Findings Of Fact At the final hearing, the parties agreed to the following facts: The Respondent Garcia-Lavin is not presently, nor has she been at any time in the past, a board eligible or board certified psychiatrist; the term "board" referring to the American Board of Psychiatry or the American Osteopathic Board of Neurology and Psychiatry. In September, 1981, the Department sent to all providers of medicaid psychiatric services, including the Respondent Garcia-Lavin, a letter requesting verification of board certification or eligibility. The Respondent received her letter and informed the Department that she was not a provider of psychiatric services. Subsequent to the receipt of this letter, the Respondent Garcia-Lavin stopped billing the state for psychiatric services provided by her to medicaid patients. Pursuant to a medicaid program audit, the Department determined that between January 1, 1980 and October 5, 1980, the Respondent was paid $7,212.06 for medicaid psychiatric services provided when she was ineligible to participate in the program. On July 8, 1982, the Department notified the Respondent Garcia-Lavin that the billings during this ten-month period were improper, represented overpayments and demanded repayment of such monies. The Respondent Garcia-Lavin does not dispute that she was ineligible to participate in the program. Her position however, is that once the Department notified her that she was ineligible she stopped billing the state, and, had the Department notified her earlier, she would not have seen the patients in question. Due to the Department's failure to notify her of her ineligibility, the Respondent asserts that she should not be required to reimburse the Department for patients seen prior to such notification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, requiring the Respondent Marta S. Garcia-Lavin to reimburse $7,212.06, which represents the sum of improper payments made between January 1, 1980 and October 5, 1980. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Weiss, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Suite 406 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marta S. Garcia-Lavin, M.D. 590 East 25th Street, Ste. 401 Hialeah, Florida 33013 Alicia Jacobs, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a physician licensed to practice in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0025685. For 18 years prior to the event complained of herein, Respondent worked at Indian River Memorial Hospital, where he practiced as an anaesthesiologist. Also prior to the event complained of herein, Respondent was a tri- athlete, training in swimming, biking, and running. During the summer of 1992 he competed in five or six tri-athalons and did quite well in his age class. Respondent was also a snow skier. In accordance with his physical fitness values, Respondent does not drink alcoholic beverages or smoke cigarettes. He is also a vegetarian. Peter G. Wernicke is an orthopedic surgeon in the Vero Beach area. After arriving there, he and Respondent became social friends and went on ski trips together. He also became Respondent's treating physician, caring for Respondent when Respondent suffered broken bones, strains, and sprains as a result of his sporting activities. In early winter of 1992 Respondent seriously injured his knee while snow skiing. Respondent discussed his need for surgery with Wernicke after Respondent returned to the Vero Beach area. Wernicke was insistent that he perform Respondent's knee surgery, but Respondent wanted to have the surgery performed by Dr. Richard Steadman in Vail, Colorado, since he believed that Dr. Steadman was probably the best in the world at taking care of that particular kind of knee injury. Wernicke then insisted that Respondent allow Wernicke to perform the knee surgery with Respondent awake, and once the knee was opened up, Wernicke and Respondent would look at it and decide whether it was something Wernicke was able to take care of or if the knee should be closed and Respondent would then go to whomever he wanted to have the surgery performed. Respondent would not agree to that approach since he well understood that opening the knee twice would double Respondent's risk of infection in that injured knee. Up to the time that Respondent left to travel to Vail for his knee surgery, Wernicke maintained that he was not giving Respondent his blessing for having the surgery performed by someone else. Respondent went to Vail and had Dr. Steadman perform the surgery in early December of 1992. Respondent remained in Vail post-operatively undergoing physical therapy which commenced within hours of surgery being completed to increase his chances of obtaining full range of motion with that knee by keeping it moving and preventing scarring. Respondent returned to Vero Beach on December 13 and returned to work the next morning, working a full shift that day. After his shift was over, he drove himself to Orlando for a meeting. While in Orlando, Respondent began to have very severe pain and swelling in his knee. He drove back to Vero Beach, arriving at his home at approximately 9:30 p.m. Upon his arrival, he telephoned Wernicke, told Wernicke he was in a great deal of pain, and begged Wernicke to help him by meeting him at the hospital and looking at Respondent's knee. Wernicke told Respondent that he would not go to the hospital to meet Respondent, that Respondent should elevate his knee and apply ice, and then see Wernicke in the morning. Respondent elevated his leg and applied ice for the next few hours. By approximately midnight the pain had become "absolutely excruciating," unlike any Respondent had experienced with all of his broken bones and other sports injuries. Although Respondent's tolerance for pain was high enough that he had gone through the surgery performed by Dr. Steadman without pain pills and had tolerated getting on an exercise bike 12 hours after that surgery, Respondent knew that he could no longer endure the pain, that he had a serious problem with his post-operative knee, and that he needed to get help immediately. Respondent got himself up with crutches and got in the car to drive himself to the emergency room. While driving, he telephoned the emergency room at Indian River Memorial Hospital and told the staff he was on his way there and asked the name of the orthopedist who was on call. He was advised that Dr. Wernicke was not only on call, but was present in the emergency room at that moment. Respondent told the emergency room staff to tell Wernicke to wait for him. Respondent then called the operating room at Indian River Memorial Hospital and asked if an anaesthesiologist were there so he could get something to relieve his pain. He was told that Dr. Brennan had just finished with surgery and had taken the patient to the intensive care unit. Respondent then asked for two things: (1) to have Dr. Brennan go to the emergency room to take care of Respondent and (2) to bring Respondent's anaesthesia cart to the emergency room. The operating room staff agreed. Respondent's requests resulted from his experience with that hospital's emergency room staff and procedures. He knew he needed medication for his knee and for his pain. He knew that Dr. Brennan was not employed by the hospital and did not have his own anaesthesia cart there. He knew that the emergency room staff were notoriously slow in responding to patient needs or doctor requests. Therefore, over the years, Respondent had learned that whenever he was called to the emergency room, the patient was better served if Respondent took his own anaesthesia cart and supplies with him. As a result of his telephoning ahead, Respondent's arrival was expected. Dr. Wernicke waited for him. Someone took Respondent's anaesthesia cart to the emergency room and placed it next to a stretcher. Dr. Brennan was paged and told that Respondent needed him in the emergency room, and Dr. Brennan went to the emergency room to assist his colleague. When Brennan got there, Respondent had not yet arrived, but Wernicke was present. Brennan told Wernicke he was there to help with Respondent. For whatever reason, Wernicke told Brennan that Brennan was not needed and told him to leave. Before leaving the emergency room, Brennan told Wernicke that if he were needed he would be nearby in the intensive care unit and to please summon him. Respondent arrived at the hospital emergency room on crutches. The emergency room was currently under construction and had no dividing walls or partitions so that it was simply one room in which everyone could see everything occurring. There were no patients in the emergency room when Respondent arrived, but there were three or four nurses and the emergency room doctor at the nurses' station. Respondent went to the nurses' station to be admitted. He was told that he should wait in the lobby and he would be called when they were ready to begin the admission process. Respondent refused to do that, told them he was in excruciating pain, and insisted that he be given the emergency room release form and financial responsibility form to sign and be taken to one of the emergency room stretchers. He was given the forms to sign, which he did, and he was then escorted to the stretcher next to his anaesthesia cart. For the remainder of his time in the emergency room, Respondent remained on that stretcher which was no more than 30 feet from the nurses' station. No chart for his emergency room visit was prepared by the hospital personnel. Further, no one took his vital signs; no one took his blood pressure; no one asked what his problem or complaints were which caused his visit; and no one asked whether Respondent had any allergies or had recently eaten. Respondent lay on the stretcher waiting for Wernicke to return to the emergency room for approximately five minutes. When Wernicke came in, he was wearing a big smile. He remarked to Respondent that Wernicke could see that Respondent had a problem with his knee. Wernicke then gave one swipe across Respondent's knee with an alcohol swab and prepared to jab an 18 gauge needle into the knee to aspirate it, i.e., to drain the fluid. Respondent became terrified and told Wernicke to stop. Respondent's terror was caused by two fears. First, it was apparent that his knee was full of blood. He knew that blood outside of its normal confines is an irritant which causes inflammation and he knew that it was also the perfect medium in which bacteria could grow. He also knew that the risk of infection in his knee was substantial because it was a post-operative knee. Infection in such a knee presents a best-case scenario of a damaged knee and a worst-case scenario of rendering him a cripple, requiring a total knee replacement. Yet, Respondent saw that Wernicke intended to stick the needle into Respondent's dirty knee without even using a Betadine preparation to remove bacteria from the skin. Second, Respondent was in "unbelievable" pain from the significant swelling in his knee. The surgical incisions above and below his knee had ruptured from the pressure caused by the swelling. In order for Wernicke to aspirate Respondent's knee, it would be necessary for him to poke his fingers into the swollen knee area in order to locate the right place to stick the needle, and it was impossible for Respondent to hold his leg still for Dr. Wernicke to palpate, let alone insert the needle in the correct location. Respondent told Wernicke that he needed an I.V. started; that he needed Kefzol, an I.V. antibiotic, to prevent infection; that he needed Toradol intravenously for its anti-inflammatory effect; and that he was in very, very severe pain and needed pain medication so he could hold his leg still for Wernicke to aspirate. Although Wernicke recognized that Respondent was in significant, severe pain, he told Respondent he would agree to the antibiotic and he would agree to the anti-inflammatory, but that he didn't think Respondent needed anything for pain. Respondent's anaesthesia cart was not equipped with I.V. fluids. Someone brought an I.V. bag and set-up. Respondent does not know who brought the I.V. and whether it was on Dr. Wernicke's order or ordered by the emergency room doctor, but Respondent did not order the I.V. brought. No one offered to start Respondent's I.V. for him, and Wernicke did not tell Respondent that Dr. Brennan had come to the emergency room, had been sent away by Wernicke but was nearby, and had told Wernicke to summon him if he were needed. Wernicke kept telling Respondent to hurry up because it was late and he wanted to go home. He told Respondent that they needed to get finished because Wernicke was doing Respondent a favor just by being there. Respondent, while still lying on his stretcher, started his own I.V. Wernicke assisted Respondent by handing him tape for the I.V. since Respondent was performing the task with one hand. Respondent then removed his medication box from the bottom of his anaesthesia cart. He took out an ampule of Kefzol, a dry powder. He took a syringe and drew fluid from the I.V. that was running into him and mixed up that dry powder antibiotic by flushing it back and forth. He then gave the antibiotic to himself. He attempted to delay Wernicke from inserting the needle into his knee until after the antibiotic could circulate through his system and get to his knee before any bacteria was introduced, a process which would take approximately six minutes to complete enough circulations. Respondent next prepped his own knee with Betadine solution while Dr. Wernicke continued to stand there by his side, watching him. Respondent then took an ampule of Toradol, a new anti-inflammatory medication, and gave himself 60 milligrams intravenously, while Wernicke stood and watched. Although that anti-inflammatory medication would also serve to reduce Respondent's pain, Toradol is a slow-acting medication in that regard, having a slow onset but thereafter lasting for a number of hours. Respondent then removed from his medication box a 5 cc ampule of Alfenta. That ampule is a 2 1/2 inch object made of glass with its name in blue lettering on the outside, large enough to read. Alfenta is a Schedule II controlled substance and is a narcotic. Alfenta has a fast onset and a fast offset; it works in 30 to 60 seconds, and its effect lasts for approximately 10 minutes. While Dr. Wernicke watched, Respondent filled a needle and gave himself 1 cc of Alfenta which is a very conservative test dose for a man weighing 190 pounds who is in good condition. Respondent then waited a minute or a minute and a half to see what effect it had on his pain level and trembling leg. It had very little effect. Therefore, Respondent injected an additional 1/2 cc and waited. That additional amount was sufficient. Wernicke watched as Respondent gave himself the Alfenta, standing, as he had been, within inches of Respondent. As he injected the medications, Respondent filled out the chart on his anaesthesia cart, noting the medication, the dosage, and that he was the patient. Respondent then laid back on the stretcher, closed his eyes, and then told Wernicke he was