Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the state agency responsible for the administration of certificate of need ("CON") laws. In this case, AHCA projected a need for an additional 295 community nursing home beds in District 3 for the July 1996 planning horizon, and reviewed the applications submitted in response to the published need. A numeric need for 186 beds remains. CON applications are evaluated according to applicable statutory and rule criteria and, as required by Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes, the preferences and factors in the state and local health plans. The applicable state plan is Toward A Healthier Future - The 1993 State Health Plan. The applicable local health plan is the District Three Health Plan for 1992, with 1993 Allocation Factors, prepared by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council in Gainesville. AHCA has not promulgated a rule subdividing District 3. However, the local planning council has divided the sixteen counties into nursing home planning areas, as follows: Columbia, Hamilton, Suwannee, Bradford, Union and Lafayette Counties; Alachua, Dixie, Gilchrist, and Levy Counties; Putnam County; Marion County; Citrus County; Hernando County; Lake and Sumter Counties. In this case, one applicant, Dixie Health Care Center, L.P., ("Dixie") proposes to locate in Dixie County in planning area 2 or (b). Hilliard HealthCare, Inc., ("Hilliard"), Unicare Health Facilities, Inc., ("Unicare"), Life Care Centers of America, Inc., ("Life Care") and Beverly Enterprises- Florida, Inc., ("Beverly") propose to construct nursing homes in planning area 7 or (g). Within planning area 7, Hilliard would build a nursing home in Sumter County, while Unicare, Life Care, and Beverly would build in Lake County. The total population in planning area 2 is approximately 230,000, and in planning area 7, approximately 180,000. More relevant to a determination of need for a nursing home, the population age 65 and over in planning area 2 is approximately 25,000, as compared to 49,000 in planning area 7. Within planning area 2, the projected Dixie County population over 65 in the year 2000 is 2,211, while the Sumter County projection is 9,824 residents. The actual 1994 population age 75 and over was 644 in Dixie, and 3,296 in Sumter County, and over 20,000 in Lake County. Currently, there are 1,238 licensed and approved beds in planning area 2, and 1,391 in planning area 7. For planning area 2, which includes Dixie County, there are 22 people age 65 and over for each nursing home bed. In planning area 7, the ratio is 41.1 to one. If 120 beds are added in Lake County, the comparable county ratio will decrease from 41.4 to 37.6 persons 65 and over to a bed. The addition of 60 beds in Sumter County will result in a decline in the county from 39.5 to ratio of 30.7 to 1. The district-wide ratio for District 3 is 34.5 persons 65 and over for every nursing home bed. The local planning council has compared the relative need for nursing home beds by planning area, according to a Planning Area Nursing Home Bed Allocation Matrix ("PANHAM"). Using a comparison of the percent of population age 75 and over to the percent of district beds in each planning area, the local health council describes planning area 7 as high need/moderate occupancy. It is ranked the planning area of greatest need for this CON application cycle. Planning area 2 is described as an area of low need/high occupancy. It also ranked as an area of priority in this cycle, although lower than planning area 7. The local health council has adopted three factors for use in making more specific determinations of locations which will best meet unmet needs within a planning area. Ranked in order of priority, the factors are: the absence of nursing homes in the same county, a location more than 20 miles or 25 minutes drive from any other nursing home, and an area in which nursing homes within a 20 mile radius exceeded 90 percent occupancy for the most recent twelve months or 95 percent for the most recent six months. There is no evidence that construction of new nursing home beds is not needed or that the need is based on any inefficiency or quality of care problems in existing nursing homes. Consideration of the availability, utilization, and adequacy of other nursing homes and alternative health care providers in the district is also mandated by statute. See, e.g. Subsections 408.035(1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(c), and (2)(d), Florida Statutes. In this group of applicants, only Dixie is favored by the first local health council factor for proposing to locate in a county in which there are no existing or approved nursing homes. Dixie does not meet the preference for a location more than 20 miles or a 25 minute drive from the closest nursing home. Dixie's expert witness who believed the drive took more than 25 minutes lacked direct knowledge of the road conditions. By contrast, the deposition testimony of the administrator of Tri-County Nursing Home established that the drive from Tri-County to Cross City takes about 15 minutes, most of it on a four lane highway, U.S. 27. Tri-County in Wilcox near Fanning Springs, and Medic-Ayers in Trenton are both within 20 miles or 25 minutes drive of the proposed Dixie site. Their occupancy rates for the first six months of 1993 were 94.41 percent and 95.85 percent, respectively, or an average of 95.13 percent. Therefore, Dixie is extremely close to meeting the local allocation factor related to existing nursing home occupancies in excess of 95 percent for the January-June 1993. By contrast, there are 12 existing and approved nursing homes in Lake County, and one in Sumter County. Occupancy rates in Lake County averaged 91.7 percent, but the facility in Sumter County reported 99.13 percent occupancy in the 1992-1993 reporting period. Applicants in Lake and Sumter Counties are not favored for proposing locations in counties without nursing homes, or for locations more than 20 miles or 25 minutes drive from existing nursing homes. Lake County applicants also do not meet the preference for an area defined by a 20-mile radius in which average occupancy rates exceeded 95 percent for the most recent six months or 90 percent for the most recent 12 months. The Sumter County applicant, Hilliard, does meet the occupancy requirement for a location in which nursing homes within a 20 mile radius exceeded 90 percent occupancy for the most recent twelve months. Because the state rule methodology results in a positive need calculation, the local health council factor related to special circumstances in the absence of numeric need is inapplicable to this case. Dixie Health Care Center, L.P., Cross City, Dixie County Dixie is seeking AHCA's issuance of CON 7492 to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Cross City, Dixie County, which is in planning area 2. If issued a CON, Dixie offers to be bound by the following conditions: to construct the nursing home on a specific site in Cross City; to provide 80 percent of its total resident days to Medicaid-reimbursed residents by the second year, with all beds certified for Medicaid and 9 beds certified for Medicare reimbursement; to provide rehabilitative, respite, and adult day care, with transportation for some day care participants; and not to deny HIV+ admissions. At the time that Dixie filed the letter of intent for the 60-bed project in Dixie County, it also submitted three others for contiguous areas of District 3. Thus, four legal notices, for projects in Alachua, Gilchrist, Levy and Dixie Counties were submitted by fax and then by mail to the Gainesville Sun newspaper for publication. All four legal notices, when published, referred to Levy County, as the proposed location of the nursing home. The proof of publication sent by the newspaper to the applicant and included in the CON application states that the notice published was for Dixie County, although the notice itself states that the project will be in Levy County. Dixie's health care planning expert requested the publication of a corrected notice, but there is no evidence that one ever appeared in the newspaper. AHCA accepts CON applications, despite publication errors, if the error is made by a newspaper, not by the applicant. Dixie is a partnership formed to file the application for CON 7492. The project will be funded by Smith/Packett Med-Com, Inc. Smith/Packett is owned by James R. Smith, who with Herbert H. Frazier, is a general partner in Dixie Health Care Center, Limited Partnership. Herbert Frazier is an employee of a Florida licensed general contractor, MB Conn Construction, and president of its Frazier Division which oversees the construction of nursing homes. Separately, the two general partners in Dixie own over 20 nursing homes, and jointly own one in Virginia and one in North Carolina. The partners owned, but, in February 