow's medical record at IMC of the meeting between Respondent and the Cares Unit. Respondent was a salaried employee whose compensation was not affected by whether or not he admitted an IMC Gold-Plus patient to a hospital.
The Issue The issue is whether BayCare Long Term Acute Care Hospital, Inc.'s Certificate of Need Application No. 9753 and University Community Hospital's Certificate of Need Application No. 9754, both submitted to the Agency for Health Care Administration, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact LTCHs defined An LTCH is a medical facility which provides extended medical and rehabilitation care to patients with multiple, chronic, or clinically complex acute medical conditions. These conditions include, but are not limited to, ventilator dependency, tracheotomy care, total parenteral nutrition, long- term intravenous anti-biotic treatment, complex wound care, dialysis at bedside, and multiple systems failure. LTCHs provide an interdisciplinary team approach to the complex medical needs of the patient. LTCHs provide a continuum of care between short-term acute care hospitals and nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), or comprehensive medical rehabilitation facilities. Patients who have been treated in an intensive acute care unit at a short-term acute care hospital and who continue to require intensive care once stabilized, are excellent candidates for care at an LTCH. Included in the interdisciplinary approach is the desired involvement of the patient's family. A substantial number of the patients suitable for treatment in an LTCH are in excess of 65 years of age, and are eligible for Medicare. Licensure and Medicare requirements dictate that an LTCH have an average length of stay (ALOS) of 25 days. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reimburses for care received through the prospective payment system (PPS). Through this system, CMS reimburses the services of LTCHs separately from short-term acute care providers and other post acute care providers. The reimbursement rate for an LTCH under PPS exceeds that of other providers. The reimbursement rate for an LTCH is about twice that of a rehabilitation facility. The increased reimbursement rate indicates the increased cost due to the more intensive care required in an LTCH. The Agency The Agency is a state agency created pursuant to Section 20.42. It is the chief health policy and planning entity for the State of Florida. The Agency administers the Health Facility and Services Development Act found at Sections 408.031-408.045. Pursuant to Section 408.034, the Agency is designated as the single state Agency to issue, revoke, or deny certificates of need. The Agency has established 11 health service planning districts. The applications in this case are for facilities in District 5, which comprises Pinellas and Pasco counties. UCH UCH is a not-for-profit organization that owns and operates a 431-bed tertiary level general acute care hospital and a 120-bed acute care general hospital. Both are located in Hillsborough County. UCH also has management responsibilities and affiliations to operate Helen Ellis Hospital, a 300-bed hospital located in Tarpon Springs, and manages the 300-bed Suncoast Hospital. Both of these facilities are in Pinellas County. UCH also has an affiliation to manage the open heart surgery program at East Pasco Medical Center, a general acute care hospital located in Pasco County. As a not-for-profit organization, the mission of UCH is to provide quality health care services to meet the needs of the communities where it operates regardless of their patients' ability to pay. Baycare BayCare is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BayCare Healthsystems, Inc. (BayCare Systems). BayCare Systems is a not-for-profit entity comprising three members that operate Catholic Health East, Morton Plant Mease Healthcare, and South Florida Baptist. The facilities owned by these organizations are operated pursuant to a Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) entered into by each of the participants. BayCare Systems hospitals include Morton Plant Hospital, a 687-bed tertiary level facility located in Clearwater, Pinellas County; St. Joseph's Hospital, an 887-bed tertiary level general acute care hospital located in Tampa, Hillsborough County; St. Anthony's Hospital, a 407-bed general acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County; and Morton Plant North Bay, a 120-bed hospital located in New Port Richey, Pasco County. Morton Plant Mease Health Care is a partnership between Morton Plant Hospital and Mease Hospital. Although Morton Plant Mease Healthcare is a part of the BayCare System, the hospitals that are owned by the Trustees of Mease Hospital, Mease Hospital Dunedin, and Mease Hospital Countryside, are not directly members of the BayCare System and are not signatories to the JOA. HealthSouth HealthSouth is a national company with the largest market share in inpatient rehabilitation. It is also a large provider of ambulatory services. HealthSouth has about 1,380 facilities across the nation. HealthSouth operates nine LTCHs. The facility that is the Intervenor in this case is a CMR located in Largo, Pinellas County. Kindred Kindred, through its parent company, operates LTCH facilities throughout Florida and is the predominant provider of LTCH services in the state. In the Tampa Bay area, Kindred operates three LTCHs. Two are located in Tampa and one is located in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County. The currently operating LTCH in District 5 that may be affected by the CON applications at issue is Kindred-St. Petersburg. Kindred-St. Petersburg is a licensed 82-bed LTCH with 52 private beds, 22 semi-private beds, and an 8-bed intensive care unit. It operates the array of services normally offered by an LTCH. It is important to note that Kindred-St. Petersburg is located in the far south of heavily populated District 5. The Applications UCH proposes a new freestanding LTCH which will consist of 50 private rooms and which will be located in Connerton, a new town being developed in Pasco County. UCH's proposal will cost approximately $16,982,715. By agreement of the parties, this cost is deemed reasonable. BayCare proposes a "hospital within a hospital" LTCH that will be located within Mease Hospital-Dunedin. The LTCH will be located in an area of the hospital currently used for obstetrics and women's services. The services currently provided in this area will be relocated to Mease Hospital- Countryside. BayCare proposes the establishment of 48 beds in private and semi-private rooms. Review criteria which was stipulated as satisfied by all parties Section 408.035(1)-(9) sets forth the standards for granting certificates of need. The parties stipulated to satisfying the requirements of subsections (3) through (9) as follows. With regard to subsection (3), 'The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care,' all parties stipulated that this statutory criterion is not in dispute and that both applicants may be deemed to have satisfied such criteria. With regard to subsection (4), 'The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation,' it was stipulated that both applicants have all resources necessary