ready. Wernicke then palpated Respondent's knee and inserted the needle to aspirate Respondent's knee. The pressure in his knee was so high that it blew the syringe back. Wernicke commented that he had never before seen that happen and had never seen pressure like that. Wernicke withdrew approximately 100 ccs of fluid from Respondent's knee, commenting that he did not think he'd seen one with more volume. Although initially Wernicke had said that he did not agree that Respondent needed any pain medication, Wernicke totally acquiesced in everything Respondent did to assist Wernicke in treating Respondent. Wernicke accepted Respondent's judgment and watched Respondent execute step by step the course of treatment Respondent said was needed to render proper medical treatment. Wernicke totally agreed and acquiesced with the use of Alfenta as much as he did the antibiotic and the anti-inflammatory as evidenced by Wernicke's own conduct. Wernicke never told Respondent to stop doing Wernicke's work for him. Wernicke never told him not to administer the medications. Wernicke never suggested that he or someone else perform the administration. Wernicke could have easily stopped Respondent who was laying on a stretcher but did not. Wernicke knew that Alfenta was a pain killer and a narcotic. He did nothing to stop or prevent Respondent from injecting a medication Respondent needed. Further, Wernicke continued to treat Respondent after the administration of Alfenta by thereafter performing the aspiration. After he completed the aspiration, Wernicke left. Respondent lay on the stretcher for a little while. The nurses and the emergency room doctor remained at the nurses' station, and there were still no other patients in the emergency room. Respondent asked if someone would bring him a wheelchair so he could leave, and he was told that they were too busy. Respondent took his crutches and hobbled out of the emergency room. The next morning Respondent reported to work for his regular shift which began at 7:00 a.m. After Respondent completed the first case on his shift that day, at approximately 10:30 to 11:30 a.m. he called Haynes McDaniel, the hospital's pharmacist, and told him what had happened the night before, what medications Respondent had used, and that he had used the medications on himself. Respondent said he needed to do whatever paperwork the pharmacist wanted and specifically asked the pharmacist to bill him for the medications he had used. McDaniel told Respondent that there was no problem regarding the Kefzol and the Toradol and that he would simply send Respondent a bill for those medications; however, as to the Alfenta, the pharmacist needed a prescription for his records. McDaniel asked Respondent who the attending physician had been, and Respondent told him that Peter Wernicke was the attending doctor. McDaniel told Respondent to get a prescription from Wernicke for the Alfenta so that the hospital record keeping would be proper. Respondent went to Wernicke and asked him for a prescription for the Alfenta that had been used, and Wernicke refused. Respondent then personally went to McDaniel and told him that Wernicke would not write the prescription and told McDaniel why, i.e., that Wernicke was still mad that Respondent had not considered him good enough to do Respondent's surgery. McDaniel asked Respondent who could write the prescription because Respondent needed a prescription from somebody and Respondent could not write the prescription for himself. Respondent told McDaniel that he had asked Dr. Brennan to be there to give him the pain medication, that Dr. Brennan had never showed up, but that Brennan was in the hospital at the time the medication was administered. McDaniel suggested that Respondent see if Brennan would sign a prescription. Respondent went to Brennan's office and told Brennan exactly what had happened. He told Brennan he had given himself 1 1/2 ccs of Alfenta and that Wernicke was the attending physician. He told Brennan that Respondent had self- administered and why, that Wernicke had refused to write the prescription and why, and that Haynes McDaniel had suggested that Brennan could sign the prescription for the hospital's records. Dr. Brennan became upset that he had not been there to help when his colleague needed him, agreed to sign the prescription, and offered Respondent pain pills or anything else Respondent needed for what remained a painful knee and leg. Respondent declined the offer of any additional medication. In good faith and in the course of his professional practice, Dr. Brennan signed a prescription for 1 1/2 ccs of Alfenta for Respondent. Respondent then hand- delivered that prescription to the pharmacist. After receiving the prescription from Respondent, the pharmacist wrote an Unusual Occurrence Report dated December 16, 1992. In January of 1993 the hospital summarily suspended Respondent's privileges, and he has been unable to practice medicine since that time. Respondent's emergency room visit happened on a Monday evening. On the following Thursday, Respondent and Wernicke's partner Dr. Jim Cain were in the doctor's lounge together. Respondent told Cain that his leg really hurt him and was swollen, and Cain offered to look at it. Respondent pulled up his scrub suit and showed Cain his calf which was twice its normal size and "hot". Cain suggested that Respondent get an ultrasound and get some blood thinner since it looked as though Respondent had developed phlebitis, a dangerous condition. Respondent immediately went to the x-ray department and had an ultrasound performed. The ultrasound revealed that Respondent had compartment syndrome in his calf, four days after the aspiration was performed. Dr. Wernicke's office notes regarding Respondent's emergency room visit, supposedly dictated that same evening or the following day, discussed the ultrasound that Respondent had. Accordingly, Dr. Wernicke did not dictate his notes regarding his treatment of Respondent on Monday evening or on Tuesday. Those notes, however, do bear Tuesday's date and are included in the hospital's medical record for Respondent's emergency room visit. The medical chart created by the hospital was likely created on December 21, 1992, the date stated on the Unusual Occurrence Report as the date the chart was initiated. The chart which thereafter purports to be Respondent's emergency room record is actually a composite of different patients' charts. To the extent it purports to be Respondent's chart, the entries contained therein are false. The Alfenta used by Respondent was an appropriate drug for the purpose for which it was used. It is a rapid but short-acting narcotic analgesic when given in the amount in which it was given. Further, the amount of Alfenta administered was an appropriate dose. Respondent used the Alfenta because it was an appropriate drug for immediate relief so he could endure the palpation and aspiration of his knee and so he could stop his leg from trembling allowing Wernicke to aspirate it. He knew the Alfenta would be worn off even before the analgesic effect of the anti- inflammatory medication was felt. It is noteworthy that all physicians who testified in this proceeding rated the pain Respondent was in as between eight and ten on a pain scale where ten is the worst. Respondent did not use Alfenta as a result of any addiction, and his use of the drug under the circumstances in this case was not related to any abuse of narcotics. Respondent has not exhibited any of the behavior of a drug user. Respondent did not engage in any attempt to "cover up" his administration of Alfenta to himself. He called the hospital and requested his anaesthesia cart be brought and that an anaesthesiologist come to the emergency room to administer the medication. The administration occurred with the implicit consent of Wernicke and it took place in front of Wernicke, in front of three or four emergency room nurses, and in front of the emergency room doctor. At the time, he filled out the narcotics record on his anaesthesia cart and telephoned the hospital's pharmacist the following day to tell him what had occurred and request that he be billed for the medication he used. His giving the hospital a prescription from Dr. Brennan was caused by Wernicke's refusal to document the treatment he rendered to Respondent, by Respondent's inability to write his own prescription, and was in response to the hospital's specific request that a prescription be written for the purpose of the hospital's record keeping. Further, Dr. Wernicke knew what had happened, as did the other emergency room personnel present that evening, and Respondent fully disclosed the events that had occurred to both Dr. Brennan and to the hospital pharmacist. Respondent's use of Alfenta on December 14, 1992, was not in any way related to patient care and had no impact on any patient care rendered by Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him in this cause. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of March, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-6 and 9-12 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 8, 13, 14, and 16 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 15 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 3-19, 21-31, 33-35, 38-40, 42, 43, and 45 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 20, 32, 36, 37, and 44 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 41 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur B. Skafidas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Joseph L. Mannikko, Esquire 215 South Federal Highway, Suite 100 Stuart, Florida 34994 Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Tom Wallace, Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Arnaldo Carmouze, P.A., committed violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes (2001), alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed with Petitioner on February 25, 2004, in DOH Case Number 2002- 16502, as amended; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his license to practice as a physician assistant in Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians and physician’s assistants licensed to practice medicine in Florida. § 20.43 and Chs. 456 and 458, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Arnaldo Carmouze, P.A., is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician's assistant licensed to practice in Florida, having been issued license number PA 9100713. Mr. Carmouze's address of record at all times relevant to this matter is 6545 Southwest 95th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33173. No evidence that Mr. Carmouze has previously been the subject of a license disciplinary proceeding was offered. Mr. Carmouze's Supervising Physician. At the times relevant Mr. Carmouze worked under the supervision of Dr. Manuel Fernandez-Gonzalez, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez, who has practiced emergency medicine, holds Florida medical license number ME 17907. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez currently practices family medicine at 9600 Southwest 8th Street, Miami, Florida. Prior to April 2002, Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez and Mr. Carmouze worked together in Miami, providing emergency room care and seeing patients at a nursing home. The emergency room services were provided pursuant to employment contracts that both had entered into with a company providing emergency room services at the hospital in south Florida where Dr. Fernandez- Gonzalez and Mr. Carmouze provided services. Mr. Carmouze's Assignment to Weems Memorial Hospital. The company for which Mr. Carmouze was employed also provided emergency room services for Weems Memorial Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Weems"). Weems is located in Apalachicola, Florida, located in the Florida Panhandle, approximately 520 miles from Miami. Weems is a rural hospital, licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. It does not have 24-hour, on-site ancillary services such as X-ray, laboratory, and respiratory therapy. These services are available to the emergency room on an on-call basis after business hours. At the times relevant, Malvinder Ajit, M.D., a Florida licensed physician, was the Director of the Emergency Department at Weems. Dr. Ajit has not provided any documentation to the Department indicating that he has ever acted as supervising physician of record for Mr. Carmouze. Mr. Carmouze was assigned by the company by which he was employed to work in the emergency room at Weems in April 2002 and again in June 2002. He worked in the emergency room at Weems as a physician's assistant for part of April 2002, and part of June 2002. While at Weems, Mr. Carmouze provided emergency room medical services to more than 100 patients. While working at Weems, Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez, who remained in Miami, continued to act as Mr. Carmouze's supervising physician. Mr. Carmouze did not notify the Department that he was practicing as a physician's assistant at Weems in April or June 2002. The evidence, however, failed to prove that Mr. Carmouze was working for, and thus "employed," by anyone different from the employer that he worked for in Miami. The only evidence on this issue proved that Mr. Carmouze continued throughout the relevant period to work for Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez and the company that provided emergency room services at Weems. Dr. Carmouze's Treatment of Patient A.M. On June 7, 2002, Patient A.M., an 84-year-old female, was brought to the emergency room (hereinafter referred to as the "ER"), at Weems by ambulance. She arrived at approximately 23:24 hours (11:24 p.m.). A.M.'s medical history included congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation. She presented to Mr. Carmouze in apparent respiratory distress (respiratory rate of 36 to 40), had no measurable blood pressure, and a pulse rate of 100 to 108. While being transported to the ER from her home, A.M. was given oxygen by rebreather mask. During her transport, her oxygen saturation level improved from 68% to 91%. Mr. Carmouze assessed A.M.'s condition, obtained her medical history, ordered lab work and other tests, and ordered and initiated nebulizer treatments for her. She was alert, oriented and had a Glasgow score of 15/15, indicating she was responding to verbal and pain stimuli. Mr. Carmouze ordered nebulizer treatments with albuterol and atrovent to assist her breathing. Additionally, A.M. received 100% oxygen through a nonrebreather mask. Mr. Carmouze also determined that A.M. was "dry," meaning that her fluid volume was depleted and, therefore, she was dehydrated. As a result, her blood pressure was low. In an effort to treat this condition, Mr. Carmouze ordered an I.V. with 0.9 normal saline. He also ordered a Dopamine drip to increase A.M.'s heart rate in an effort to increase her blood pressure. Mr. Carmouze appropriately denied a request from a nurse to administer Lasix to A.M., because A.M. was "dry." Lasix is a diuretic used to decrease fluid volume. It opens the arteries and reduces fluids, thereby lowering blood pressure. Lasix was contraindicated for A.M. and contrary to the appropriate efforts initiated by Mr. Carmouze to treat A.M.'s low blood pressure. Despite Mr. Carmouze's treatment of A.M., her condition continued to deteriorate. At or near 23:50 hours (11:50 p.m.), approximately 25 minutes after A.M. had arrived at the ER, an ER nurse contacted A.M.'s primary physician by telephone and obtained an order to administer Lasix to A.M. The Lasix was administered immediately. A.M.'s oxygen saturation level was 81%, down 10 points since her arrival, when the Lasix was administered. Within half an hour, at 0:18 hours (18 minutes after midnight) on June 8, 2002, A.M.'s oxygen saturation level had dropped another 10 points, to 71%. A.M. then "crashed and coded." Mr. Carmouze initiated appropriate emergency measures when A.M. coded, including initiating Cardio Pulmonary Recitation and endotracheal intubation. A.M. was given epinephrine, atropine, and a CVP line was placed. These actions by Mr. Carmouze were appropriate. Mr. Carmouze did not attempt or order that A.M. be intubated prior to 0:18 hours when she coded. A.M.'s primary physician, Dr. Sanaullah, arrived at the ER. Shortly after she coded, Dr. Sanaullah continued the same efforts initiated by Mr. Carmouze. A.M., however, did not recover, expiring at 01:00. The "Standard of Care" for Treating A.M. Four expert witnesses testified in this matter, rendering opinions as to whether Mr. Carmouze's treatment of A.M. was consistent with "that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar [physician assistant] as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. . . " (hereinafter referred to as the "Standard of Care"). The expert witnesses who testified were Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez, Dr. Julio Lora, Dr. Harry W. Lee, and James L. Cary, P.A. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez's testimony as to whether Mr. Carmouze treated A.M. within the Standard of Care is rejected for lack of credibility. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez's testimony has been found to lack credibility for the reasons explained by Petitioner in paragraph 25 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order. That paragraph, except for the last two sentences, is hereby adopted. Additionally, Dr. Fernandez- Gonzalez's testimony is rejected because, in the undersigned's judgment, he made too much of an effort to give the answers that he appeared to conclude that Mr. Carmouze wanted him to give. The testimony of Dr. Lora on the other hand is found to be credible. Dr. Lora, testifying as an expert in cardiology and internal medicine, offered convincing explanations as to why Mr. Carmouze did not violate the Standard of Care in his overall treatment of A.M. and, in particular, in not attempting to intubate A.M. earlier than he did. Dr. Lee's testimony, while corroborating Dr. Lora's testimony, was cumulative and of little weight. A.M. was reported to be awake, alert, and oriented. She was breathing, albeit with difficulty, on her own. Therefore, it was appropriate for Mr. Carmouze to attempt the other measures to assist her breathing he instituted. Mr. Cary's testimony, while credible, was not convincing, especially given Dr. Lora's expert opinions. Mr. Cary's testimony was taken during a discovery deposition by Respondent and, as a result, the benefit of his testimony to Petitioner's case was limited. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Carmouze violated the standard of care: In his treatment of A.M.; By failing "to contact his supervising physician, the ED director, and/or Patient A.M.'s primary physician for assistance in treating Patient A.M."; By failing "to identify a treatment plan for Patient A.M."; and By failing "to consult his supervising physician prior to ordering Demerol, a controlled substance, for Patients C.M., J.S., B.M., R.M., M.F., G.C., G.B., K.S., C.W., M.A.C., R.S., and K.M." Mr. Carmouze's Treatment Plan and Medical Records for Patient A.M. Mr. Carmouze, as the Department has conceded in Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, paragraph 13, page 20, did identify a treatment plan for Patient A.M. Having found that Mr. Carmouze did not err when he did not initiate intubation of A.M. earlier than he did, the evidence failed to prove that "he failed to maintain medical records that justified the course of treatment in that he failed to record a reason for not intubating sooner in an attempt to address Patient A.M.'s respiratory distress." There is no indication in Mr. Carmouze's medical records for A.M. that Mr. Carmouze attempted to contact Dr. Ajit or Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez. The medical records do indicate, however, that A.M.'s primary physician, Dr. Sanaullah, was "notified and arrived for code." While the evidence did not prove who notified Dr. Sanaullah, Petitioner failed to prove that Mr. Carmouze was not responsible for Dr. Sanaullah's notification. Mr. Carmouze failed to identify himself by name or professional title in A.M.'s medical records. He also failed to include Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez's name and title in A.M.'s medical records. Mr. Carmouze did not ensure that either the signature of his supervising physician or Dr. Ajit was included on A.M.'s medical records. While the quality of Mr. Carmouze's medical records for A.M. was correctly characterized as "minimally acceptable" by Mr. Cary, the evidence failed to prove clearly and convincingly that those medical records were not adequate. This finding is based upon the lack of an unequivocal opinion from Mr. Cary concerning the adequacy of the medical records and a comparison of Mr. Cary's opinions with those of Dr. Lee in support of Mr. Carmouze's medical records for Patient A.M. Mr. Cary, on the one hand, made the following negative comments about Mr. Carmouze's medical records for A.M: "[T]he record isn't really clear on what did happen because he did not write down any times on intervention of what he did." Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, page 14; "[W]hen you look at this face sheet here you don't get a picture of what happened and at what time, there's no real times there, no progression of the treatment." Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, page 67. Mr. Cary stated that there was no time noted in Patient A.M.'s history/physical section, and that a portion of that section was illegible. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, page 21 and 25. On the other hand, Mr. Cary stated that "[the medical record for A.M.] is minimally acceptable, it just doesn't give a good clear picture of the sequence of events." Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, page 68. Mr. Cary also stated the following when asked if he thought Mr. Carmouze maintained medical records that justified the course of his treatment regarding Patient A.M.: "There were medical records that were there, I think they could have been more complete and more detailed . . . ." These statements, taking into account the fact that Mr. Cary was able to read almost all of Mr. Carmouze's medical record pertaining to A.M. on direct examination by counsel for Mr. Carmouze, reduces the effectiveness of his other opinions. Finally, it is noted that all of Mr. Carmouze's experts, along with Mr. Cary, were able to read Mr. Carmouze's notes, other than a word or two. Patients C.M., J.S., B.M., R.M., M.F., G.C., G.B., K.S., C.W., M.A.C., R.S., and K.M. Patient C.M. On April 23, 2002, Patient C.M., a 20-year-old male presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. C.M. complained of a server headache. In pertinent part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 50 milligrams of Demerol and 50 milligrams of Vistaril. Patient J.S. On April 24, 2002, Patient J.S., a 37-year-old female presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. J.S. complained of a burn. In pertinent part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 50 milligrams of Demerol and 50 milligrams of Vistaril. Patient B.M. On April 24, 2002, Patient B.M., a 46-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. B.M. complained of a headache of two-days' duration. In pertinent part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 25 milligrams of Demerol administered to B.M. at the ER. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for B.M. a diagnosis of scabies/headache cluster, severe. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for B.M. Patient R.M. On April 24, 2002, Patient R.M., a 73-year-old male, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. R.M. complained of abdominal pain and constipation of several days’ duration. In patient part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 50 milligrams of Demerol and 50 milligrams of Vistaril administered to R.M. at the ER. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for R.M. a diagnosis of abdominal pain, impaction. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for R.M. Patient M.F. On April 25, 2002, Patient M.F., a 34-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. M.F. complained of left-flank pain. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 50 milligrams of Demerol and 50 milligrams of Vistaril administered to M.F. at the ER. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for M.F. a diagnosis of left-flank pain, left nephrolithiasis. Patient G.C. On June 7, 2002, Patient G.C., a 20-year-old male, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. G.C. complained of right-flank pain. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered two separate doses of Demerol, 50 milligrams each, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams each. Patient G.B. On June 7, 2002, Patient G.B., an 83-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. G.B. complained of wrist, knee, and leg pain, secondary to a fall. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered two separate doses of Demerol, 50 milligrams each, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams each. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for G.B. a diagnosis of chest contusion, leg edema, and right Colles' fracture. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for G.B. Patient K.S. On June 8, 2002, Patient K.S., an 18-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. K.S. complained of lower back pain secondary to a fall. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for K.S. a diagnosis of intractable back pain, trauma to spine. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for K.S. Patient C.W. On June 8, 2002, Patient C.W., a 46-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. C.W. complained of headache and dizziness. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for C.W. a diagnosis of headache and anemia. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for C.W. Patient M.A.C. On June 9, 2002, Patient M.A.C., a 49-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. M.A.C. complained of pain in the lower right abdomen and back. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for M.A.C. a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and abdominal pain. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for M.A.C. Patient R.S. On June 9, 2002, Patient R.S., a 34-year-old male, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. R.S. complained of shoulder pain. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for R.S. a diagnosis of right shoulder tendon tear. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for R.S. Patient K.M. On June 11, 2002, Patient K.M., a 52-year-old male, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. R.S. complained of wrist pain secondary to a fall. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for K.M. a diagnosis of a Colles' fracture. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for K.S. Facts Common to Patients C.M., J.S., B.M., R.M., M.F., G.C., G.B., K.S., C.W., M.A.C., R.S., and K.M. Mr. Carmouze did not note in his medical records for Patients C.M., J.S., B.M., R.M., M.F., G.C., G.B., K.S., C.W., M.A.C., R.S., and K.M. (hereinafter referred to jointly as the "Pain Patients "), that he had consulted with Dr. Fernandez- Gonzalez or Dr. Ajit prior to ordering Demerol for the Pain Patients. Demerol is a controlled substance. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez' testimony regarding alleged consultations he had with Mr. Carmouze concerning the Pain Patients and other patients seen by Mr. Carmouze while at Weems is rejected as lacking credibility for the reasons explained, supra. Mr. Carmouze also failed to note in the medical records for the Pain Patients his name and professional title. His name was stamped on the Emergency Room Record he completed for Patients M.A.C., G.M., and R.S. His name was also written into the space under "Time/Initials" on the Emergency Room Record for Patients M.A.C., C.W., R.M., and J.S. None of these records, however, included his title of "physician assistant." Mr. Carmouze failed to identify Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez or Dr. Ajit by name and professional title in the medical records of the Pain Patients. Mr. Carmouze failed to ensure that the signature of Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez or Dr. Ajit was included in the medical records of the Pain Patients. The Other "106 Patients". While at Weems ER, Mr. Carmouze provided medical services, in addition to A.M. and Pain Patients, to 106 other patients at issue in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "106 Patients"). Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4 is a composite exhibit of medical records for the 106 Patients. There are approximately two patients for whom more than one medical record has been included in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4. The foregoing findings relate to the 108 medical records for the 106 Patients. Mr. Carmouze failed to note in most of the medical records for the 106 Patients his name and professional title. Of the approximately 108 records, Mr. Carmouze's name does not appear in any fashion on 48 of them. The rest either include his name (but not title) either stamped on the record or written into the box titled "Time/Initials." On two of the medical records both Mr. Carmouze's name and "P.A." have been written into the box titled "Time/Initials." Mr. Carmouze failed to identify Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez or Dr. Ajit by name and professional title in the medical records of the 106 Patients. Mr. Carmouze did not ensure that either the signature of his supervising physician or Dr. Ajit was included on the medical records of the 106 Patients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine finding that, Arnaldo Carmouze, P.A., has violated Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and (v), Florida Statutes, as described in this Recommended Order; issuing a reprimand; placing Mr. Carmouze's license on probation for one year; requiring that he pay an administrative fine of $5,000.00; requiring that he perform five hours of CME in a subject(s) determined appropriate by the Board; and suspending his license for six months (with the suspension stayed provided he complies with probation). DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Irving Levine Matthew Casey Assistants General Counsel Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Julie Gallagher, Esquire Greenberg Taurig, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. M. Rony François, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether Respondent should recoup Medicaid payments made to Petitioner for health care services provided to eight patients.