1994, sold a Lake City nursing home. The estimated total project cost is approximately $3,000,000, of which the general partners will provide $250,000 in cash for project development costs and initial cash flow requirements, as noted in the application in the schedule 3 assumptions. Dixie included in its application a letter of interest in financing the project from Colonial Bank, Alabama. Dixie has a contract to purchase a two acre site for the project for $33,000. As previously noted, Dixie meets the highest priority local allocation factor for proposing to locate in a county which has no nursing homes, and is close to the factor for over 95 percent average occupancy rates in the nearest nursing homes. Dixie is also favored by the local plan for proposing to construct at least 60 beds, for improving access within the planning area, and for proposing respite care, adult day care, and rehabilitative therapies. Dixie meets state health plan preferences for proposing the following: to locate in a subdistrict with over 90 percent occupancy (93.42 percent for plan- ning area 2); to serve 80 percent Medicaid, which is in excess of the subdistrict average of 79.37 percent in the first six months of 1993, for specialized services to AIDS, Alzheimers' and mentally ill patients, to provide a continuum of services including long term, respite, and adult day care; to construct a well-designed facility to maximize resident comfort and quality or care, which is a reasonable size and meets all licensure requirements; to provide rehabilitative and restorative therapies, to establish a Medicaid reimbursement rate of $91.75 in year one and $94.65 in year two, as compared to the projected subdistrict high of $92.83 in 1995 and $96.54 in 1996 (using an annual 4 percent inflation rate from the January 1994 rate); * * * to offer multi-disciplinary services to residents, with the various therapist, social workers, and counselors; to document protection for residents rights and privacy, and to establish resident's councils, quality assurance and discharge planning programs, as SunQuest and all other nursing homes operating in Florida must do by state laws; to operate with lower administrative costs and higher patient care costs than the average in the district ($21.61 and $51.33 respectively in year two (1996), in contrast to $22.02 and $41.62 in 1992 for the respective average district per diem costs); Questions were raised about Dixie's compliance with state factors (8) for providing superior resident care in existing facilities, and (9) for staffing ratios which exceed minimum state requirements and are appropriate for proposed special services. The proposal is substantially based on the assumption that the applicant will contract with SunQuest for management services. Although the application refers to a management contract with SunQuest, no contract has been executed, which is not unusual prior to the issuance of a CON. At the final hearing, however, Dixie contended that SunQuest is only one of the candidates for a management contract, while conceding that the management policies and procedures in its application are those of SunQuest. In fact, the Dixie application states in response to state allocation factor (9) that SunQuest will be the management company. SunQuest manages 10 and leases an additional 10 long term care facilities in the United States, two in Florida. One of the Florida nursing homes, Bayshore Convalescent Center in North Miami Beach, has a superior license. SunQuest also manages the Lake City Extended Care Center, which was built by the company which employs Mr. Frazier, began accepting residents in December 1993, and was sold by the Dixie general partners in approximately February 1994. The original holder of the Lake City CON became unable to develop the proposal and contacted Mr. Smith and Mr. Frazier just prior to the expiration of the CON. They acquired the CON, financed, designed, and constructed the nursing home. Lake City currently operates with a conditional license, as a result of medical record-keeping deficiencies. The testimony, by Dixie's corporate representative, that SunQuest is merely one management company candidate along with Senior Care Properties, is inconsistent with the totality of the proposal, which renders significantly less reliable the program descriptions in the original application. Dixie's intent to provide van transportation for adult day care participants was also questioned, due to the absence of any provision for the service in the financial schedules to the application. The financial feasibility of Dixie's proposal is also a matter at issue. Although Dixie has a contract to purchase a two acre site, the architect who designed the facility testified he had constructed a 120-bed two-story nursing home on less than two acres, but that two and a half to three acres are generally needed to construct a 60-bed facility. Dixie projected a net loss of $201,813 in the first year of operation and a net profit of $55,123 by the end of the second year. The general partners have committed to provide $250,000 to cover the first year negative cash flow. However, the average annual salaries projected when multiplied by number of full time equivalent ("F.T.E.") positions listed on schedule 6 of its application exceeds salaries listed in the projected income and expenses on schedule 11 by approximately $219,866 in year one and $51,694 in year two. Including the underestimate of related benefits, the loss expected in the second year is $8,759. Dixie maintains that the staffing on schedule 6 cannot be compared to the pro forma, because the staffing and related expenses in the pro forma will increase over the first year as the census increases, while the staffing schedule is a snapshot at the end of the first year. The same is not true for the second year, since the facility is projected to be full after 8 months. Dixie's expert on finance described the second year discrepancy between a $50,000 profit and an $8,700 loss as insignificant in determining the financial viability of a $2 million project which, taking into consideration depreciation, amortization, and noncash related items, still results in a positive cash flow. Dixie's financial feasibility also depends on its reaching 96 percent occupancy by the fourth quarter of the first year. One witness for Dixie has achieved 93 percent occupancy in similar facilities in a county he deemed comparable, but has operated his facilities since 1989. Dixie also has to contend with competition for residents and staff from a relatively new facility within 20 miles and a 25 minute drive, Tri-County Nursing Home. Tri-County Nursing Home in Gilchrist County opened in May 1992, close to the Gilchrist- Dixie line, serving residents of Levy, Gilchrist and Dixie Counties. Approximately 30 of its 60 beds are occupied by Dixie County residents, all of whom rely on Medicaid reimbursement. Tri-County is also establishing a 25 person adult day care, having completed the required state inspection and awaiting the issuance of its license. After 8 months of operation, 51 of the 60 beds were filled. In June of 1993, Tri-County was full, with 98 percent occupancy. Approximately 40 percent of Tri-County's staff resides in Dixie County. There was testimony that 41 registered nurses reside in Dixie County, but with no information concerning their distribution within the county, current employment, or ages, their availability to work at a new nursing home could not be evaluated. In Gilchrist County, the ratio of persons 65 and over to nursing home beds is 8.7 to 1, in contrast to 31.46 for Levy County, and 34.5 for the district. The data supports the conclusion that Tri-County relies on service to Dixie County residents, clearly has an insufficient population base within Gilchrist County to fill its beds, and even when combined with Levy County is below the district ratio of 34.5 persons over 65 per nursing home bed. AHCA's expert in health planning and nursing home financial feasibility testified that Tri-County has had financial difficulties. On balance, Dixie has failed to demonstrate that it has estimated reasonable land requirements and costs, and that it can meet the required occupancy and staffing levels to survive financially, without adversely affecting Tri-County. Hilliard Healthcare, Inc., Bushnell, Sumter County Hilliard is the applicant for CON 7485 to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Bushnell, Sumter County, which is in planning area 7. Hilliard's CON, if issued, will commit to construction of Osprey Point Nursing Center on a specific five acre site on State Road 475, and to the establishment of a 10-bed Medicare unit, and a 20-bed secure Alzheimers' unit, with all beds Medicare and Medicaid certified. Hilliard commits to providing 64 percent of total resident days for Medicaid. The total estimated project cost is $2,650,000, funded by $650,000 cash from stockholders and $2,000,000 in loans from Bankers First. Hilliard, formed in 1987, currently owns a superior licensed 120-bed facility in Nassau County, having completed a 60-bed expansion in September 1994. The Nassau County nursing home is managed by Health Care Managers ("HCM"), which is owned by Steven Sell, Hilliard's president and founder. Mr. Sell, in partnership with three others, first acquired a 55-bed facility in Jacksonville in 1984, expanded it to 120 beds in 1988, and sold it in 1994 for a profit of approximately $2.5 million. In 1991, Hilliard's president also received a CON to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Clay County, which was sold without a profit, but at a break-even point, while it was under construction. HCM is the intended manager of the Bushnell facility, if the CON is approved. Hilliard submitted a notice of its intent to file a CON application to the Sumter County Times newspaper for publication. The notice, published in November of 1993, stated erroneously that the application would be filed on December 1, 1992, rather than December 1, 1993. Hilliard's president testified that he knows for a fact that he submitted the notice with the correct date, but no document in evidence establishes what Hilliard submitted to the Sumter County Times. Hilliard's proposal does not meet the local health council factors for a location in a county without nursing homes, nor is Bushnell more than a 20 mile radius or 25 minute drive from existing nursing homes. It does merit consideration under the factor which relates to the occupancy of nursing homes within a 20 mile radius, all of which exceeded 90 percent from July 1992 - June 1993, ranging from 90.89 to 99.13 percent. The highest rate was at WeCare, the only other nursing home in Sumter County, which is located in Wildwood, in the northern area of Sumter County. WeCare has two fifteen-bed Alzheimers' units, and unchallenged CON approval to add 30 beds. The approval of the 30 additional beds at WeCare raises the bed to population ratio of Sumter County from 20.2 to 23.5 per 1000, in contrast to the current Lake County ratios of 22.4. With the approval of 60 beds at Hilliard and another 120 beds in Lake County, the ratios are increased to 30.2 in Sumter and 24.7 in Lake County. After approval of WeCare's addition, the need in Sumter County has been decreased. Hilliard, by its proposal to serve central and southern sections of Sumter County, would improve access within the planning area. The occupancy rate for Medicare patients at WeCare was 1.1 percent. Hilliard contends that the relatively low percentage of Medicare services indicates a need for short-term, post-hospitalization rehabilitation services, as proposed in its 10-bed Medicare unit. Hilliard demonstrated that average lengths of hospital stays for Sumter County residents for certain procedures exceed national Medicare reimbursement averages, but there was no comparison to average lengths of stay within the district or the state. Other local health council allocation factors which apply to and favor Hilliard's proposal are those for: establishing a facility of at least 60 beds, improving access within a planning area with over 80 percent occupancy, and serving Alzheimers' and dementia patients. Hilliard's proposal meets state preferences for: locating in a subdistrict exceeding 90 percent occupancy (95.42 percent for planning area 7); * * * providing specialized services to Alzheimers' residents; offering respite care (although limited to hospice services); designing a comfortable facility, with short corridor segments, relatively large therapy areas, and a separate enclosed courtyard for the Alzheimers' unit; proposing occupational, speech and physical therapies, particularly to enhance the functioning of Alzheimers' residents; setting Medicaid rates of $101.90 for 1996 and $104.13 for 1998, in contrast to the highest rates projected for the same time, $107.89 and $113.28, respectively (using 5 percent inflation); providing superior resident care at its existing Nassau County Nursing home; proposing staffing ratios in excess of minimum state requirements, with reasonable salaries; including multi-disciplinary staff, including occupational, speech, and physical therapists, as well as nurses and an activities director; protecting residents' rights and privacy, and developing quality assurance and discharge planning programs; and proposing lower administrative costs ($26.35) with higher patient care costs ($64.30) than the district average of $26.63 and $54.67, respectively (1977 projection with 5 percent inflation). Hilliard does not meet state preference 2 for service to Medicaid proportionate to the subdistrict average, which is 69.95 percent, in contrast to Hilliard's proposed commitment of 64 percent. Under the preference, Hilliard's proposal to emphasize Medicare reimbursed therapies does not relieve it of the obligation to serve a proportionate share of Medicaid. Hilliard's proposal does not meet the specific exceptions allowed in preference 2 for applicants proposing to serve particular ethnic or cultural groups, and those developing multi-level care systems. Hilliard has a commitment letter from Banker's First to provide a $2 million loan for a fee of 1 1/2 to 2 percent of the principal loan amount, or $30,000 to $40,000. In schedule 1 of the application Hilliard's estimate of closing costs in $10,000, with $4,120 in legal fees. Dixie's expert claimed that the closing cost was inconsistent with the Banker's First letter and unreasonably low. By contrast for a $3 million loan, Dixie estimated $10,000 for loan closing costs, $30,000 for legal fees, $10,000 for recording fees and taxes, and $60,000 in loan origination fees. Dixie's expert apparently overlooked an additional $20,000 in origination fees, which was included on Hilliard's schedule 1. Hilliard projects a loss of $177,000 in year one, and income from nursing home operations of $114,690 in year two. In the first year, a loan of $271,660 is expected to cover the losses in year one. In the second year, a pay off of $154,940 on the loan is expected. The financial ability of Hilliard's shareholders to provide the initial $650,000 equity contribution and $271,660 to cover first year losses was questioned. Hilliard's president noted that the shareholders previously raised in excess of $600,000 to develop the Nassau County facility and have received $2.5 million in profits from the sale of the Jacksonville nursing home. Personal financial statements of three of the six stockholders were included in Hilliard's application. The personal financial statements were incomplete, omitting referenced attachments. The statements were also inaccurate or inconsistent, with missing liabilities, discrepancies regarding property values, and including the total value of some property which was not owned by the shareholders individually. Nevertheless, the statements do, according to Dixie's expert, show that the shareholders could provide over $900,000 in capital needed for Hilliard to be financially feasible, although that would take virtually all of the liquid assets, unless they assumed some additional individual debts. On balance, Hilliard has shown that Sumter County is more likely than not in need of additional Medicare-reimbursed subacute services, and that its proposal is financially feasible based on the shareholders' history of being able to raise capital for similar development projects. Lake County Applicants Three applicants in this batch seek to construct new 115 or 120-bed nursing homes in Lake County. Given the remaining numeric need for 186 beds, only one of the applicants can be approved. See, Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., et al. v. AHCA, et al., DOAH Case No. 92-6656 (F.O. 10/17/94). In addition, the District 3 Allocation Factors Report Preferences includes the following guideline: To the extent possible, all planning areas ranked in one of the four categories of priority established in subparagraph d above should be approved to add some new beds. Unicare Health Facilities, Inc., Lady Lake, Lake County Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. ("Unicare") is an applicant for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home or to receive a partial award to construct a 115-bed community nursing home in the town of Lady Lake, in northwest Lake County. Unicare proposes to have its CON conditioned on the establishment of a 20-bed Alzheimers' and related dementia unit, an adult day care to accommodate an additional 20 Alzheimers' sufferers for half day care, and on providing 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents. Unicare also plans to include a 10-bed subacute unit, and to offer rehabilitative therapies, respite and hospice care. The total size of the building is 58,700 square feet. Unicare is a