in terms of both capital and staff to accomplish the proposed projects, and therefore, both applicants satisfy this requirement. With regard to subsection (5), 'The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district,' it was stipulated that both proposals will increase access. Currently there are geographic, financial and programmatic barriers to access in District 5. The only extant LTCH is located in the southernmost part of District 5. With regard to subsection (6), 'The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal,' the parties stipulated that UCH satisfied the criterion. With regard to BayCare, it was stipulated that its proposal satisfied the criterion so long as BayCare can achieve its utilization projections and obtain Medicare certification as an LTCH and thus demonstrate short-term and long-term feasibility. This issue will be addressed below. With regard to subsection (7), 'The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost- effectiveness,' the parties stipulated that approval of both applications will foster competition that will promote quality and cost effectiveness. The only currently available LTCH in District 5, unlike BayCare and UCH, is a for-profit establishment. With regard to subsection (8), 'The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction,' the parties stipulated that the costs and methods of construction for both proposals are reasonable. With regard to subsection (9), 'the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent,' it was stipulated that both UCH and BayCare have a demonstrated history and a commitment to providing services to Medicaid, Medicaid HMO, self-pay, and underinsured payments. Technically, of course, BayCare has no history at all. However, its sponsors do, and it is they that will shape the mission for BayCare. BayCare's Medicare certification as an LTCH The evidence of record demonstrates that BayCare can comply with Medicare reimbursement regulations and therefore can achieve its utilization projections and obtain Medicare certification as an LTCH. Thus short-term and long-term feasibility is proven. Because BayCare will be situated as a hospital within a hospital, in Mease Hospital Dunedin, and because there is a relationship between that hospital and BayCare Systems, Medicare reimbursement regulations limit to 25 percent the number of patients that may be acquired from Mease Hospital Dunedin or from an organization that controls directly or indirectly the Mease Hospital Dunedin. Because of this limitation, it is, therefore, theoretically possible that the regulator of Medicare payments, CMS, would not allow payment where more than 25 percent of admissions were from the entire BayCare System. Should that occur it would present a serious but not insurmountable problem to BayCare. BayCare projects that 21 percent of its admissions will come from Mease Hospital Dunedin and the rest will come from other sources. BayCare is structured as an independent entity with an independent board of directors and has its own chief executive officer. The medical director and the medical staff will be employed by the independent board of directors. Upon the greater weight of the evidence, under this structure, BayCare is a separate corporate entity that neither controls, nor is controlled by, BayCare Systems or any of its entities or affiliates. One must bear in mind that because of the shifting paradigms of federal medical regulation, predictability in this regard is less than perfect. However, the evidence indicates that CMS will apply the 25 percent rule only in the case of patients transferring to BayCare from Mease Hospital Dunedin. Most of the Medicare-certified LTCHs in the United States operate as hospitals within hospitals. It is apparent, therefore, that adjusting to the CMS limitations is something that is typically accomplished. BayCare will lease space in Mease Hospital Dunedin which will be vacated by it current program. BayCare will contract with Mease Hospital Dunedin for services such as laboratory analysis and radiology. This arrangement will result in lower costs, both in the short term and in the long term, than would be experienced in a free-standing facility, and contributes to the likelihood that BayCare is feasible in the short term and long term. Criteria related to need The contested subsections of Section 408.035 not heretofore addressed, are (1) and (2). These subsections are illuminated by Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C- 1.008(2)(e)2., which provides standards when, as in this case, there is no fixed-need pool. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2., provides as follows: 2. If no agency policy exists, the applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, sub district or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Population Demographics and Dynamics The applicants presented an analysis of the population demographics and dynamics in support of their applications in District 5. The evidence demonstrated that the population of District 5 was 1,335,021 in 2004. It is anticipated that it will grow to 1,406,990 by 2009. The projected growth rate is 5.4 percent. The elderly population in the district, which is defined as persons over the age of 65, is expected to grow from 314,623 in 2004, to 340,676, in 2009, which represents an 8.3 percent increase. BayCare BayCare's service area is defined generally by the geographic locations of Morton Plant Hospital, Morton Plant North Bay Hospital, St. Anthony's Hospital, Mease Hospital Dunedin, and Mease Hospital Countryside. These hospitals are geographically distributed throughout Pinellas County and southwest Pasco County and are expected to provide a base for referrals to BayCare. There is only one extant LTCH in Pinellas County, Kindred, and it is located in the very southernmost part of this densely populated county. Persons who become patients in an LTCH are almost always moved to the LTCH by ambulance, so their movement over a long distance through heavy traffic generates little or no problem for the patient. Accordingly, if patient transportation were the only consideration, movement from the north end of the county to Kindred in the far south, would present no problem. However, family involvement is a substantial factor in an interdisciplinary approach to addressing the needs of LTCH patients. The requirement of frequent movement of family members from northern Pinellas to Kindred through congested traffic will often result in the denial of LTCH services to patients residing in northern Pinellas County or, in the alternative, deny family involvement in the interdisciplinary treatment of LTCH patients. Approximately 70 letters requesting the establishment of an LTCH in northern Pinellas County were provided in BayCare's application. These letters were written by medical personnel, case managers and social workers, business persons, and government officials. The thread common to these letters was, with regard to LTCH services, that the population in northern Pinellas County is underserved. UCH Pasco County has experienced a rapid population growth. It is anticipated that the population will swell to 426,273, in 2009, which represents a 10.1 percent increase over the population in 