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc., (Hospital), has contracted with Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), to provide services to Medicaid patients. The parties have agreed that there is a dispute for Medicaid reimbursement for goods and services provided to eight patients: S.G., J.D., R.J., C.A., G.M., S.S., M.P., and C.T. The Agency has paid the Hospital for the services rendered to these eight patients and seeks to recoup the payment based on a retrospective review by a peer review organization, Keystone Peer Review Organization (KePro). The Agency claims that either the admission or a portion of the length-of-stay for the eight patients was medically unnecessary. Services were provided to C.T. in 1994 and to the remainder of the patients at issue in 1995. Payment for Medicaid services is on a per diem basis. The rate for 1994 is $473.22 per day, and the rate for 1995 is $752.14. The Agency contracted with KePro to do a review of the Medicaid payments to the Hospital. KePro employs nurses to review the patient files based on criteria on discharge screens. If the services meet the criteria, there is no further review and the payment is approved. If the nurse determines that the services do not meet the criteria on the discharge screens, the patient's files are reviewed by a board certified physician, who in this case would be a psychiatrist. If the physician determines that the services are not medically necessary, a letter is sent to the Medicaid provider, giving the provider an opportunity to submit additional information. Additional information submitted by the provider is reviewed by a board certified physician. If the doctor concludes that the services are still medically unnecessary, the provider is notified that that services do not qualify for reimbursement and the provider may ask for a reconsideration of the denial. If the provider seeks reconsideration, the file is reviewed by a physician, and the provider has an opportunity to be present during the review. If the physician determines that the services are medically unnecessary, KePro sends a letter to the Agency stating the reasons for denial. The denial letters that KePro sends to the Agency are reviewed by the Medical Director of KePro, who is not a psychiatrist. Dr. John Sullenberger, the Agency's Medicaid physician, reviews the KePro denial letters sent to the Agency, and 99.9 percent of the time he agrees with the findings of KePro regarding whether the services were medically necessary. Dr. Sullenberger does not review the patient's charts when he does this review. The Agency sends a recoupment letter to the Medicaid provider requesting repayment for services provided. Patient S.G., a 12 year-old boy, was being treated pursuant to the Baker Act. He was admitted to the Hospital on March 8, 1995, and discharged on March 25, 1995. The Agency denied Medicaid reimbursement for the admission and the entire length-of-stay for S.G. based on KePro's determination that it was not medically necessary for the services to S.G. to be rendered in an acute care setting because the patient was neither suicidal nor homicidal. Three to five days prior to his admission to the Hospital, S.G. had attempted to stab his father. He also had further violent episodes, including jumping his father from behind and choking him and pulling knives on his parents. S.G. had a history of attention deficit and hyperactive disorder. He had been using multiple substances, such as alcohol, LSD, cocaine, and marijuana, prior to his admission. His behavior was a clear reference that he was suffering from a psychosis. A psychosis is a significant inability to understand what is reality, including delusions of false beliefs, hallucinations, hearing and seeing things which do not exist, and ways of thinking that are bizarre. Psychosis is a reason to admit a patient, particularly combined with substance abuse. S.G.'s treating psychiatrist noted that S.G. had tangentiality, which means that his thoughts did not stay together. He did not have a connection between thoughts, which is a sign of a psychosis. The chart demonstrated that S.G. had disorder thinking, which includes the possibility of a psychosis. There was also a reference in the charts to organic mental disturbance which could infer brain damage as the cause for the mental disturbance. Two days after admission, there was an issue of possible drug withdrawal because S.G. was agitated and anxious and showed other symptoms. Drug withdrawal, psychosis, and a demonstration of overt violence require a stay in an acute care facility. There was some indication that S.G. was suicidal. While in the Hospital he was placed under close observation, which is a schedule of 15-minute checks to determine if the patient was physically out of harm's way. S.G. was started on an antidepressant, Wellbutrin, because the treating physician thought S.G. was becoming increasingly depressed and was having trouble organizing his thoughts. Antidepressants, as contrasted to a medication such as an antibiotic, may take a minimum of two to three weeks before the patient will benefit from the full effect of the drug. It is difficult to stabilize the dosage for an antidepressant on an outpatient basis. S.G. was taking Ritalin, which is commonly used for children with attention deficit, hyperactivity disorders. During his stay at the Hospital, S.G. was engaging in strange behavior, including absence seizures. On March 16, 1995, he was still lunging and threatening harm. On March 20, 1995, he was still unstable and at risk. The dosage of Wellbutrin was increased. On March 21 and 22, 1995, S.G. was still threatening and confused. S.G. was discharged on March 25, 1995. The admission and length-of-stay for S.G. were medically necessary. Patient J.D. was a 16 year-old boy who was admitted to the Hospital on March 7, 1995, and discharged on March 14, 1995. The Agency denied the admission and entire length-of-stay based on KePro's determination that the patient was not actively suicidal or psychotic and services could have been rendered in a less acute setting. J.D. was admitted from a partial hospitalization program pursuant to the Baker Act because he was observed by a health care professional banging his head against the wall and throwing himself on the floor. He had a history of depression and out-of-control behavior, including being a danger to himself and running away. At the time of his admission, he was taking Prozac. Banging his head against the wall can mean that the patient is psychotic, can cause brain damage, and can be dangerous if the cause of the behavior is unknown. Admission to the Hospital was justified because the patient was extremely agitated and self abusive, requiring restraints and medication to decrease his agitation and self abusiveness. One of the tests administered during his hospital stay indicated that J.D. was a moderate risk for suicidal behavior. During his hospital stay, it was discovered that J.D. had threatened to kill himself while at school. He had been in a partial treatment program during the day, but that environment was not working. There was violence in the home, and J.D. was becoming overtly depressed. During his stay at the Hospital, J.D. was placed on close observation with 15-minute checks. His dosage of Prozac was increased. The admission and length-of-stay for J.D. were medically necessary. R.J., a 10 year-old male, was admitted to the Hospital on January 1, 1995, and discharged on February 9, 1995. The Agency denied Medicaid reimbursement based on a determination by KePro that the treatment in an acute care facility was not medically necessary because R.J. was not psychotic, not suicidal, and not a threat to others; thus treatment could have been provided in an alternate setting. R.J. had been referred by a health care professional at Horizon Center, an outpatient center, because of progressive deterioration over the previous fourteen months despite outpatient treatment. His deterioration included anger with temper outbursts, uncontrollable behavior at school, failing grades, sadness, depressed mood, extreme anxiety, extensive worrying and a fear of his grandmother. R.J. also suffered from encopresis, a bowel incontinence. He was agitated, lacked energy, neglected his hygiene, experienced crying spells, and had difficulty concentrating. R.J. needed to be admitted for an evaluation to rule out a paranoid psychosis. It was necessary to do a 24-hour EEG as opposed to a 45-minute EEG. In order to do a 24-hour EEG, the patient is typically placed in an acute care facility. The EEG showed abnormal discharge in the brain, which could be contributing to a psychiatric illness. At school R.J. had smeared feces on the walls, behavior that could be seen in psychotic persons. There was evidence that he had been hitting and throwing his stepbrother and 3 year-old brother. He was fearful of his grandmother and, based on his family history, there was reason to fear her. R.J. was placed on Buspar, a medication which generally takes two weeks to take effect. Contrary to the Agency's determination, R.J. was disorganized. He was also violent in terms of threatening danger and extreme anger. The admission and length-of-stay for R.J. at the Hospital were medically necessary. Patient C.A., a 9 year-old male, was admitted to the Hospital on June 1, 1995, and discharged on June 12, 1995. The Agency disallowed one day of the length-of-stay based on a determination by KePro that the services provided on June 11, 1995, could have been provided in a less restrictive setting. C.A. was admitted for violent and disruptive behavior. He also had an attention deficit, hyperactivity disorder and was taking Lithium and Depakote. These medications are used for patients who experience serious mood swings and abrupt changes in mood, going from depression to anger to euphoria. To be effective, medicating with Lithium and Depakote requires that the blood levels of the patient be monitored and the dosage titrated according to blood level. C.A. also was given Wellbutrin during his hospital stay. On June 11, 1995, C.A. was given an eight-hour pass to leave the hospital in the care of his mother. The physician's orders indicated that the pass was to determine how well C.A. did in a less restrictive setting. He returned to the Hospital without incident. He was discharged the next day to his mother. The treatment on June 11, 1995, could have been provided in an environment other than an acute facility; thus the stay on June 11, 1995, was not medically necessary for Medicaid reimbursement purposes. Patient G.M., an 11 year-old male with a history of being physically and sexually abused by his parents, was admitted to the Hospital on March 21, 1995, and was discharged on April 3, 1995. The Agency denied Medicaid reimbursement for inpatient hospital treatment from March 28 to April 3, 1995, based on KePro's determination that the length of hospital stay exceeded health care needs at an inpatient level and could have been provided in a less acute setting. At the time of admission, G.M. had suicidal ideation. His school had reported that G.M. had mutilated himself with a pencil, banged himself on the knuckles, and told the school nurse that he wanted to die. Prior to admission, G.M. had been taking Ritalin. His treating physician took G.M. off the Ritalin so that she could assess his condition and start another medication after a base-line period. The doctor prescribed Clonidine for G.M. Clonidine is a drug used in children to control reckless, agressive and angry behavior. Clonidine must be titrated in order to establish the correct dosage for the patient. During his hospital stay, G.M. was yelling and threatening staff. He was placed in locked seclusion, where he began hitting the wall. G.M. was put in a papoose, which is similar to a straitjacket. The papoose is used when there is no other way to control the patient. The patient cannot use his arms or legs while in a papoose. This type of behavior and confinement was occurring as late as March 31, 1995. G.M. was given a pass to go to his grandparents on April 2, 1995. He did well during his pass, and was discharged on April 3, 1995. Treatment in an acute facility was medically necessary through April 1, 1995. Treatment on April 2, 1995, could have been provided in a less acute setting. Patient S.S., a 5 year-old male, was admitted to the Hospital on March 9, 1995, and was discharged on April 3, 1995. The Agency denied Medicaid reimbursement for the admission and entire length of his hospital stay based on a determination by KePro that S.S. was not psychotic or an immediate danger to himself or others and the evaluation and treatment could have been rendered in a less acute setting. Prior to admission to the Hospital, S.S. was threatening suicide, ran into a chalk board at school, scratched his arms until they bled, and showed aggressive intent toward his sister, saying that he would kill her with a saw. S.S.'s condition had been deteriorating for approximately three months before his admission. At the time of admission, he had been suicidal, hyperactive, restless, and experiencing hallucinations. The hallucinations imply a psychosis. S.S. was put on Trofanil, an antidepressant which needs to be titrated. The patient's blood level had to be monitored while taking this drug. During his hospital stay, S.S. was on close observation. All objects which he could use to harm himself were removed from his possession. After he ate his meals, the hospital staff would immediately remove all eating utensils. On March 28, 1995, S.S. threatened to kill himself and became self-abusive. His blood level on March 31, 1995, was sub-therapeutic, and his medication dosage was increased. On April 1, 1995, S.S. had a temper tantrum. The admission and length-of-stay for the treatment of S.S. were medically necessary. Patient M.P., a 10 year-old male, was admitted to the Hospital on April 27, 1995, and was discharged on May 6, 1995. The Agency denied Medicaid reimbursement for the admission and entire length-of-stay based on a determination by KePro that the patient functions on an eighteen to twenty-four month level but is not psychotic and the treatment could have been provided in a less acute setting. M.P.'s IQ is between 44 and 51. He was diagnosed with a pervasive development disorder, which is a serious lack of development attributed to significant