subsidiary of United Health, Inc., which is committed to finance the project by providing an equity contribution of 60 percent and drawing on its available line of credit for the remaining 40 percent of the total projected cost of $5,754,983. Unicare owns and operates 45 nursing homes in 7 states, has been in business for 28 years and in Florida since 1982, and currently owns and operates 13 Florida nursing homes. Life Care Centers of America Life Care Centers of America, Inc. ("Life Care") proposes to establish a 120-bed community nursing home of 53,175 square feet, in west central Lake County, in the areas of Lady Lake, Tavares, or Leesburg, for a total project cost of $5,906,000. Life Care's CON, if issued, will include its commitment to provide 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents, to establish a 20-bed Alzheimers/dementia unit, to offer adult day care services, and to include a 20-bed sub-acute unit. Life Care is a privately held company operating 150 nursing homes in 27 states. Life Care owns two and operates three other nursing homes in Florida. Life Care proposes to fund the Lake County nursing home from $206,000 cash-on-hand and $5,700,000 in financing from a non-related company. With its application, Life Care submitted letters of interest from potential lenders with interest rates ranging from 9 to 12 percent, and a 25 year amortization schedule. In reviewing other Life Care applications, AHCA has considered and rejected as incomplete a list of capital projects identical to that included in this Lake County application. Specifically, Life Care listed projects by county name, although the total amount of capital obligations, according to AHCA, was significantly underestimated. Life Care submitted, at hearing, its exhibit 6, a stipulation to certain facts and, through the testimony of its Vice President for Development, established that the facts related to the schedule 2 issues in this case are identical to those considered in Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. Agency For Health Care Administration, DOAH Case No. 94-2409 (F.O. 10/24/94), which is pending on appeal in the district court. Beverly Enterprises Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. ("Beverly") is a wholly owned subsidiary of Beverly Corporation-California, a subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Beverly proposes to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in Lady Lake or Leesburg, in Lake County, with a commitment to provide 73 percent of total annual resident days for Medicaid, to establish a 20-bed Medicare-certified subacute unit with 4 beds for ventilator-dependent patients, an 18-bed Alzheimers' wing, an adult day care for 8 clients, respite care, and to accept and care for residents who are HIV positive, or have mental health disorders. Beverly also will commit to donate $10,000 for gerontological research. Beverly Enterprises companies operate 720 nursing homes, 70 in Florida. Of the 70, 41 are operated by the applicant. Beverly's proposal to establish Lake Beverly Terrace has a total project cost of $5,421,372, for 48,969 square feet. Existing Nursing Home and Alternatives - Sections 408.035(1)(b), and (2), Florida Statutes. As of January 1994, there were 460 nursing home beds in Leesburg, 142 in Clermont, 236 in Mount Dora and 377 in Eustis. All of the facilities, exceeded the average Lake County occupancy of approximately 92 percent in 1992- 1993, except two, Waterman Hospital Extended Care Center in Eustis and Edgewater in Mount Dora. All of the parties agreed that additional subacute and Alzheimers' beds, and adult day care spaces are needed in Lake County. Local and State Health Plans - Sections 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Unicare, Life Care, and Beverly propose to locate in Lake County, within planning area 7 for Lake/Sumter Counties. The planning area has a higher priority need ranking than planning area 2, as determined by the local health plan council. Local allocation factors 1 - 5 apply equally, or are inapplicable to the three proposals. There are existing nursing homes in the county, which are within 20 miles or 25 minutes all of the proposed locations, and which exceeded 90 percent occupancy. Unicare distinguishes its proposal based on its intention to locate in the town of Lady Lake, rather than further contributing to the concentration of nursing homes in Leesburg. Lady Lake was, in 1990, the third largest municipality in Lake County, and projected to be the largest in 2000. The 1990- 2000 projected growth rate is over 100 percent, in contrast to 13 percent for Leesburg, 50 percent for Tavares, and 37 percent for the entire county. Lady Lake was also mentioned in the Life Care and Beverly applications as a possible location for their facility, along with other towns in Lake County. Beverly's Vice President has investigated the cost of sites only in Leesburg, Fruitland Park, and Eustis, but concedes that Leesburg is a desirable location due to its proximity to the hospital. Without a CON condition, which AHCA could impose, all three applicants could locate anywhere within Lake County. Although Lady Lake is only 8 miles from Leesburg, Unicare's proposal, all other factors being equal, would be favored as more consistent with local allocation factor 6, which discourages the concentration of nursing homes in one community within a multi- county planning area. The final local allocation factor, 7 (as related to Alzheimers' and adult day care), as well as state health plan factors 3 (as related to Alzheimers') and 4 (as related to adult day care), and subsection 408.035(1)(o), Florida Statutes, favor applicants proposing specialized care or therapies to meet the needs of community and nursing home residents suffering from Alzheimers' and related forms of dementia. Unicare's 20-bed Alzheimers' unit and programs, and half day adult day care for 20 additional Alzheimers' sufferers are consistent with the specialized services that are needed. Life Care also proposes, as conditions for its CON, that it will establish a 20-bed Alzheimers/dementia unit and an adult day care center to accommodate 10 participants a day, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Beverly proposes to provide services in an 18-bed Alzheimers' wing, and an 8-person adult day care program. State health plan allocation factors met by all of the Lake County applicants include the following: locating in a subdistrict exceeding 90 percent occupancy (approximately 92 percent for planning area 7 for January-June 1993); see, also Subsection 408.035(1)(b), (d), and (2) (a) - (d); proposing to serve 73 percent Medicaid- reimbursed residents in comparison to the subdistrict average of 72.65 percent in the first six month of 1993; and * * * (11) documenting measures and procedures to protect resident's rights and privacy, and the use of resident councils, quality assurance and discharge planning programs. The Lake County applicants' proposals differ more when compared in accordance with state health plan factors and related statutory criteria, for: services to AIDS residents and the mentally ill; respite care, adult day care, and other services in a continuum of care (Sections 408.035(1)(o), F.S.); facilities with designs which maximize residents' comfort and the quality of care, and the costs and methods of construction (Sections 408.035(l)(m), F.S.); innovative therapeutic programs to enhance mental and physical functioning; charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict (Sections 408.035(2)(e), F.S.); a record of providing superior care in existing nursing homes (Sections 408.035)(1)(c), F.S.); staffing in excess of minimum requirements, with the highest ratio of registered and licensed practical nurses to residents (Sections 408.035)(1)(h), F.S. - availability of staff and personnel); use of professionals from a variety of disciplines; and * * * (12) administrative cost which are lower patient care costs which are higher than the district average. State health plan preference 3 is given to applicants for care to AIDS residents and the mentally ill, and state health plan 4, in part, applies to respite care. Beverly points to its increase in service to HIV positive patients from 39 patients for 124 patient days in 1993 to 3500 patient days in 1994. Unicare also has served AIDS residents. All of the Lake County applicants plan to offer respite care. Beverly offers a wider array of specialized services. By providing a range of levels of care to inpatients and outpatients, including adult day care and respite care, the applicants also, in part, meet the criterion of subsection 408.035(1)(o), Florida Statutes. Nursing homes with more features to enhance resident comfort and quality of care are given state health plan preference 5. Unicare's 58,720 square foot plan, includes semi-private patient rooms designed for the