2004. The elderly population accounts for 28 percent of the population. This is about 50 percent higher than Florida as a whole. Rapid population growth in Pasco County, and expected future growth, has resulted in numerous new housing developments including Developments of Regional Impact (DRI). Among the approved DRI's is the planned community of Connerton, which has been designated a "new town" in Pasco County's Comprehensive Plan. Connerton is a planned community of 8,600 residential units. The plan includes space for a hospital and UCH has negotiated for the purchase of a parcel for that purpose within Connerton. The rate of growth, and the elderly population percentages, will support the proposed UCH LTCH and this is so even if BayCare establishes an LTCH in northern Pinellas County. Availability, utilization, and quality of like services in the district, sub-district, or both The Agency has not established sub-districts for LTCHs. As previously noted, Kindred is the only LTCH extant in District 5. It is a for-profit facility. Kindred was well utilized when it had its pediatric unit and added 22 additional beds. Subsequently, in October 2002, some changes in Medicare reimbursement rules resulted in a reduction of the reimbursement rate. This affected Kindred's income because over 70 percent of its patients are Medicare recipients. Kindred now uses admission criteria that have resulted in a decline in patient admissions. From 1998, the year after Kindred was established, until 2002, annual utilization was in excess of 90 percent. Thereafter, utilization has declined, the 22-bed addition has been shut down, and Kindred projects an occupancy of 55 percent in 2005. Kindred must make a profit. Therefore, it denies access to a significant number of patients in District 5. It denies the admission of patients who have too few "Medicare- reimbursable days" or "Medicaid-reimbursable days" remaining. The record indicates that Kindred only incurs charity care or Medicaid patient days when a patient admitted to Kindred with seemingly adequate funding unexpectedly exhausts his or her funding prior to discharge. Because of the constraints of PPS, Kindred has established admission criteria that excludes certain patients with conditions whose prognosis is so uncertain that it cannot adequately predict how long they will require treatment. Kindred's availability to potential patients is thus constrained. HealthSouth, a licensed CMR, is not a substitute for an LTCH. Although it is clear that there is some overlap between a CMR and an LTCH, HealthSouth, for instance, does not provide inpatient dialysis, will not accept ventilator patients, and does not treat complex wound patients. The nurse staffing level at HealthSouth is inadequate to provide for the type of patient that is eligible for treatment in an LTCH. The fact that LTCHs are reimbursed by Medicare at approximately twice the rate that a CMR is reimbursed, demonstrates the higher acuity level of LTCH services when compared to a CMR. HealthSouth is a facility which consistently operates at high occupancy levels and even if it were capable of providing the services typical of an LTCH, it would not have sufficient capacity to provide for the need. A CMR is a facility to which persons who make progress in an LTCH might repair so that they can return to the activities of daily living. SNFs are not substitutes for LTCHs although there could be some limited overlap. SNFs are generally not appropriate for patients otherwise eligible for the type of care provided by an LTCH. They do not provide the range of services typically provided by an LTCH and do not maintain the registered nurse staffing levels required for delivering the types of services needed for patients appropriate for an LTCH. LTCHs are a stage in the continuum of care. Short- term acute care hospitals take in very sick or injured patients and treat them. Thereafter, the survivors are discharged to home, or to a CMR, or to a SNF, or, if the patients are still acutely ill but stable, and if an LTCH is available, to an LTCH. As noted above, currently in northern Pinellas County and in Pasco County, there is no reasonable access to an LTCH. An intensive care unit (ICU) is, ideally, a treatment phase that is short. If treatment has been provided in an ICU and the patient remains acutely ill but stable, and is required to remain in the ICU because there is no alternative, greater than necessary costs are incurred. Staff in an ICU are not trained or disposed to provide the extensive therapy and nursing required by patients suitable for an LTCH and are not trained to provide support and training to members of the patient's family in preparation for the patient's return home. The majority of patients suitable for an LTCH have some potential for recovery. This potential is not realized in an ICU, which is often counterproductive for patients who are stabilized but who require specialized long-term acute care. Patients who remain in an ICU beyond five to seven days have an increased morbidity/mortality rate. Maintaining patients suitable for an LTCH in an ICU also results in over-utilization of ICU services and can cause congestion when ICU beds are fully occupied. UCH in Pasco County, and to a lesser extent BayCare in northern Pinellas County, will bring to the northern part of District 5 services which heretofore have not been available in the district, or, at least, have not been readily available. Persons in Pasco County and northern Pinellas County, who would benefit from a stay in an LTCH, have often had to settle for some less appropriate care situation. Medical Treatment Trends LTCHs are relatively new cogs in the continuum of care and the evidence indicates that they will play an important role in that continuum in the future. The evidence of record demonstrates that the current trend in medical treatment is to find appropriate post acute placements in an LTCH setting for those patients in need of long-term acute care beyond the stay normally experienced in a short-term acute care hospital. Market conditions The federal government's development of the distinctive PPS for LTCHs has created a market condition which is favorable for the development of LTCH facilities. Although the Agency has not formally adopted by rule a need methodology specifically for LTCHs, by final order it has recently relied upon the "geometric mean length of stay + 7" (GMLOS +7) need methodology. The GMLOS +7 is a statistical calculation used by CMS in administering the PPS reimbursement system in determining an appropriate reimbursement for a particular "diagnostic related group" (DRG). Other need methodologies have been found to be unsatisfactory because they do not accurately reflect the need for LTCH services in areas where LTCH services are not available, or where the market for LTCH services is not competitive. GMLOS +7 is the best analysis the Agency has at this point. Because the population for whom an LTCH might be appropriate is unique, and because it overlaps with other populations, finding an algebraic need expression is difficult. An acuity measure would be the best marker of patient appropriateness, but insufficient data are available to calculate that. BayCare's proposal will provide beneficial competition