brain damage. His condition had deteriorated in the six months prior to his admission. He had episodes of inappropriate laughter, fits of anger, hit his head, hit windows, and put his arm in contact with the broken glass through the window. At the time of his admission, he had a seizure disorder. An EEG and an MRI needed to be performed on M.P. in order to evaluate his condition. M.P. had to have a regular EEG, a 24-hour EEG, and a neurological examination. The patient was aggressive, restless, and uncooperative. In order for the MRI to be performed, M.P. had to be anesthetized. The admission and length-of-stay for M.P. were medically necessary. Patient C.T., a 34 year-old female, was admitted to the Hospital on November 11, 1994, and was discharged on November 26, 1994. The Agency denied the treatment from November 17, 1994, to November 26, 1994, based on a determination by a peer review organization that the patient was stable by November 17, 1994, and psychiatric follow-up could have been performed in an outpatient setting. C.T. was admitted for kidney stones. She did pass the kidney stones but continued to have severe pain. Her doctor asked for a psychiatric consult. The psychiatrist diagnosed C.T. as having a personality disorder, chronic psychogenic pain disorder, and an eating disorder. Her depressive disorder exacerbated pain. C.T. had been given narcotics for the pain associated with the kidney stones. In order to assess her mental status, the physicians needed to taper the dosage of Demerol which she had been receiving. She was started on Sinequan, which is an anti-depressant given to alleviate the psychological condition and to help with the physical complaints. C.T. was later put on Vicodin, an oral narcotic, which seemed to bring the pain under control. The drugs used could cause a drop in blood pressure; therefore, they had to be titrated slowly. Her treating physician was trying to find an appropriate anti-depressant, while weaning the patient from intramuscular narcotics. On November 17, 1994, C.T. left her room and went to the hospital lobby, where she was found by nursing staff. C.T. was crying and saying that she was in pain and wanted to die. During her hospital stay, C.T. was in much distress; she would scream out that she was in pain. On November 18, 1994, she was found crying on the floor of the hospital chapel and had to be returned to her room. It was the opinion of Dr. Bernard Frankel, an expert retained by the Hospital, that C.T. probably could have been discharged a day earlier. The hospital stay for C.T. from November 17, 1994, to November 25, 1994, was medically necessary. The last day of her stay was not medically necessary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc., to pay to the Agency $752.14 for one day of service provided to G.M., $752.14 for one day of service provided to C.A., and $473.22 for one day of service provided to C.T. and finding that the Hospital is not liable for payment for any of the other services at issue in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Falkinburg, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 John D. Buchanan, Jr., Esquire Henry, Buchanan, Hudson, Suber & Williams, P.A. 117 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
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 in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive a passing grade on the Physician Assistant licensure examination administered in June of 1998.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Raul A. Gonzalez, sat for the Physician Assistant licensure examination administered in June of 1998. The Physician Assistant licensure examination is made up of three parts: (1) a general written examination; (2) a surgical specialty examination; and (3) a primary care specialty examination. In order to pass the overall examination and be eligible for licensure, an applicant must pass the general written examination and must also pass at least one of the two specialty examinations. The general written examination and both of the specialty examinations are all multiple-choice examinations. A scaled score of 600 is required to pass each of the three examinations. The following grades were assigned to the Petitioner's examinations: 595.50 on the primary care specialty examination; 554.50 on the surgery specialty examination; and 591.90 on the general written examination. On the basis of these grades, the Petitioner was advised that he had failed all three portions of the examination. In order to receive a passing grade on the overall examination, the Petitioner needs credit for correct answers to three additional questions on the general written portion of the examination, and either (a) credit for a correct answer to one additional question on the primary care specialty examination, or (b) credit for correct answers to ten additional questions on the surgery specialty examination. The Petitioner is entitled to credit for a correct answer to one additional question on the primary care specialty examination. With credit for the one additional correct answer, the Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the primary care specialty examination.2 The subject licensure examination was prepared and conducted in accordance with the standard testing and security procedures of the Department of Health. The post-examination review of the subject licensure examination was conducted in accordance with the standard examination review procedures of the Department of Health. There is no competent substantial evidence in the record of this case of any material defects or deficiencies in those procedures. There is no competent substantial evidence of any material departure from established procedures during the course of the preparation of the subject licensure examination, the administration of the examination, the grading of the examination, or the post-examination review of the examination. Except as noted above in paragraph 4, there is no competent substantial evidence in the record of this case of any error or omission in the scoring and grading of the Petitioner's answers on the subject licensure examination.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case concluding that the Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the primary care specialty examination; that the Petitioner failed the other two portions of the examination; and that the Petitioner is not entitled to the license he seeks. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 21st day of April, 1999.
The Issue Whether the Proposed Rule 64J-2.010 enlarges, modifies or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, or is arbitrary or capricious, and thus constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Shands operates an 852-bed hospital and Level I trauma center in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. Its business address is 1600 Southwest Archer Road, Gainesville, Florida. Shands treats about 2,500 trauma patients each year. Shands is located within trauma service area (TSA) 4, which is comprised of Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Putnam, Suwannee, and Union counties. St. Joseph’s is a regional tertiary hospital and has served the Tampa area for 75 years and has approximately 800 licensed acute care beds. St. Joseph offers a broad array of acute care services including tertiary health care, serves as a comprehensive regional stroke center, and has been repeatedly recognized as a Consumers Choice hospital. St. Joseph operates a Level II trauma center and a Level I pediatric trauma center. St. Joseph is located in TSA 10, consisting of a single county, Hillsborough. Tampa General is a major tertiary hospital that is designated by the state as a Level I trauma center. Tampa General also serves as a teaching hospital for the University of South Florida, College of Medicine ("USF"). Tampa General is located in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, TSA 10. Bayfront is a 480-bed tertiary hospital located in Pinellas County, Florida. In addition to serving as a teaching hospital, Bayfront is designated as a Level II trauma center pursuant to chapter 395, Part II, Florida Statutes. It is located in TSA 9, composed of Pinellas and Pasco counties. The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County, is an entity which governs and operates the Jackson Health System, including the Ryder Trauma Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital. It is in TSA 19, consisting of Dade and Monroe counties. The Florida Department of Health is the state agency authorized to verify and regulate trauma centers in the state of Florida pursuant to chapter 395, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64J-2.001 et seq. The Division of Emergency Medical Operations, Office of Trauma, oversees the Department's responsibilities with respect to the statewide trauma system. Osceola is a licensed acute care general hospital, located at 700 West Oak Street, Kissimmee, Florida. Osceola provides a wide array of high quality health services to the residents and visitors within its service area. It is located in TSA 8, consisting of Lake, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Sumter counties. The Florida Trauma System For purposes of organizing a statewide network of trauma services, the Florida Legislature directed the Department to undertake the implementation of a statewide inclusive trauma system as funding is available. § 395.40(3), Fla. Stat. The need for a trauma system is premised on the basic principle that a trauma victim who is timely transported and triaged to receive specialized trauma care will have a better clinical outcome. § 395.40(2), Fla. Stat. A trauma victim's injuries are evaluated and assigned an Injury Severity Score ("ISS"). § 395.4001(5), Fla. Stat. Patients with ISS scores of nine or greater are considered trauma patients. § 395.402(1), Fla. Stat. Trauma experts speak in terms of "a Golden Hour," a clinical rule of thumb that postulates no more than 60 minutes should elapse from the occurrence of an injury to the beginning of definitive treatment. There is, however, no current consensus on what constitutes the "Golden Hour" for transport times. A 1990 Department study recommended travel time of 25-35 minutes as the outside range for optimal outcomes. A 1999 Department study favored a goal of 30 minutes transport time by ground, and a 50-mile radius by helicopter. By contrast, a 2005 study conducted for the Department used 85 minutes "total evacuation time" as "acceptable." A trauma center is a hospital that has a collection of resources and personnel who are charged with taking care of trauma patients. They are recognized by the community as a resource for care of severely injured patients. The International Classification Injury Severity Score (“ICISS”) methodology, considered with discharged patient data from the Agency for Health Care Administration database, was used by DOH to determine severely injured patients. An ICISS score is the product of the survival risk ratios (i.e., the probabilities of survival) calculated for each traumatic injury a single patient suffers. Level I trauma centers are generally larger and busier and treat more patients than Level II centers. Level I trauma centers are required to engage in education and research. Trauma centers are required to have several types of physician specialists at the ready at all times. For instance, with respect to surgical services, a Level I trauma center must have a minimum of five qualified trauma surgeons, assigned to the trauma service, with at least two trauma surgeons available to provide primary (in-hospital) and backup trauma coverage 24 hours a day at the trauma center when summoned. Further, in addition to having at least one neurosurgeon to provide in-hospital trauma coverage 24 hours a day at the trauma center, a Level I provider must also have surgeons available to arrive promptly at the trauma center in 11 other specialties, including (but not limited to) hand surgery, oral/maxillofacial surgery, cardiac surgery, orthopedic surgery, otorhinolaryngologic surgery and plastic surgery. Level II trauma centers must comply with similar physician specialist standards. Little if any credible evidence was presented in the present case to suggest that the ability to hire qualified clinical staff, technicians, specialty physicians and other personnel would be severely impacted if the Proposed Rule is implemented. Rather, the existing trauma centers lamented the possibility of reduced case loads which could make it more difficult to retain proficiency. Invalidation of Former Rule 64J-2.010 In 1992, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), the Department of Health's predecessor, promulgated Florida Administrative Code Rule 64J-2.010, titled "Apportionment of Trauma Centers within a Trauma Service Area," (hereinafter referred to as the “Former Rule”). The Department of Health assumed administration of the Former Rule in 1996, when the Legislature split HRS into two new agencies, the Department of Health and the Department of Children and Families. The Former Rule regulated the number of trauma centers that could be established in Florida. The Former Rule divided the state into TSAs as set forth in section 395.402(4), and for each TSA, announced the number of trauma center "positions" available. In 2004, the Florida Legislature amended section 395.402 to require the Department to complete an assessment of Florida's trauma system, and to provide a report to the Governor and Legislature no later than February 1, 2005 (the 2005 Assessment). The scope of the assessment was defined in paragraphs (2)(a) through (g) and subsection (3) of section 395.402. One objective of the assessment was to consider aligning trauma service areas within the trauma region boundaries as established in section 395.4015(1). It required the Department to establish trauma regions that cover all geographic areas of the state and have boundaries that are coterminous with the boundaries of the Regional Domestic Security Task Forces (“RDSTF”) established under section 943.0312. In a related 2004 amendment, the Legislature added a provision that gave the Department the option to use something other than the trauma service areas codified in section 395.402(4) upon completion of the 2005 Assessment. See § 395.402(2), Fla. Stat. ("Trauma service areas as defined in this section are to be utilized until the Department of Health completes" the 2005 Assessment.) § 395.402(4), Fla. Stat. ("Until the department completes the February 2005 assessment, the assignment of counties shall remain as established in this section."). As part of the 2004 amendments to the trauma statute, the Legislature also required the Department to conduct "subsequent annual reviews" of Florida's trauma system. In conducting such annual assessments, the Legislature required the Department to consider a non-exhaustive list of criteria set forth in section 395.402(3)(a)-(k). Further, the Legislature required the Department to annually thereafter review the assignment of Florida’s 67 counties to