placement of the heads of residents' beds on opposite walls, each side with a window, rather than the alignment of beds next to each other, typical of semi-private hospital rooms. The plan includes indoor wandering space for Alzheimers' residents in a loop around an activity and recreation area, separated by a 3 to 4 foot wall. The Alzheimers' unit has a separate dining room with access to a secured courtyard, which, in turn, connects with the day care center. AHCA's architectural report notes that the construction cost of $60 per gross square foot is below the median cost projection, because Unicare will use a design/build contract. The design/build contract provides for one contractor to provide all of the services, including architectural and design, engineering and construction management, which saves time and money. Unicare's contractor, KM Development Corporation, has been in business since 1977, and has renovated and enlarged Unicare's facilities in Florida without cost overruns, and has done residential construction in the state. Unicare's design, based on the AHCA architectural review and the contractor's testimony, meets requirements for licensure and safety, and is a one-hour fire safety protected structure with a stucco finish, and brick and wood trim. Although skeptical and concerned that the design/build contract can be manipulated to cut corners to stay within budget, AHCA's expert in architecture testified that it is possible for Unicare to build the facility at the projected cost, but he would expect a cost over- run. Life Care's 53,175 square foot building will cost $75 a square foot. AHCA's architects described it as wings organized around a central courtyard, providing good visual control of short corridors. Life Care's design also includes a gift shop, library, and ice cream parlor. A separate wing for Alzheimers residents is adjacent to the adult day care center, with a separate dining room and courtyard. The institutional effect of corridors is decreased by using recessed entrances and doors to residents' rooms. There were no concerns expressed by architectural experts with the appropriateness of the design for the functions in each wing, the adequacy of the project cost, or the safety of the structure. Beverly's construction cost per gross square feet, listed as $63 on line I in response to question 4A was challenged as too low by Life Care's experts. Beverly's construction cost plus a 10 percent contingency or $70 a square foot for 48,969 square feet is considered reasonable by AHCA, although that eliminates the availability of the contingency for unknown conditions on an unselected site. Beverly's design is organized generally around a core area of courtyards with therapy space in the center. Beverly's Alzheimers' unit has a separate courtyard which allows wandering residents to exit a door near one end of the corridor and return by a door near the opposite end. AHCA's architectural review concludes that Beverly's design meets licensure and safety requirements. In general, Unicare's design better meets the preference for enhancing resident comfort and quality of care with rooms over 30 percent larger than required, four outside landscaped areas, physical therapy rooms, and three staff lounges, and an in-service training area, but its cost may be underestimated. Life Care's design is second in terms of accommodating program needs with space arrangements. Adult day care clients with Alzheimers, for example, are located adjacent to the area for Alzheimers residents' programs and activities. Life Care's projected construction costs are also the highest. Innovative therapeutic programs effective in enhancing physical and mental functions are favored in state health plan preference 6. Unicare will provide physical, occupational, and speech therapy and has developed special programs to serve Alzheimers's and related dementia residents and day care clients. Life Care and Beverly will offer IV therapy, wound care, and ventilator and respiratory therapy in addition to other therapies offered by Unicare. Beverly's therapy programs are more innovative and intense, based on the staffing and level of detail provided in describing the proposed services. Preference 7 is given for proposed charges not exceeding the highest Medicaid per diem in the subdistrict. Unicare proposes a Medicaid per diem rate for $86.57 for 120 beds in the second year while at least one provider in the subdistrict for 1997 will be charging $95.27. Unicare computed projected future rates by using 9.1 percent inflation of the Medicaid rate at one facility, which is not necessarily the highest existing provider, which results in a $98.44 rate. Unicare criticized Beverly's use of a 5 percent inflation rate of the highest current provider resulting in a projected rate of $99.47. The highest Medicaid rate in the district, inflated forward to 1997, was $99.31 at the time the application was submitted, so that Beverly's proposed charge of $99.00 is lower, as is Life Care's projected $97.11 and Unicare's $86.57. Preference 8 and subsection 408.035(1)(c) require a comparison of the applicants' records in terms of the quality of care provided in their existing nursing homes, as indicated partly by licensure ratings over the last 36 months. During that time, Unicare's 13 nursing homes have had 468 months of operation at approximately 63 percent superior, 29 percent standard, and 9 percent conditional. Beverly has had a total of 976 months of operations, 67 percent superior, 25 percent standard, and 7 percent conditional. Beverly has also paid a fine to the State of Oregon to settle claims related to patient care problems. The two Florida nursing homes owned by Life Care are rated standard, one in Citrus County opened in November, 1994 and is not yet eligible for a superior license. The other, in Altamonte Springs has been in operation for over 36 months, 29 of those with a superior licensure rating. The three applicants generally have operated and have the capacity to continue to operate superior facilities. Preference 9, on proposed staffing ratios and preference 10 related to the use of varied professional staff are also indications of the quality of care. AHCA requires one registered nurse on the day shift and none on the night shift in a 120-bed nursing home. All of the applicants exceed the minimum. The number of nursing hours per patient day will be 3.2 at Unicare, 3.35 at Life Care, and 3.85 at Beverly. One of four registered nurses on the day shift at Beverly will always be in the subacute unit. However, the ratio outside the unit, for the remaining 100 residents, still exceeds the minimum and meets the preference requirements. All three companies have existing Florida facilities available to provide training and, if needed, transfers of experienced staff to a new nursing home. They currently use and are proposing to continue to use professional staff from a variety of disciplines to meet residents' and clients' needs. Average administrative costs in the district, inflated forward, will be $24.58 and average patient care costs will be $49.49. The applicants report their comparable projections on Schedule 11. Unicare's projected costs are $27.80 and $50.59, respectively. Life Care's costs are $24.84 and $65.94, respectively. Beverly's are $24.44 and $62.30, respectively. With erroneously omitted laundry costs added to administrative costs, Beverly's administrative costs increase to $26.52. All three applicants propose higher administrative costs than the district average, but Life Care's are the lowest. All three have higher than average patient care costs, with Life Care favored as the highest. The following subsections of the CON statutory review criteria do not apply, in this case, to distinguishing among the Lake County applicants: - availability or adequacy of alternatives, such as outpatient care or home care; - economics of joint or shared resources; - need for equipment or services not accessible in adjoining areas; * * * - special needs of health maintenance organizations; - needs of entities which provide substantial services beyond the district; and - impacts on costs and effects of competition. Subsection 408.035(1)(g) - research and educational facilities needs Unicare and Life Care have established foundations to foster education and research in gerontology and health care. Beverly will commit, as a condition for the issuance of its CON, to providing a $10,000 research grant for a gerontological studies to Florida State University. All three companies assist in providing clinical experiences for nursing and therapy students in technical schools, community colleges, and universities, and benefit by recruiting employees from the programs. Subsection 408.035(1)(h) - availability of funds to establish and operate project, and Subsection 408.045(1)(i) - immediate and long-term financial feasibility Unicare