for LTCH services in District 5 for the first time and will promote geographic, financial, and programmatic access to LTCH services. BayCare, in conducting its need calculations used a data pool from Morton Plant Hospital, Mease Dunedin Hospital, Mease Countryside Hospital, Morton Plant North Bay Hospital, and St. Anthony's Hospital for the 12 months ending September 2003. The hospitals included in the establishment of the pool are hospitals that would be important referral sources for BayCare. BayCare then identified 160 specific DRGs historically served by existing Florida LTCHs, or which could have been served by Florida LTCHs, and lengths of stay greater than the GMLOS for acute care patients, and compared them to the data pool. This resulted in a pool of 871 potential patients. The calculation did not factor in the certain growth in the population of the geographic area, and therefore the growth of potential LTCH patients. BayCare then applied assumptions based on the proximity of the referring hospitals to the proposed LTCH to project how many of the patients eligible for LTCH services would actually be referred and admitted to the proposed LTCH. That exercise resulted in a projected potential volume of 20,265 LTCH patient days originating just from the three District 5 BayCare hospitals and the two Mease hospitals. BayCare assumes, and the assumption is found to be reasonable, that 25 percent of their LTCH volume will originate from facilities other than BayCare or Mease hospitals. Adding this factor resulted in a total of 27,020 patient days for a total net need of 82 beds at 90 percent occupancy. BayCare's GMLOS +7 bed need methodology reasonably projects a bed need of 82 beds based on BayCare's analysis of the demand arising from the three District 5 BayCare hospitals and the two Mease hospitals. UCH provided both a GMLOS +7 and a use rate analysis. The use rate analysis is suspect in a noncompetitive environment and, obviously, in an environment where LTCHs do not exist. UCH's GMLOS +7 analyses resulted in the identification of a need for 159 additional LTCH beds in District 5. This was broken down into a need of 60 beds in Pasco County and 99 additional beds in Pinellas County. There is no not-for-profit LTCH provider in District The addition of BayCare and UCH LTCHs to the district will meet a need in the case of Medicaid, indigent, and underinsured patients. Both BayCare and UCH have agreed in their applications to address the needs of patients who depend on Medicaid, or who are indigent, or who have private insurance that is inadequate to cover the cost of their treatment. The statistical analyses provided by both applicants support the proposed projects of both applicants. Testimony from doctors who treat patients of the type who might benefit from an LTCH testified that those types of facilities would be utilized. Numerous letters from physicians, nurses, and case managers support the need for these facilities. Adverse impacts HealthSouth and Kindred failed to persuade that BayCare's proposal will adversely impact them. HealthSouth provides little of the type of care normally provided at an LTCH. Moreover, HealthSouth is currently operating near capacity. Kindred is geographically remote from BayCare's proposed facility, and, more importantly, remote in terms of travel time, which is a major consideration for the families of patients. Kindred did not demonstrate that it was currently receiving a large number of patients from the geographic vicinity of the proposed BayCare facility, although it did receive some patients from BayCare Systems facilities and would likely lose some admissions if BayCare's application is approved. The evidence did not establish that Kindred would suffer a material adverse impact should BayCare establish an LTCH in Mease Dunedin Hospital. HealthSouth and Kindred conceded that UCH's program would not adversely impact them. The Agency's Position The Agency denied the applications of BayCare and UCH in the SAARs. At the time of the hearing the Agency continued to maintain that granting the proposals was inappropriate. The Agency's basic concern with these proposals, and in fact, the establishments of LTCHs throughout the state, according to the Agency's representative Jeffrey N. Gregg, is the oversupply of beds. The Agency believes it will be a long time before it can see any measure of clinical efficiency and whether the LTCH route is the appropriate way to go. The Agency has approved a number of LTCHs in recent years and is studying them in order to get a better understanding of what the future might hold. The Agency noted that the establishment of an LTCH by ongoing providers, BayCare Systems and UCH, where there are extant built-in referring facilities, were more likely to be successful than an out-of-state provider having no prior relationships with short-term acute care hospitals in the geographic vicinity of the LTCH. The Agency noted that both a referring hospital and an LTCH could benefit financially by decompressing its intensive care unit, and thus maximizing their efficiency. The Agency did not explain how, if these LTCHs are established, a subsequent failure would negatively affect the delivery of health services in District 5. The Agency, when it issued its SAAR, did not have the additional information which became available during the hearing process.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that UCH Certificate of Need Application No. 9754 and BayCare Certificate of Need Application No. 9753 satisfy the applicable criteria and both applications should be approved. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Robert Griffin, Esquire J. Robert Griffin, P.A. 1342 Timberlane Road, Suite 102-A Tallahassee, Florida 32312-1762 Patricia A. Renovitch, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez, Cole, & Bryant P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Blank, Meenan & Smith, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Timothy Elliott, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alan Levine, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Christa Calamas, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Mail Station 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a settlement agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached settlement agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED this_/6 & day of May _ , 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Agency for Health Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A Filed May 23, 2014 8:36 AM Division of Administrative Hearings SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Theodore E Mack Powell & Mack 3700 Belwood Drive Tallahassee, Fl 32303 tmack@talstar.com (Via Electronic Mail) Shena L. Grantham Assistant General Counsel Mercedes Bosque, Audit Administrator (Interoffice mail) Finance & Accounting (Interoffice mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE — | HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served on the ween persons by Electronic Mail/U.S. Mail or interoffice mail as indicated on this the _/ 7 ay 0: . a, 4 . = AN Sa) State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue The issue is whether Windmoor has standing to challenge AHCA's award of Certificate of Need No. 10074 to Community to establish a Class III Specialty Psychiatric Hospital in New Port Richey, Florida.