trauma service areas. The Department timely submitted its 2005 Assessment to the Legislature on February 1, 2005. With respect to its review of the trauma service areas, the 2005 Assessment recommended against the continued use of the 19 trauma service areas. The 2005 Assessment instead suggested that it may be feasible for the existing trauma service areas to be modified to fit the seven RDSTF regions to facilitate regional planning. Following receipt of the 2005 Assessment, the Department took no action to amend the Former Rule and adopt the recommendations of the 2005 Assessment. As a result, in June 2011, several existing trauma centers challenged the validity of the Former Rule pursuant to sections 120.56(1) and (3). See Bayfront Med. Ctr., Inc. et al. v. Dep't of Health, DOAH Case Nos. 11-2602RX, 11-2603RX, 11-2746RX, 11-2796RX (Fla. Div. Admin. Hear., Sept. 23, 2011). On September 23, 2011, an administrative law judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings entered a final order holding that the Former Rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The administrative law judge concluded that the Former Rule was invalid because it contravened the laws it purportedly implemented, including section 395.402. The judge found: The authority granted by section 395.402 for the use of the [nineteen] identified TSAs existed only until February 2005. After that time, the Department was required to consider the findings of the 2005 Assessment, as well as the recommendations made as part of the regional trauma system plan. Thus, section 395.402 can no longer service as a valid basis for the Rule. However, as set forth below, the authority to utilize the 19 TSAs was not rescinded; rather, the mandated requirement to use only the TSAs was rescinded. The Department was required to review the assignment of Florida’s 67 counties to trauma service areas, taking into consideration the factors set forth in paragraphs (2)(b)-(g) and subsection (3) of section 395.402. Having done so, it was incumbent on the Department to amend its [Former] Rule to allocate the number of trauma centers determined to be needed within each designated area through systematic evaluation and application of statutory criteria. On November 30, 2012, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the administrative law judge's determination that the Former Rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. See Dep't of Health v. Bayfront Med. Ctr., Inc., 134 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). After noting that the Former Rule claimed to implement sections 395.401, 395.4015, and 395.402, the appellate court held that the Former Rule was invalid because it failed to reflect the substantial amendments to those laws that were enacted in 2004. The appellate court held: Both the pre-and post-2004 versions of the statute require the Department to establish trauma regions that "cover all geographic areas of the state." However, the 2004 amendment requires that the trauma regions both "cover all geographical areas of the state and have boundaries that are coterminous with the boundaries of the regional domestic security task forces established under s. 943.0312." § 395.4015(1), Fla. Stat. (2004). Similarly, the rule fails to implement the 2004 amendments to section 395.402. The version of the statute in effect at the time the rule was promulgated set forth the nineteen trauma service areas reflected in the rule. [T]he 2004 version of the statute required the Department to complete an assessment of Florida's trauma system no later than February 1, 2005. It further provides that the original nineteen trauma service areas shall remain in effect until the completion of the 2005 Assessment. Bayfront, 134 So. 3d at 1019-20 (Emphasis added). It should be noted that the 2004 version of the statute does not specify at what point in time the 19 TSAs could no longer be utilized, only that they would have to be used at least until completion of the 2005 Assessment. Rule Development The Department thereafter initiated rule development workshops to commence construction of a new rule. The first workshop concerning this rule was in Tallahassee, Florida, on December 21, 2012. In January and February 2013, workshops were then held in Pensacola, Tampa, Ocala, Jacksonville, and Miami, as DOH continued working on a new rule. Each of the sessions involved input from interested persons both live and by telephone. Written comments and oral presentations by these persons were considered by the Department. After these first six workshops, held in various regions of the State to make them more accessible to more citizens, DOH then scheduled three more workshops in March 2013, to be held in areas where there were no existing trauma centers, specifically Ft. Walton Beach, Naples, and Sebring. DOH also considered the recommendations of a report issued by the American College of Surgeons (“ACS”), the lead professional group for trauma systems and trauma care in the United States. The ACS sent a consultation team to Tallahassee, Florida, to conduct a three-day site visit and hold public workshops in February 2013. The ACS ultimately issued a report entitled “Trauma System Consultation Report: State of Florida,” in May 2013. The report included as one of its recommendations the use of RDSTF regions as the TSA areas to be used in determining need for additional trauma centers. In November 2013, DOH released a draft proposed rule and a draft of its first TSA Assessment (the January TSA Assessment). The Department then conducted three additional workshops in Pensacola, Orlando, and Miami. Again, DOH solicited comments from interested persons and entered into a dialogue as to what the proposed rule should look like upon publication. On January 23, 2014, DOH conducted a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee meeting at the Department’s headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida. The committee consisted of seven persons: Karen Putnal, Esquire and Dr. Fred Moore--representing existing trauma centers; Steve Ecenia, Esquire and Dr. Darwin Ang-- representing new trauma centers currently under challenge; Dr. Patricia Byers--representative of the EMS Advisory Council; Jennifer Tschetter, Esquire and Dr. Ernest Block--representing DOH. The public was invited to attend the session but was not afforded an opportunity to speak. The Department considered all the input from each of the workshops, the ACS Report, and the negotiated session, as well as all the applicable items enumerated in section 395.402(3)(a)-(k). The Proposed Rule On February 3, 2014, the Department published Notice of Development of Proposed Rule 64J-2.010 (the "Proposed Rule") in Florida Administrative Register, Volume 40, Number 22. The Department's Notice cited section 395.405, as rulemaking authority for the Proposed Rule. The Notice also cited sections 395.401, 395.4015, 395.402, and 395.405 as the laws intended to be implemented by the Proposed Rule. The following day, February 4, 2014, the Department published a Notice of Correction in Florida Administrative Register, Volume 40, No. 23, to correct the history notes of the Proposed Rule. In the corrected Notice, the Department cited section 395.402 as its rulemaking authority in addition to section 395.405. The correction also removed reference to sections 395.401, 395.4015, and 395.405, as laws implemented by the Proposed Rule. Following the Department's correction, the Proposed Rule was intended only to implement section 395.402. The Proposed Rule established 19 TSAs and determined the number of trauma centers to be allocated within each TSA, based upon a scoring system established in the Proposed Rule. Under the scoring system, TSAs were awarded positive or negative points based on data in an annual Trauma Service Area Assessment relating to the following six criteria: (1) population; (2) median transport times; (3) community support; (4) severely injured patients not treated in trauma centers; (5) Level 1 trauma centers; and (6) number of severely injured patients (in each TSA). Ms. Tschetter added the last two criteria (Level I Trauma Centers and Number of Severely Injured Patients) in response to comments received at the negotiated rulemaking session. Subsequent to a final public hearing held on February 25, 2014, DOH revised its January TSA Assessment and the earlier version of the Proposed Rule. The revised TSA assessment (the “March TSA Assessment”) reflected more conservative calculations (as gleaned from input and discussions with stakeholders) and documents the statutory patient volumes for the existing Level I and Level II trauma centers in each TSA. The March TSA Assessment further recalculated the Median Transport times, including all transports from 0-10 minutes (as opposed to only those transports greater than 10 minutes) and only transports to trauma centers (as opposed to transports to all hospitals). On March 25, 2014, a Notice of Change was published in the Florida Administrative Register. The Proposed Rule, as published on that date, is as follows: Notice of Change/Withdrawal DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Division of Emergency Medical Operations RULE NO.: RULE TITLE: 64J-2.010 Apportionment of Trauma Centers within a Trauma Service Area (TSA) NOTICE OF CHANGE Notice is hereby given that the following changes have been made to the proposed rule in accordance with subparagraph 120.54(3)(d)1., F.S., published in Vol. 40, No. 22, February 3, 2014 issue of the Florida Administrative Register. 64J-2.010 Allocation of Trauma Centers Aamong the Trauma Service Areas (TSAs). Level I and Level II trauma centers shall be allocated among the trauma service areas (TSAs) based upon the following: The following criteria shall be used to determine a total score for each TSA. Points shall be determined based upon data in the Trauma Service Area Assessment. Population A total population of less than 0 to 600,000 receives 2 points. A total population of 600,001 to 1,200,000 receives 4 points. A total population of 1,200,001 to 1,800,000 1,700,000 receives 6 points. d. A total population of 1,800,000 1,700,001 to 2,400,000 2,300,000 receives 8 points. e. A total population greater than 2,400,000 2,300,000 receives 10 points. Median Transport Times Median transport time of less than 0 to 10 minutes receives 0 points. Median transport time of 101 to 20 minutes receives 1 point. Median transport time of 21 to 30 minutes receives 2 points. Median transport time of 31 to 40 minutes receives 3 points. Median transport time of greater than 41 minutes receives 4 points. Community Support Letters of support for an additional trauma center from 250 to 50 percent of the city and county commissions located within the TSA receive 1 point. Letters of support must be received by the Department on or before April 1 annually. Letters of support for an additional trauma center from more than 50 percent of the city or county commissions located within the TSA receive 2 points. Letters of support must be received by the Department on or before April 1 annually. Severely Iinjured Patients Discharged from Acute Care Hospitals Not Treated In Trauma Centers Discharge of 0 to 200 patients with an International Classification Injury Severity Score (“ICISS”) score of less than 0.85 (“severely injured patients”) from hospitals other than trauma centers receives 0 points. Discharge of 201 to 400 severely injured patients from hospitals other than trauma centers receives 1 point. Discharge of 401 to 600 severely injured patients from hospitals other than trauma centers receives 2 points. Discharge of 601 to 800 severely injured patients from hospitals other than trauma centers receives 3 points. Discharge of more than 800 severely injured patients from hospitals other than trauma centers receives 4 points. Level I Trauma Centers The existence of a verified Level I trauma center receives one negative point. The existence of two verified Level I trauma centers receives two negative points. The existence of three verified Level I trauma centers receives three negative points. Number of Severely Injured Patients If the annual number of severely injured patients exceeds the statutory trauma center patient volumes identified in Section 395.402(1), F.S., by more than 500 patients, the TSA receives 2 points. If the annual number of severely injured patients exceeds the statutory trauma center patient volumes identified in Section 395.402(1), F.S., by 0 to 500 patients, the TSA receives 1 point. If the annual number of severely injured patients is less than the statutory trauma center patient volumes identified in Section 395.402(1), F.S., by 0 to 500 patients, the TSA receives one negative point. If the annual number of severely injured patients is less than the statutory trauma center patient volumes identified in Section 395.402(1), F.S., by more than 500 patients, the TSA receives two negative points. The following scoring system shall be used to allocate trauma centers within the TSAs: TSAs with a score of 5 points or less shall be allocated 1 trauma center. TSAs with a score of 6 to 10 points shall be allocated 2 trauma centers. TSAs with a score of 11 to 15 points shall be allocated 3 trauma centers. TSAs with a score of more than 15 points shall be allocated 4 trauma centers. An assessment and scoring shall be conducted by the Department annually on or before August 30th, beginning August 30, 2015. The number of trauma centers allocated for each TSA based upon the Amended Trauma Service Area Assessment, dated March 24, 2014 January 31, 2014, which can be found at www.FLHealth.gov/licensing- and-regulation/trauma-system/_documents/trauma-area-service- assessment.pdf, is as follows: TSA Counties Trauma Centers 1 Escambia, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton 1 2 Bay, Gulf, Holmes, Washington 1 3 Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Jackson, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Taylor, Wakulla 1 4 Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Putnam, Suwannee, Union 1 5 Baker, Clay, Duval, Nassau, St. Johns 12 6 Citrus, Hernando, Marion 2 7 Flagler, Volusia 1 8 Lake, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, Sumter 3 9 Pasco, Pinellas 23 10 Hillsborough 1 11 Hardee, Highlands, Polk 1 12 Brevard, Indian River 1 13 DeSoto, Manatee, Sarasota 2 14 Martin, Okeechobee, St. Lucie 1 15 Charlotte, Glades, Hendry, Lee 12 16 Palm Beach 1 17 Collier 1 18 Broward 2 19 Dade, Monroe 3 Rulemaking Authority 395.402, 395.405 FS. Law Implemented 395.402 FS. History–New 12-10-92, Formerly 10D-66.1075, Amended 6-9-05, 12-18- 06,Formerly 64E-2.022, Amended . DOH did not incorporate the March TSA Assessment by reference in the rule. After exchanges of communications with the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (“JAPC”), wherein DOH sought guidance concerning this matter, there was no directive by JAPC that such adoption by reference would be required. DOH revised the population criterion in the Proposed Rule to have even breaks in intervals of 600,000 people. The February proposed rule