has $5 million in available cash and a $30 million line of credit. Unicare, using costs from other facilities adjusted to take into consideration geographical differences, projects a net loss of $250,672 in the first year and a profit of $50,482 in the second year. Unicare failed to include $3,000 in housekeeping equipment in its projected expenses, but can more than cover that omission with a $75,000 contingency. Life Care had a net worth of $50 million in 1993. For calendar year 1992, its audited financial statement shows over $10 million in net earnings and $4.5 million in cash on hand. Life Care projects a net loss of $548,190 in year one and a net profit of $236,022 in year two. Beverly has access to over $200 million for project development, combining its cash, cash equivalents, commercial paper and lines of credit. Beverly projects a pre-tax loss of $314,000 in the first year and a net profit of $214,000 in the second year. Beverly's figures were questioned based on its use of the experience of a Tampa area facility to determine some costs and expenses, its assumption that Medicare will be 13 percent of its patient mix, and its projected lengths of stay and revenues from Medicare. Beverly's use of unit-costs from existing facilities with modifications to fit the specific proposal is reasonable. Although the district Medicare rate is 5.7 percent and Lake County's is 6.1 percent, Beverly's higher proportion of Medicare is consistent with the level of subacute services it proposes in 20 of its 120 beds. After the maximum of 100 days of Medicare coverage, Beverly will have weaned or will transfer ventilator patients who do not have private insurance. Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - past and proposed Medicaid participation Unicare has no nursing homes with CON conditions requiring a specified level of Medicaid participation, having purchased older, existing facilities in Florida. Nevertheless, eleven of its thirteen facilities exceed the Medicaid average in their respective subdistricts. For the first six months of 1993, Life Care's Medicaid resident days were 78 percent in Altamonte Springs (with no CON condition), 70 percent in Punta Gorda, 88 percent and 68 percent, respectively, in the two West Palm Beach nursing homes. Beverly's percent of patient days for Medicaid increased 63.3 percent to 66.8 percent from 1993 to 1994 for facilities in Florida. Beverly paid a $1500 fine to the state for falling below its Medicaid commitment in one of 17 state facilities with such conditions, Coral Trace in Lee County. AHCA agreed to reduce the Coral Trace medicaid condition from 78 percent to 53.3 percent to reflect the subdistrict average. In 1994, at Coral Trace, 49.5 percent of total patient days were Medicaid. All three Lake County applicants have demonstrated strong compliance with Medicaid participation criterion. Comparison of Lake County Applicants On balance, the Lake County applications are all more in compliance than not with statutory review criteria, with varying strengths and weaknesses. They are financially sound, experienced nursing home owners and operators. Unicare will improve access within the planning area. The demographic data on the municipality of Lady Lake shows significant growth. Unicare also will build a better designed and larger facility, and will focus its programs on meeting the needs of Alzheimers' residents and day care participants. Unicare's weaknesses are AHCA's architect's expectation that it will experience cost- overruns and the absence of ventilator services. Unicare relies on its actual experience with Florida construction projects to support the reasonableness of its projections. Unicare also projects the lowest Medicaid per diem rate. Life Care proposes to offer a wider range of specialized programs and therapies than Unicare, a design second to Unicare's in terms of size and residential amenities. Life Care's project costs are the highest of the Lake County applicants, but Life Care, when operational, will have the highest proportion of its costs applied to patient care. Beverly offers a range of programs comparable to those offered by Life Care, with greater emphasis on subacute care, and less emphasis than Unicare on Alzheimers' services. Beverly will build the smallest nursing home at the lowest cost, but is highest in projected Medicaid per diem rate. Unicare is recommended for CON approval due to its superior design, and superior Alzheimers' and day care services, and proposed location. Because the proposed location is a factor in Unicare's favor, it is recommended that Unicare's CON be conditioned on its obtaining a site in Lady Lake. Absent Unicare's agreement to a condition on location, Beverly is recommended for approval based primarily on its lower project cost, scope and intensity of subacute of services, and higher staffing levels.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA issue CON No. 7489 to Unicare to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in District III, conditioned on the establishment of a 20-bed unit for residents with Alzheimers and related dementia and an adult day care providing half day care for 20 clients, the provision of 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents, and the selection of a site for the facility in the municipality of Lady Lake, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASES NOs. 94-2452, 94-2453, 94-2462, 94-2467 and 94-2971 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner, Dixie's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 7-9 and 14. Rejected conclusions in Findings of Fact 15-19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 7, rejected in part in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted first sentence in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected second sentence in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 13. 19-22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 17-19. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. 28-30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. 33-34. Rejected in Findings of Fact 8 and 22. 35-36. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 40-41. Accepted in part in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 42-46. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 35. 47. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 22. 48-49. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 50. Rejected in Findings of Fact 23. 51-52. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21-23. 53-54. Accepted. 55-57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9 and 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 62-63. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement. 68-69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4 and 9. 70-76. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12. 77-78. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 79-80. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Petitioner, Life Care's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2-4. 3-4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4. Accepted, except 6, in Findings of Fact 51-53. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 56-67. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42 and 58. 11. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4, 8-10 and 51-53. 12. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 13. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51. 14. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. 15. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 52. 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 71. 17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54-67. 18. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. 19. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 59. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 43 and 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 68. 32-34. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 35. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 68. 36-38. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. 39-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. 43-44. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 45-53. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Rejected in Findings of Fact 70. 56-59. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 61-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. 66-67. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Petitioner, Hilliard Health Care's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. 3-4. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 8-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted. 12-15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3, 4 and 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 31. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16, 24 and 30. 