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency responsible for administering the CON program, and is authorized to evaluate and make final determinations on CON applications pursuant to the Health Facilities and Services Development Act, sections 408.031-.045, Florida Statutes. Community Community Hospital owns and operates a 389-bed Class I general acute care hospital, comprised of 343 acute care beds and 46 adult psychiatric beds, currently located at 5637 Marine Parkway, New Port Richey, Pasco County, Florida, AHCA Health Planning District 5. AHCA previously awarded CON No. 9539 to Community authorizing construction of a replacement facility in an area known as Trinity, approximately 5.5 miles southeast of Community's current location. The Trinity replacement hospital facility is currently under construction and scheduled for occupancy in November 2011. The route between the Trinity and Community campuses is a drive of approximately one mile on a two-lane road leading into State Road 54, a six-lane divided highway. Trinity Medical Center campus is located on State Road 54. Windmoor Windmoor is a licensed Class III Specialty Hospital with 78 adult psychiatric beds and 22 adult substance abuse beds, located in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. Windmoor is an existing provider of adult psychiatric services located within the same Health Planning District 5 as Community. Windmoor's facility has remained in its current location since its inception in 1987. That year, Windmoor had 200 adult psychiatric beds, which were reduced in 1996 to 163. In 2001, the number of adult psychiatric beds was reduced to its current 100. Windmoor has the capability of adding 40 to 60 additional beds. Windmoor's parent corporation is Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. (PSI), a publicly traded company based in Franklin, Tennessee, that also owns psychiatric hospitals in other states. PSI also owns at least seven other psychiatric hospitals in Florida, as well as other treatment facilities. PSI acquired all of its Florida facilities within the past five years, including Windmoor in 2006. On November 15, 2010, PSI was acquired by Universal Health Systems, which owns and operates psychiatric hospitals and general acute care hospitals throughout the United States, including Florida. This is the first CON proceeding in which Windmoor has participated. District 5 Providers District 5 consists of Pasco and Pinellas Counties. At the time the CON application was filed, Pasco County had two adult inpatient psychiatric providers: Community and Florida Hospital Zephyrhills with 15 beds. The Pinellas County providers were Morton Plant Hospital (Clearwater), St. Anthony's Hospital, Sun Coast Hospital (now known as Largo Medical Center- Indian Rocks) (Largo), and Windmoor. Windmoor was the only Class III specialty psychiatric hospital in District 5. Additionally, new CON-approved adult psychiatric beds included 17 at Largo, and approval for Ten Broeck Tampa, Inc., to construct a new 35-bed Class III adult psychiatric hospital in Pasco County. Also, Morton Plant North Bay Recovery Center (NB Recovery Center) had received CON exemptions to establish 56 adult psychiatric beds at its new Class III facility in Pasco County which had already been approved for 10 child/adolescent psychiatric beds. NB Recovery Center is a new entrant into the market, having opened its Class III psychiatric hospital in August 2010. This Class III psychiatric hospital is on the same license as North Bay Hospitals' Class I general acute care hospital (North Bay). North Bay is located about one mile north of Community. The approximate distances of the District 5 providers from Community are: NB Recovery Center, 19 miles; Florida Hospital Zephyrhills, 40 miles; Morton Plant Hospital, 24 miles; and Windmoor, 26 miles. Also, Largo, like Community, is an HCA affiliated hospital located approximately nine miles north-northwest of Windmoor, and two to four miles south of Morton Plant. St. Anthony's Hospital is located in downtown St. Petersburg. CON approvals and exemptions are no longer reliable predictors of bed inventory since existing psychiatric facilities can add beds through CON exemptions at will. Service Areas No overlap exists between Community and Windmoor's service areas. Community's primary service area (PSA) is a nine zip code area located in western Pasco County. Community's secondary service area (SSA) consists of four zip codes in Hernando County to the north, a few zip codes in eastern Pasco County, and a single zip code in the far northwestern corner of Pinellas County - 34689. Community's PSA accounts for 79.4% of its psychiatric discharges. An additional 9.1% of its discharges are from its SSA, defined as any non-PSA zip code from which it receives at least 1% of its discharges. The remaining 11% of Community's discharges are scattered among other areas. All of Community's PSA zip codes are within Pasco County. The only SSA zip code in Pinellas County is in the northwestern corner of the county – 34689, from which Community received only 2% of its discharges. Community derives 84.4% of its discharges from Pasco County, while only 6.9% of discharges originate from Pinellas County residents. Another 5.6% of Community's discharges originate in Hernando County which is outside District 5. Community's psychiatric service area is not expected to change with the implementation of the CON. While Community received 1367 discharges from its PSA, Windmoor received only 97 of its discharges from that PSA. On a percentage basis this is 79.4% versus 4.7% of discharges, respectively. Windmoor did not derive even 1% of its discharges from any single zip code within Community's PSA. When a provider receives less than 1% of its discharges from a particular zip code, that zip code is not appropriately considered part of the provider's PSA or SSA. Further, Windmoor has no significant market share in Community's SSA. On a county basis, while Community derived 84.4% of its psychiatric discharges from Pasco County residents, Windmoor received only 5.9% of its discharges from Pasco County. Conversely, Community derived only 6.9% of its discharges from Pinellas County compared with 73.6% for Windmoor. During the year ending June 2009, among all providers of inpatient psychiatric services to Community's PSA, Community had a 70% market share compared with Windmoor's 4% market share. For Pasco County as a whole, Community had a 52% market share compared with Windmoor's 4% market share. Like Windmoor, Morton Plant had only a 4% market share for both Pasco County and Community's PSA. The conclusion from this analysis is that Community is predominantly a Pasco County provider while Windmoor is predominantly a Pinellas County provider. Windmoor is not a significant provider in either Community's PSA or in Pasco County. Further, there is no physician overlap between the psychiatrists on the respective medical staffs of Community and Windmoor. Community's CON Proposal In its State Agency Action Report concerning Community's CON application, AHCA summarized the proposal: "[t]his project is to keep 46 