awarded 6 points in TSAs with a population of 1,200,001 to 1,700,000 people (i.e., a 500,000 person interval), where all other measures were based upon a 600,000 person interval. This discrepancy is corrected in the newly Proposed Rule. DOH revised the community support criterion in the Proposed Rule to no longer award a point to TSAs where 0-50% of the city and county commissions send letters of support, because this could have reflected the need for a trauma center (by awarding points to the TSA) when no letters of support were received. The Proposed Rule now awards a point to TSAs where 25-50% of the county commissions send letters of support. DOH chose twenty-five percent as the minimum necessary community support because the smallest number of city and county commissions in all of the TSAs is four, which ensures everyone has a voice. DOH revised the title of the fourth criterion from “severely injured patients not treated in trauma centers” to “severely injured patients discharged from acute care hospitals,” which more accurately depicts the function of the criterion. DOH revised the sixth criterion to include citations to the statutory minimum volumes for Level I and Level II trauma centers in response to a request by the staff attorney for the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee. DOH also revised the rule to reference the March TSA Assessment in place of the January TSA Assessment. Finally, DOH revised the Proposed Rule’s allocation table based on the revisions to the rule and assessment. The Proposed Rule as amended allocates a total of 27 trauma centers throughout Florida’s 19 TSAs. Each TSA is still allocated at least one trauma center. The Proposed Rule allocates only Level I and Level II trauma centers, not pediatric trauma centers. The rulemaking directive in section 395.402(4) is interpreted by DOH to be limited to the allocation of Level I and Level II trauma centers. In addition, the allocation of stand-alone pediatric centers would not be feasible because pediatric trauma patients make up such a small percentage of the population and all of the Level I and II trauma centers have the ability to become pediatric trauma centers. Currently, all of the existing Level I trauma centers provide pediatric care and there are only two stand-alone pediatric centers in Florida. The Proposed Rule’s allocation of 27 trauma centers is conservative. There are currently 27 verified trauma centers in the state, including two verified trauma centers under administrative challenge. There are several elements of the Proposed Rule which Petitioners have raised as evidence of the Department’s failure to comply with its rulemaking authority. Petitioners maintain that DOH failed to consider all of the items enumerated in section 395.402(3)(a)-(k). Each of those criteria is addressed below. (a) The recommendations made as part of the regional trauma system plans submitted by regional trauma agencies-- There is only one regional trauma agency in Florida. DOH reviewed the regional agency’s plan, but it was devoid of any recommendations related to trauma center allocation within the TSAs. The regional agency did not amend its plan or submit any separate recommendations throughout the year-long, public rulemaking process. (b) Stakeholder recommendations--Petitioners complain that DOH did not do enough to solicit input from everyone who would be affected by the Proposed Rule. The Department, however, obtained stakeholder testimony from 171 individuals and written comments from 166 stakeholders through the course of the 12 rule development workshops conducted around the state. The workshops were held in several cities to allow for geographic access by more residents. Over 400 people attended the workshops. The January TSA Assessment was also modified prior to its publication as a result of the stakeholder discussions at the workshops and the negotiated rulemaking session. The March TSA Assessment was further amended after its publication as a result of testimony at the public hearing for the Proposed Rule. (c) The geographical composition of an area to ensure rapid access to trauma care by patients--While Florida contains no mountains, its geography is unique to other states in that it contains several inlets, bays, jetties, and swamplands. As such, the DOH data unit examined the coastal areas versus non- coastal areas. The unit also analyzed urban versus rural areas. The unit also looked at the communities surrounding Lake Okeechobee. Ultimately, the analysis was not meaningful because the effect geography has on access to trauma centers is captured by Florida’s transport time records for emergency vehicles and helicopters. Thus, by reviewing the Emergency Medical Services Tracking and Reporting System (“EMSTARS”) database, DOH could know the actual effects of Florida’s geography on access to trauma centers. (d) Historical patterns of patient referral and transfer--This item was considered, but the January TSA Assessment does not address it because it was neither measurable nor meaningful. The data was not measurable because of limitations of data quality in the Trauma Registry. Even if the data were measureable it would not have been meaningful because it would have only illustrated the catchment areas--i.e., the geographic distribution of patients served by existing trauma centers. As recommended by the ACS, DOH’s primary focus is on the trauma system as a whole, not individual trauma centers. Moreover, transfer and referral history is not meaningful to an assessment designed to inform an allocation rule because, again, DOH does not have the authority to define where new trauma centers are developed within a TSA. See § 402.395(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (charging DOH with allocating by rule the number of trauma centers in each TSA, not trauma center location within a trauma service area). (e) Inventories of available trauma care resources, including professional medical staff--Petitioners suggest that DOH should have made a determination of existing professional medical staff, but suggest no viable means of doing so. The January TSA Assessment catalogues several trauma care resources within TSAs, including financing, trauma centers, acute care hospitals, and EMS response capabilities. The January TSA Assessment does not catalogue available professional medical staff. DOH is unaware of any database that compiles this information. DOH sent a survey to the existing trauma centers requesting information as to their resources and professional staff, however it was not useful due to the limited responses and potential for bias. The data unit also reviewed the DOH Division of Medical Quality Assurance health professional licensure database (COMPASS), however, it was not helpful because physician specialty reporting is voluntary. Similarly, the data unit reviewed AHCA’s inventory of licensed acute care hospitals and the DOH annual physician workforce survey results, but neither data source provided trauma-specific information. As such, the information was not complete and so was not included in the January TSA Assessment. (f) Population growth characteristics--In response to this criterion, the DOH data unit analyzed the potential for growth in all of the TSAs, but the January TSA Assessment did not include this analysis because it was not meaningful given DOH’s requirement to conduct the assessment annually. The January TSA Assessment does however document the population in each TSA. DOH decided that in light of the continuing change of population in Florida, the best it could do would be to make a finding as to the population in each TSA and use it--year by year--to look at the potential need for additional (or presumably fewer) trauma centers in an area. Obviously the population of an area is not directly commensurate with the number of severely injured patients that might be found. Not all areas have equal percentages of severely injured patients; urban areas would have higher percentages than rural areas, in general. Areas through which a major interstate highway runs would expect a higher percentage. There are a number of factors that could potentially affect an area’s expectation of trauma services. Inasmuch as they could not all possibly be included in an analysis, DOH defaulted to a more general view, i.e., the total population. The total population figure became the first measurement in the Proposed Rule. (g) Transportation capabilities; and (h) Medically appropriate ground and air travel times--DOH considered these two factors together and determined to cover them by way of a determination of median transport time, which was to become the second measurement in the Proposed Rule. The data unit gathered transport capability data by reviewing the COMPASS licensure database and archived paper applications to discern the number of licensed emergency medical stations, helicopters, and vehicles in each TSA. The data unit further calculated the number of ground vehicles per the population in each TSA and every 100 square miles. The January TSA Assessment included this information because it was meaningful and gathered from a reliable database. DOH considered the testimony from a number of trauma surgeons during the 12 workshops regarding transport times and learned that the medically appropriate transport time depends on the nature of injuries and individual patients, which are not always discernable at the scene of an accident. Because of this, the sooner a patient can be transported to a trauma center, the better it is for patient outcomes. In light of the patient-specific realities of establishing a medically appropriate transport time, the data team used EMSTARS to calculate the median emergency transport times in each TSA for the assessment. Granted the EMSTARS is a fairly new system under development, and it reports all 911 calls voluntarily reported (not just trauma patients), so it is not a completely accurate measure. But it is a reasonable approach based upon what is available. Also, the transport times do not reflect whether pre-hospital resources are sufficient for the patient or how far away the closest trauma center may be. It is not an absolutely perfect measurement, but it is reasonable and based on logic. (i) Recommendations of the Regional Domestic Security Task Force--Like Florida’s lone regional trauma agency, the RDSTF did not offer any input throughout the year-long, public rulemaking process. However, DOH considered the testimony of numerous emergency management and law enforcement officials during the rule development process. For example, Chief Loren Mock, the Clay County fire chief and also a member of the Domestic Security Oversight Council, testified at the Jacksonville workshop. There is no evidence DOH directly contacted a RDSTF representative to solicit input. (j) The actual number of trauma victims currently being served by each trauma center--The March TSA Assessment included the annual trauma patient volume reported to the Trauma Registry by the existing trauma centers. When comparing the average patient volume reported to trauma registry from 2010- 2012 to the data unit’s calculation of the average number of severely injured patients treated in trauma centers during this same time span, the volumes reported by the trauma centers were approximately 333% greater. This large disparity prompted DOH to follow the example of many other states and use population as a proxy for the number of potential trauma patients in each TSA in its Proposed Rule. DOH found that: greater population means a greater need for health care; population is a good indicator of need for medical services; population is a reasonable proxy for patient volume; and, more people in a given area results in more trauma cases in a given area. (k) Other appropriate criteria: It was well documented in literature presented to DOH during the rulemaking process that there were a large percentage of severely injured patients in Florida not being seen by trauma centers. The data unit confirmed this by evaluating the AHCA administrative database, which identifies the injuries suffered by patients as well as the type of hospitals discharging those patients, i.e., comparing the total number of severely injured patients with the number of severely injured patients discharged from acute care hospitals in each TSA. This disparity was worrisome to DOH and therefore included in the March TSA Assessment. As pointed out by Petitioners, the Department’s figures include patients who may have received treatment outside the TSA in which the injury occurred. The figures may not have contained patients who needed trauma care but could not access it for other reasons. The Proposed Rule, however, makes as complete an evaluation of the potential patient base for trauma centers as is possible. Notwithstanding complaints about how the Department addressed some of the criteria set forth in the statute, it is clear that all criteria were considered and implemented into the Proposed Rule to the extent feasible and possible. The most credible testimony at final hearing supports the Department’s process. Criticisms of the various elements within the Proposed Rule expressed by Petitioners at final hearing seemed to be based on the concept that the Proposed Rule may allow competition to existing trauma centers rather than real complaints about the elements themselves. All agree, for example, that population, transportation times, number of patients, and the existence of nearby trauma centers are important factors that should be considered. Petitioners just seemed to want those factors expressed in different (though unspecified) terms. Petitioners did enunciate certain shortcomings they felt made the Proposed Rule less than complete. St. Joseph lamented the absence of all the Department’s analysis and background for each of the proposed measurements contained in the Proposed Rule. Jackson Memorial pointed out that pediatric trauma centers were not specifically included in the Proposed Rule. Shands showed that odd or unusual results could arise from implementation of the Proposed Rule. For example, the March TSA Assessment showed a total of 216 severely injured patients in TSA 6, comprised of Marion, Citrus, and Hernando counties. The Proposed Rule called for two trauma centers in that TSA. Although the number of patients necessary to maintain a trauma center’s proficiency was disputed by various experts in the field, it is clear that 108 patients per center would be extremely low. However, the figure appearing in the March Assessment is not absolute or necessarily completely definitive of need. There are other factors concerning population and patients that may affect that figure. The Six Measurement Criteria in the Proposed Rule Petitioners also took exception to the measurement criteria in the Proposed Rule. Each of those six criterion is discussed below. Population The Proposed Rule awards from two to ten points to a TSA, depending on the TSA total population. Two points are awarded for a population of less than 600,000 and ten points are awarded for a popu1ation greater than 2.4 million. The Department used total population as a "proxy" for the actual number of trauma patients in the state rather than using the actual number of trauma victims in the state. The Proposed Rule does not define “population” or “Total Population,” nor are those terms defined in the trauma statute, but those words are subject to their normal definition. The Proposed Rule does not re-state the source of the summary Total Population data; it is already contained in the TSA Assessment. Neither the Proposed Rule nor the March TSA Assessment contains any data or analysis reflecting population by age cohort, population density, or incidence of trauma injury in relation to these factors, and the Department did not specifically conduct any analysis of the significance of any aspect of population data as it relates to the need for new trauma centers, other than determining the total population growth rate in the TSAs. Rather, DOH decided upon total population as the most reliable measure available. Traumatic injury rates and the severity of traumatic injury vary widely based on a number of factors, including whether the area is urban or rural, the population age cohort, and the infrastructure and physical characteristics or features of the geographic area. Thus, the most reasonable way to measure possible need was to look at the total population of an area and extrapolate from that basis. The Department presented no specific data or analysis to support the incremental cutoff points for the Total Population scale contained in the Proposed Rule. Rather, the Department took population as a whole because it was the most readily available, annually updateable, and understandable factor it could access. The use of population as a proxy is not without problems, however. In TSA 19, for instance, the population has increased by about thirty-eight percent in recent decades, but the number of trauma victims has declined by approximately twelve percent. As stated, the Proposed Rule as written is not inerrant. Median Transport Times The Proposed Rule awards from zero to four points to a TSA, depending on the Median Transport Time within a TSA. “Median Transport Time” is not defined in the Proposed Rule, nor is the methodology for determining the summary “Median Transport Time” statistics set forth in the TSA Assessment and relied on in the Proposed Rule. Information concerning transport times is, however, contained within the TSA Assessment. The Median Transport Time used in the Proposed Rule represents the average transport time for all 911 transports voluntarily reported to the state EMSTARS database. EMSTARS is a database that is under development and that collects information voluntarily provided by emergency medical transport providers throughout the state. Although not all EMS providers currently report to EMSTARS (most notably, Miami-Dade County EMS does not participate), the database is useful for research and quality improvement initiatives. The Median Transport Time set forth in the March TSA Assessment and used in the Proposed Rule includes transport time for all patients, regardless of the nature of the emergency, whether the call involved trauma, other types of injury, or illness, and regardless of whether the transport was conducted with the regular flow of traffic or required “lights and siren.” The Median Transport Time used in the Proposed Rule includes all EMS transports of up to two hours in duration. The Median Transport Time excludes transports of patients to trauma centers operating pursuant to the initial stage of trauma center licensure known as “provisional approval.” The Department addressed “medically appropriate air or ground transport times,” as required by section 395.402(3)(h), by its generally accepted conclusion that "faster is better." Not all injured patients, however, benefit from receiving care at a trauma center. Thus, while an existing trauma center is an appropriate destination for all patients with any level of injury who live in the area of a trauma center, the trauma center’s value beyond its immediate area is as a resource for the most severely injured patients whose problems exceed the capabilities of their nearest hospital. The Department did not undertake any analysis to balance its "faster is better" approach to trauma planning against the reality that the resources necessary to provide high quality trauma care are limited, as is the number of severely injured patients. There is a general (but not universal) consensus among trauma experts that access to a trauma center within 30-50 minutes is an appropriate benchmark for access to trauma care. Other than "faster is better," the Department did not determine a medically appropriate travel time for any type of trauma or any geographic area, but recognizes the general consensus as appropriate. The Proposed Rule awards from one to four points that weigh in favor of approval of a new trauma center within a TSA if the Median Transport Time of patients transported in response to any 911 call is between 10 and 42 minutes, i.e., within but faster than the generally accepted consensus. Community Support The Proposed Rule awards from one to two points to each TSA depending on the number of letters of support written by elected city or county commissioners. The Proposed Rule allows for consideration of stakeholder recommendations by way of allowing letters of support from local governments. “Stakeholders” in the state trauma system include existing trauma centers, as well as all acute care hospitals, and pre- and post-hospital care providers, including emergency transport services, air ambulances, and emergency management planning agencies. The Department could find no better way to acknowledge support from those stakeholders, and citizens in general, than to have their elected representatives listen to their constituents and then reflect those people’s desires and comments. Severely Injured Patients Discharged from Acute Care Hospitals The Proposed Rule awards from zero to four points to a TSA, depending on the number of severely injured patients discharged from acute care hospitals (non-trauma centers). The Proposed Rule addresses the number of severely injured patients, i.e., those with an ICISS score of < 0.85, discharged from hospitals other than trauma centers. The Proposed Rule does not specifically define “severely injured patient,” but it is obvious from the context in which that term is used. The summary data in the TSA Assessment labeled "number of severely injured patients” within each TSA is intended to reflect the number of severely injured patients who “didn’t get to trauma care.” The Department's numbers may include patients who received treatment at a trauma center outside of the TSA in which the injury occurred. The Department did not conduct any analysis of the "number of severely injured patients not treated at a trauma center" to determine whether the patients not treated at a trauma center received timely and appropriate care at a non-trauma center hospital with the capability to treat the patient's injuries. The number of “severely injured patients who did not get to trauma care” as reported by the Department is unlikely to reflect the actual number of patients who required care at a trauma center but did not have access, and suggests that this number is far higher than it actually is. The Department, for example (and in response to discussion with stakeholders), excluded from its analysis all patients with isolated hip fractures as well as all patients who were released from the hospital within 24 hours, which resulted in fewer severely injured patients. Neither the Proposed Rule nor the TSA Assessment considers demographics or outcomes for "severely injured patients" treated at general acute care hospitals or outcome data for these patients. The Proposed Rule does not include any method for projecting the actual demand for trauma services in the future; it is used to determine need at a single point in time (and will be done so annually). The Proposed Rule does not include any criteria or method for evaluating whether there are any capacity problems at existing trauma centers, or other barriers that impede access to trauma care. The Department intended this criterion to show a highly conservative estimate of patients who definitely need trauma care. Level I Trauma Centers With respect to “Level I Trauma Centers,” the Proposed Rule awards from negative one to negative three points to a TSA, depending on whether the TSA already has one, two, or three verified Level I trauma center(s), respectively. The Proposed Rule creates the opportunity for establishment of both additional Level I and also additional Level II trauma centers, pursuant to the allocation of need, but the Proposed Rule does not assign or subtract points for the existence of Level II trauma centers. This criterion reflects the recommendations of stakeholders at the rule workshops. It was the consensus of many stakeholders that Level I trauma centers should be protected in order to safeguard the research and teaching missions of those centers. The earlier proposal of a “halo” around existing centers, i.e., not approving a new trauma center within a certain radius of existing centers, was not incorporated into the Proposed Rule. This criterion, however, offers some protection for existing centers. Number of Severely Injured Patients The Proposed Rule awards negative two to two points based on the "number of severely injured patients" in a TSA. The criterion awards points based on the number of Severely Injured Patients which exceed the target trauma center patient volumes as provided in section 395.402(1). If the annual number of Severely Injured Patients exceeds the statutory volumes by more than 500 patients, the TSA will receive two points; if it exceeds it by less than 500 the TSA receives one point; if the number of Severely Injured Patients is less than the statutory volumes by zero to 500 patients, the TSA receives one negative point; if it is less than the volumes by more than 500 patients, the TSA receives two negative points. The Proposed Rule does not include any criterion addressing the actual number of trauma victims currently being served by each trauma center. Instead, Section 6 of the Proposed Rule substitutes the "minimum statutory capacity" of existing trauma centers for the actual capacity of existing trauma centers. The Department could not find “a meaningful” way to measure actual capacity of existing trauma centers. The most accurate way to measure capacity was a contentious topic at rule workshops, and the Department spent a good deal of time working with stakeholders on how to measure capacity in such a way that it could be included as a factor in the Proposed Rule. One suggestion as to how to measure trauma center capacity is by how often existing trauma centers actually divert trauma patients to other facilities. However, trauma centers rarely admit that they are not able to take any more patients, and this is not a realistic method to evaluate capacity. The capacity of an existing trauma center may be measured by various means, including the number of beds at the trauma center, the number of ICU beds, the number of trauma bays, number of operating rooms, as well as the frequency of and reasons for diversion. The trauma center’s clinical staff, including medical and surgical specialists, and supporting clinical personnel, are also indicators of capacity. The Department already routinely collects data reflecting trauma center capacity as part of the quarterly and annual reports that all existing trauma centers are required to submit, and by way of on-site licensure surveys. None of those means, however, provided DOH with sufficiently reliable information and data. The Proposed Rule comports with the DOH Mission to protect, promote, and improve the health of all Floridians through integrated state, county, and community efforts. While by no means perfect, the Proposed Rule is based upon logic and reason derived from an extensive analysis of all relevant factors. History of the Rule The rationale for DOH’s inclusion of those particular six criteria in the Proposed Rule can be better understood by considering some more history of the trauma rule. As stated earlier herein, in 2004 the Legislature made substantial revisions to the trauma statute and ordered the Department to complete an assessment of Florida’s trauma system. The scope of this assessment was defined in paragraphs (2)(a) through (g) and subsection (3) of section 395.402. An appropriation of $300,000 was authorized for the Department to contract with a state university to perform the actions required under the amended statute. Ch. 2004-259, § 10, Laws of Florida. One proposal of the 2005 Assessment was to "[c]onsider aligning trauma service areas within [sic] the trauma region boundaries as established in" section 395.4015(1). § 395.402(2)(a), Fla. Stat. In a related 2004 amendment, the Legislature ended the statutory mandate to use the service areas created in 1990. The obvious conclusion from the above statutory change is that the section 395.402(4) service areas could be replaced by the service areas DOH established or adopted once it had the results of the 2005 Assessment. Unlike the prior statute, there is no mandate for specific new service areas, only the option not to use the prior service areas. The 2005 Assessment included five "Recommendations": Trauma centers should be placed in Tallahassee and in Bay County, which do not currently have a trauma center . . . . It is reasonable to set, as a system goal, that 65 percent of trauma center patients will be treated at a trauma center. . . . Designation of additional trauma centers should be based on the need as determined by trauma region. Deployment of additional trauma centers should take place based, not only on the number of patients served per trauma center, but according to the concept of “trauma center capacity” which should be determined by the staffing levels of medical specialists and other healthcare professionals. . . . The data support the feasibility of transforming the Florida Trauma Services Areas so that these would coincide with the Domestic Security Task Force Regions. . . . It is reasonable to fund trauma centers with public funds, based on the unrecoverable financial burden incurred by trauma centers. The only legislative response to the 2005 Assessment was an increase in funding to trauma centers. The Legislature did not repeal the statute establishing the current 19 TSAs. Likewise, the Department has not amended the Rule to implement the recommendations contained in the 2005 Assessment until the present Proposed Rule. The Department, instead, reviewed existing statutes, interpreted section 395.4015 to mandate the establishment of a trauma system plan (which plan would include trauma regions that have boundaries coterminous with those of the regional domestic security task force boundaries). The development of the trauma system plan is distinct from the determination of need for new trauma systems addressed by the Proposed Rule.