existing adult inpatient psychiatric beds at their present location following completion of the replacement facility authorized by CON #9539." The proposal is to allow Community's psychiatric facility to remain in the same location with the same bed complement, which will remain unchanged in terms of its historical operations. The psychiatric unit at Community has been located at its current site since at least 1981. A CON is required only because, upon occupancy of the Trinity replacement facility, the continued use of the existing site for its inpatient psychiatric activity would fall within the statutory criteria for projects subject to CON review as an "establishment of additional healthcare facilities." With respect to both hospital campuses, Community will own, operate, and be the licensee of both facilities. All components of patient care will be controlled by a single governing body, and will have a single medical staff, chief medical officer, and CEO. Florida is home to other similarly situated hospitals that own and operate a Class I general acute care hospital and an affiliated Class III licensed specialty hospital on separate campuses. In each case, the Class I and Class III facilities share the same license and license number, owner, and CEO. These facilities include Westchester General Hospital and its affiliated Class III Southern Winds Hospital; Halifax Health Medical Center and its affiliated Halifax Psychiatric Center North; Shands Hospital at the University of Florida and Shands at Vista; and Morton Plant North Bay Hospital and NB Recovery Center. AHCA issues an actual license certificate for each facility for general display at each campus. The approximate distances between the two campuses of these Class I and Class III single license facilities are: Westchester General Hospital and Southern Winds Hospital – nine miles; Halifax Health Medical Center and Halifax Psychiatric Center – 1.5 miles; Shands at the University of Florida and Shands at Vista – 10 miles; and Morton Plant North Bay and NB Recovery Center – 20 miles. The scenario of a Class I hospital with an affiliated Class III hospital with a single license number is considered one licensee with two premises. Psychiatric Services at Community Will Remain Unchanged Implementation of the CON will result in no changes in the current level of health care services provided to patients for both psychiatric and non-psychiatric medical conditions. Those patients who might currently be transported internally to the psychiatric unit behavioral health unit or (BHU) upon discharge from non-psychiatric medical units of the hospital will now be transported by vehicle to the BHU campus if the patient requires transport assistance. The transport of psychiatric patients is not material to the discussion of whether the two campuses are, in fact, one hospital. Patients cannot be admitted to the BHU until they have been medically cleared of any non-psychiatric medical conditions that would require inpatient medical care. "Medically cleared" means the patient no longer requires medical/surgical inpatient care. Those processes and requirements will not change as a result of implementation of the CON. Community currently provides transport services for all types of patients. Those services will continue for patients between the two campuses, including any psychiatric patients who may need transport assistance. AHCA has never had a regulatory issue involving the movement of patients among different facilities that are operated by one licensee. AHCA has no concern about the ability of hospitals to transport patients among their various facilities, including any hospital provider-based services. Under federal regulations such services may be provided at locations up to 35 miles from the main hospital campus. A psychiatric patient presenting to a hospital's emergency department (ED) is handled the same initially as any patient. The patient undergoes triage and is seen by an ED physician. If the patient exhibits both psychiatric and non- psychiatric medical conditions, the ED physician calls a psychiatrist and together they will determine the primary diagnosis. If an ED patient has achieved medical stability, and is ready to be medically discharged from the ED, yet still suffers from a psychiatric condition, the ED physician will call in a psychiatrist to participate in the disposition of the patient. If the primary diagnosis for a patient is medical or emergent, but with a secondary or co-morbid psychiatric condition, the patient receives medical/surgical care with a psychiatrist serving as a consulting physician. If deemed appropriate, the patient would be admitted to the medical/surgical unit for care until reaching medical stability. While on the medical/surgical unit, the patient needing psychiatric care would receive it from a psychiatrist while on the medical/surgical unit. Once medically cleared for discharge, the patient requiring further inpatient psychiatric care would be transferred to the BHU. Once in the BHU, the patient would still receive any necessary care for any non- psychiatric conditions from the appropriate physicians. This system will not change with the implementation of the CON. Coverage of the BHU by hospitalists and other members of the medical staff who do rounds will not change as a result of implementation of the CON. Some patients will achieve medical stability for both the psychiatric and non-psychiatric conditions from which they suffer, and will therefore not be admitted to the BHU upon discharge from the ED or medical/surgical unit. As reflected in Community's policies and procedures, all BHU patients must be admitted under the care of a psychiatrist, and can only be discharged by a psychiatrist. Every BHU patient also receives a general medical history and physical examination performed by a consulting medical physician. Non-psychiatrist medical staff physicians are always available for consultation to the psychiatrist and other clinical staff while the patient stays in the BHU. Community's current practices with respect to psychiatric patient services and physician coverage will not change due to implementation of the CON. AHCA's Review of Community's CON Application AHCA gave notice of its intent to approve CON No. 10074 in the June 25, 2010, Florida Administrative Weekly. In AHCA's view, the status quo will be maintained by the issuance of the CON. Nothing will be different in the way Community delivers its health care services in District 5. This is a case where the applicant has to go through the CON process to arrive at the same place it already was. AHCA expects no change at all. AHCA concluded that "this project is not likely to change the current competitive structure of the existing market." By that conclusion, AHCA intended to convey a lack of adverse impact on existing providers based upon CON approval. Particularly due to deregulation, AHCA believes there have already been significant changes to the competitive structure of the District 5 market, such as psychiatric bed additions through CON exemption, CON approval of a new Ten Broeck psychiatric hospital, and upcoming shifts toward greater Medicaid HMO reimbursement and associated federal health care reform legislation. Conversely, the Agency projects no impact from Community's CON. Lack of Adverse Impact Adverse impact analyses typically arise from a new entrant to the market. Community's proposal does not present a new entrant to the market for inpatient psychiatric services. Adverse impact will occur when a new provider enters a service area or an existing provider increases its capacity to offer services. Neither of those will occur as a result of Community's CON. None of the conditions that could lead to an adverse impact is present. Implementation of the Community CON will have no adverse impact or effect on existing providers because Community will continue to have the same historic PSA and its market shares will remain the same, except for potential market changes unrelated to the CON, such as entrance of new providers. This case is unique. For example, Ms. Patricia Greenberg, Windmoor's highly qualified and experienced expert in health care planning, has never been involved in a case such as this where the applicant sought approval to remain at its current location. The typical CON application seeks permission for a new provider, facility, for beds, or services to enter a particular market for the first time. In the typical case, health care planners will agree that some shift in market share will occur among existing providers as the result of the new entrant to the market. Ms. Greenberg's adverse impact analysis did not take into account the new market entrants such as Ten Broeck and NB Recovery Center, even though she expects them to have a greater impact on Community, due in part to geography. Health care planners develop adverse impact analyses that attempt to estimate the future shift in market shares. From there, the planner will attempt to project a number of lost patients per provider, and then apply a financial impact. Regarding Community's proposal, since there will be no new entrant into the market, the typical adverse analysis cannot be performed. Windmoor, through Ms. Greenberg, creatively developed four theories of adverse impact that could result from the status quo. Each of Windmoor's theories is premised on assumptions that Community will cease providing certain clinical services that will result in Community losing the capability to serve some of its psychiatric patients. However, Windmoor provided no clinical evidence to support its alleged changes to Community's clinical services. Indeed, all clinical evidence in the record confirms that Community can and will continue its current clinical services to all patients, including its BHU patients. The four impact theories offered by Windmoor are each based upon the unproven assumption that CON implementation will transform Community into two separate unaffiliated hospitals as opposed to a single hospital with two campuses. From that assumption, Ms. Greenberg contended there are two, and only two, categories of psychiatric facilities, which she labeled as either a "hospital based unit" or a "freestanding" facility. Ms. Greenberg defined "hospital based unit" (HBU) as either located inside a hospital or on the campus of a general hospital. She defined "freestanding" as any facility that is not co-located with a general hospital on the same campus. Ms. Greenberg did not consider or address a category of commonly owned and operated Class I general acute care hospitals affiliated with Class III psychiatric hospitals. Ms. Greenberg did not recognize the existence in Florida of several general hospital affiliated Class III psychiatric hospitals. The fact that two hospital campuses of Class I and Class III facilities exist is irrelevant, so long as in reasonable proximity to one another. The relevant factors are whether the two campuses share the same: 1) license number, 2) ownership, 3) hospital administration, and 4) medical staff. If these factors are present, it is incorrect to characterize one of the two facilities or campuses as "freestanding" because that implies no connection to a general acute care hospital. Community is a general acute care hospital with an affiliated psychiatric facility which is in no sense "freestanding." Ms. Greenberg's attempt to compare statewide data for various patient characteristics between facilities that she defines as "freestanding" versus HBUs is not persuasive, primarily because it is built upon the incorrect assumption that Community and other Florida hospitals cannot operate a Class I general acute care hospital and a Class III specialty psychiatric hospital under the same license. Characteristics such as payor source or patient mix are influenced by a number of factors other than simply whether an inpatient program is "freestanding" or "hospital based," as defined by Ms. Greenberg, including influences such as age composition of the service area, income distribution, and whether the hospital is located in an urban or rural area, to cite but a few. Attempts to draw generalizations from such data and then conclude that Community will be more like a HBU than a freestanding or vice versa, is without merit. Ms. Greenberg's data indicates that Community falls into her defined HBU categories in some respects while, in other respects, falls into her freestanding categories. This type of analysis is not sound. Community will not transform into a "freestanding" facility as defined by Ms. Greenberg, as a result of this CON. Moreover, many people with a primary diagnosis of psychosis are treated in hospitals that do not have inpatient psychiatric beds. In 2008, psychosis was the number one discharge diagnosis for all males in Florida hospitals, and was the number three diagnosis for all females behind conditions associated with pregnancy. Simply looking at discharge data by diagnosis between freestanding and HBUs as defined by Ms. Greenberg is not a meaningful analysis. Every adverse impact scenario presented by Windmoor is based upon the incorrect premise that implementation of Community's CON will result in Community becoming a "freestanding" facility as defined by Ms. Greenberg. For this reason alone, none of Ms. Greenberg's adverse impact theories is valid and each must be rejected. Another common thread running through Windmoor's impact theories is the assertion that, based again upon the false "freestanding" presumption, Community's patient mix will change due to changes in clinical services available to patients, such as ED services, no medical environment for comprehensive treatment, and certain patients allegedly no longer clinically appropriate for Community's HBU. There is no evidence in the record to support such claims, either operationally or clinically. All of Ms. Greenberg's impact theories lead to the contention that CON implementation will result in Community being adversely affected by its own CON through the loss of psychiatric patients. Ms. Greenberg further speculates that because of her asserted loss of patients, Community would need to replace those patients ("backfill") with patients who might otherwise be admitted to a competing hospital. As explained previously, however, there is virtually no overlap of service area or competition between Windmoor and Community as reflected by their respective service areas. Community does not contact health care providers in Windmoor's service area regarding the availability of Community's psychiatric services. In fact, Largo, a sister facility of Community, is an inpatient provider located between Community and Windmoor. Community would not actively seek patients in those areas of Pinellas County. It is neither reasonable to expect, nor was any credible evidence presented, that to make up for lost patients, Community would go outside its current PSA into the Windmoor area to seek patients when it has its sister Largo facility near Windmoor. As stated above, Windmoor, through Ms. Greenberg, offered four adverse impact scenarios. All four scenarios are premised upon the assumption that CON implementation will transform Community's BHU into a "freestanding" facility. The premise is not correct for the reasons stated above, primarily that AHCA recognizes the ability of hospitals in Florida to have Class I general acute care facilities along with Class III specialty psychiatric hospitals under the same license, ownership, management, etc. Further, all four scenarios are based upon Ms. Greenberg's theory of "backfill" under which Community will have to make up lost patients by intruding into Windmoor's service area. The evidence supports the assertion that Community expects no lost admissions because its PSA and SSA will not change, nor will the type and extent of services it provides, including ED, medical/surgical, and a unified medical staff, change upon implementation of the CON. Medicaid Windmoor asserted that Community would lose its eligibility to receive reimbursement for services under the Medicaid program if the CON were implemented. This assertion was not supported by the evidence presented by Windmoor. Moreover, the evidence presented by Community and AHCA negated Windmoor's assertion. Prior to the filing of the CON application omissions response, Community representatives met with AHCA personnel and confirmed its continued Medicaid reimbursement eligibility, which to Community was never an issue. Community's CON application proposed a Medicaid CON condition, and contained numerous statements of expected continued ability to serve Medicaid fee-for-service patients. AHCA accepted the proposed CON condition when recommending approval of the application. Community expects to satisfy the Medicaid CON conditions. AHCA's Deputy Secretary for Medicaid, Roberta Bradford, subsequently confirmed by letter to Community that, based upon Community's representations of satisfaction of certain applicable criteria, Community's proposed 46-bed inpatient psychiatric hospital would continue to be eligible for Medicaid participation. The determination of a facility's Medicaid reimbursement is a state determination, rather than a federal CMS decision. In Florida, that determination is ultimately made by AHCA's Deputy Secretary for Medicaid, Ms. Bradford. Windmoor elicited testimony from Community to show that each of the following services would not be physically present on the campus of the Class III psychiatric hospital portion of Community following CON implementation: ED, emergency cardiac catheterization and angioplasty services, surgical and operating suites, stroke center designation, CT equipment, and the full range of medical services currently available on site at Community. Community will, however, continue to operate all of these services in the Class I acute care hospital campus, which will be under the unified license with the psychiatric campus. Satisfaction of the Medicaid letter criteria from AHCA was confirmed at hearing. The criteria include: Community will own and operate both locations and be the licensee of both facilities; all components of patient care at the facilities will be controlled by a single governing body; one Chief Medical Officer will be responsible for all medical staff activities at both facilities; one Chief Executive Officer will control both facilities' administrative activities; and the two facilities are situated closely enough geographically that it is feasible to operate them as a single entity. Mr. Jeffrey N. Gregg, AHCA's head of CON review, is satisfied that the Class III licensed Community facility will maintain its Medicaid eligibility. Southern Winds, Halifax Psychiatric Center, and Shands at Vista receive Medicaid fee-for-service reimbursement, and are similarly situated to Community. Mr. Gregg also expects NB Recovery Center to receive this type of Medicaid reimbursement when it initiates its service. Ms. Greenberg has been aware for at least 10 years that Class III psychiatric facilities affiliated with general hospitals in Florida receive fee-for-service reimbursement. She testified that if AHCA determines that Community is Medicaid eligible, her scenario related to Community losing its Medicaid eligibility "would go away." Moreover, due to recent legislative changes that will expand the use of Medicaid HMOs, the majority of Medicaid reimbursement is soon going to be under Medicaid HMOs. Class III psychiatric hospitals that are not affiliated with or on the same campus as a general acute care hospital, such as Windmoor, are eligible for Medicaid HMO reimbursement versus Medicaid fee- for-service reimbursement. Summary of Impact Analysis Conclusions All of Windmoor's adverse impact claims are based on a series of false and erroneous assumptions, none of which is supported by the evidence of record. In fact, most of the claims in the form of four scenarios are based upon ignoring the fact that what Community proposes here is not so unique in Florida. Many Florida health care facilities currently operate both Class I general acute care hospitals and Class III specialty psychiatric hospitals under the same license, management, and receive Medicaid fee-for-service reimbursement, while maintaining two physically separate campuses. This should have been common knowledge for an existing provider such as Windmoor, which based its entire case, adverse impact scenario, and decision to go forward with the hearing in this case on a series of erroneous assumptions. Windmoor offered several theories about how it would suffer a substantial and adverse impact in the event Community's CON application is approved, yet offered no competent evidence to support its claims. Windmoor failed to demonstrate that Community would lose any psychiatric patient admissions and be forced to seek admissions from Windmoor's PSA or SSA to keep its beds full. Windmoor failed to provide competent evidence that it will be adversely affected by the approval of Community's CON. Community's CON will have no impact on Windmoor.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a final order dismissing Windmoor's Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing due to lack of standing to challenge the award of CON No. 10074. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy Bruce Elliott, Esquire Smith & Associates 2873 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard Joseph Saliba, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia & Purnell, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Healthcare Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Justin Senior, General Counsel Agency for Healthcare Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Healthcare Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