26-27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11, 15 and 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. 31-34. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 17-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 17-19. 37-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Rejected in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 48-49. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Rejected as "lowest need" in Findings of Fact 7. 52-61. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5, 6 and 22. 62-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-16 and 23. Accepted. Rejected in Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 5-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-9 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 25. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 16-19. Rejected as not at issue. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. 77-79. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24 and 30. 80-85. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 31-36. Rejected except first sentence in Findings of Fact 21. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. 88-91. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21-22. 92. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. Respondent, AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 2-6. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 7. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12. 8-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47-49. 10-12. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 39-41. 13-16. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24-26. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 42-44. Accepted. 20-23. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4-9. 24. Accepted. 25-26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. 27-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15, 24-30 and 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 67. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15, 31, and 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, 30 and 55. 33-35. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16-19. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. 39-40. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in Findings of Fact 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47 and 61. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47 and 56. 46-48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. 51-52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 21. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 21 and 23. 53-55. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 56. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22. 57-58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 21. 59. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. 60-64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 49 and 70. 65-66. Rejected in Findings of Fact 70 and in conclusions of law 76. 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. 68-69. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. 70-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57-60, except "probable" in last sentence of proposed findings of fact 74. (See, T-p 2197.) Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 and 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31. Petitioner/Respondent, Beverly's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1 and 37. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45 and 46. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 47. Accepted in Findings of Fact 43. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Accepted in Findings of Fact 51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 6. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 37 and 50. 16-17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 52. 20,22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51 and 54. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 39, 42 and 47. 25 Accepted in Findings of Fact 39, 42, 47 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in Findings of Fact 56. 28-29. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 59 and 60. 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 62, 63 and 64. Accepted in Findings of Fact 65. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Rejected as speculative. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in general except conclusion in Findings of Fact 66. 40-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66 and 68. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. 50-51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 70. 54-55. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 56-58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Rejected, as irrelevant based on previous interpretations by AHCA, in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 62-64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57-60. 65-66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 71. 67. Accepted, but list not construed as exclusive in Findings of Fact 56. 68-69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in preliminary statement and subordinate to Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Petitioner, Unicare's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 37 and 39. 2-3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40, 41, and 66. Subordinate to preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. 7-8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-8 and 51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40. Subordinate to preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 39. 12-13. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 14-16. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 52. 17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 18-22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Accepted. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. 26-27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 36-39. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. 40-41. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 44-48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39 and 61. 49-52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. 53-62. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 63-68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 70. 71-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 51. 76-78. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 79. Accepted in Findings of Fact 53. 80-81. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 82-83. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. 84. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 85-86. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in Findings of Fact 65. 89-90. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. 93-94. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57, 59 and 60. 95. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 96-103. Rejected as having been modified and adjusted in Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Rejected in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 67. Rejected in Findings of Fact 66 and 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 60. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57-60. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42 and 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Rejected as not supported by the record. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45 and 46. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire Jay Adams, Esquire Broad & Cassel Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Cobb, Cole & Bell 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. David Watkins, Esquire Patricia Renovitch, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire Pennington, Haben, Wilkinson,Culpepper, Dunlap, Dunbar, Richmond & French, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, 2nd Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Tom Wallace Assistant Director Agency For Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Plantation was a licensed nursing home facility and participated in the Medicaid program. A nursing home that receives a superior rating is entitled to incentives based on the Florida Medicaid Reimbursement Plan. Plantation has met all the requirements for a superior rating that are enumerated in Rule lOD-29.128, Florida _Administrative Code. The only reason Plantation was not granted a superior rating was based on the Medicaid Inspection of Care, Team report. (stipulated facts) From August 21 through August 31, 1984, Plantation underwent a routine inspection by the HRS Medicaid Inspection of Care (IOC) Team. The purpose of the inspection was to review the care and treatment of Medicaid recipient patients in accordance with state and federal standards in order for the facility to receive Medicaid payment for those individuals. During the course of the inspection, several deficiencies were found by IOC Team. The deficiencies were summarized in the Medicaid Inspection of Care Team report, entitled Facility Evaluation Summary, prepared by Ms. Tranger. The report listed the deficiencies as follows: Fifteen skilled and two intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have medication revalidated by the attending physician within the proper time frame Four of forty-six records reviewed failed to have available documentation that laboratory tests were completed in accordance with doctors' orders and medication regimen, Fourteen skilled and thirteen intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have the Plan of Care reviewed within the proper time frame: Ten medical records were not certified within the proper time frames and fifteen medical records were not current for recertification. As to the first deficiency noted, the problem was not that the physician failed to revalidate medication, but that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician appropriately dated the revalidation. In almost all of the cases, the problem was that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician had personally entered the date because the date was written with a different color of ink than the doctor's signature or the handwriting appeared to be different. Ms. Tranger did not know whether the dates were written by someone in the physician's office or someone at the nursing home. It is very difficult for a nursing home to get a physician to sign and date orders properly. Plantation had a procedure for securing the doctor's signature and having records dated. When a record was received that was not properly signed and dated, Plantation returned the record to the doctor with a letter or note telling the doctor what needed to be done. When returned by the doctor to Plantation, the record would bear the later date, which caused some records to be out of' compliance with the required time frames. The return to the doctor of records that were not properly dated may also explain why some of he dates were written in a different color ink than the doctor's signature. In those few cases where the dates on the report were not within the proper time frame, the dates were only a few days off. In one case a 34 day period, from July 7, 1984 to August 10, 1984, elapsed before the medication was revalidated. In another case, there were 33 days between the dates. In both cases the medication should have been revalidated every 30 days. The problem with the revalidation dates was strictly a paperwork problem and not one that affected the care of the patients. As stated before, in the majority of the cases the medication was revalidated within the proper time frame. The problem was simply that it appeared that someone other than the doctor had written down the date. The second deficiency was a finding by the surveyors that 4 of the 46 medical records reviewed failed to have available documentation regarding laboratory tests being completed in accordance with doctors' orders. However, Jean Bosang, Administrator of Plantation, reviewed all of the records cited by the IOC Team as the basis for these deficiencies and could only find two instances in which laboratory tests were not performed. HRS did not present any evidence to establish the two other alleged instances. Dr. Lopez reviewed the medical records of the two residents in question and determined that there was no possibility of harm to the patient as a result of failure to perform these tests. One of the two residents is Dr. Lopez' patient, and he normally sees her every day. He stated that the test, an electrolyte examination, was a routine test, that the patient had had no previous problems, and if any problem had developed, she would have had symptoms which would have been observable to the nurses. The tests performed before and after the test that was missed were normal, and the failure to perform the one test had absolutely no effect on the patient. Dr. Lopez was familiar with the other resident upon whom a test was not performed and had reviewed her records. This resident was to have a fasting blood sugar test performed every third month. Although this test was not performed in April of 1984, it was performed timely in every other instance. All tests were normal, and the failure to perform this test did not have any effect on the resident. Had she been suffering from blood sugar problems, there would have been physical signs observable to the nurses. The fourth deficiency listed in the report was a paperwork problem similar to the first deficiency. Patients in a nursing home are classified by level of care and must be recertified from time to time. Certification does not affect the care of the resident. The recertification must be signed and dated by the physician. Again, there was a problem on the recertification because some of the dates were in a different color ink than the physician's signature. Again, the problem was primarily caused by difficulty in getting proper physician documentation. The deficiency did not affect the care of the residents. Mr. Maryanski, who made the decision not to give Plantation a superior rating, testified that of the four deficiencies cited in the IOC report, he believed that only the third deficiency listed, in and of itself, would have precluded a superior rating. An analysis of that deficiency, however, shows that it also was mainly a paperwork deficiency and had no impact on patient care. The third deficiency listed involved a purported failure to have the plans of care reviewed within the proper time frames. Patient care plans are to be reviewed every 60 days for "skilled" patients, those that need the most supervision, and every 90 days for "intermediate" patients, those that need less supervision. A patient's plan of care is a written plan establishing the manner in which each patient will be treated and setting forth certain goals to be reached. A discharge plan is also established, which is basically what the nursing home personnel believe will be the best outcome for the patient if and when he or she leaves the hospital. The patient plan of care is established at a patient care plan meeting. Patient care plan meetings are held by the various disciplines in the nursing home, such as nursing, dietary, social work and activities, to review resident records and discuss any problems with specific residents. The manner in which the problem is to be corrected is determined and then written down on the patient's plan of care record. The evidence revealed that the basis of the deficiency was not a failure to timely establish or review a plan of care, but a failure to timely write down and properly date the plan of care. During the time in question, care plan meetings were held every Wednesday, and all of the disciplines attended the meetings. However, all disciplines did not write their comments on the patients' records at the meeting; some wrote them later. Usually, when they were added later, the comments were dated on the day they were written, rather than on the day the meetings were held. The evidence presented did not show any case in which all disciplines were late in making notes, but revealed only that specific disciplines were tardy. Since all the disciplines attended one meeting, it is apparent that when the date for any discipline was timely, the later dates of other disciplines merely reflected a documentation or paperwork problem. In late 1984 or early 1985, Plantation changed its system to avoid the problem in the future. There appeared to be problems with some of the discharge plans being untimely. The discharge plan is not utilized in the day-to-day care of the resident. Discharge plans at Plantation were kept in two places, and Ms. Tranger recognized that she may have overlooked some plans if they had been written only on the separate discharge sheet. The four deficiencies cited all involved time frames. There are innumerable time frames that must be met by a nursing home. The great majority of the deficiencies involved a failure to properly document. None of the deficiencies affected the care of the patients. Indeed, Ms. Tranger indicated that the patients were all receiving proper nursing care. The decision to give Plantation a standard rating was made by Mr. Maryanski based solely on the IOC report. He relied upon section 400.23,(3) Florida Statutes, which states: "The department shall base its evaluation on the most recent annual inspection report, taking into consideration findings from other official reports, surveys, interviews, investigations and inspections." There are no regulations or written or oral policies implementing this provision. Mr. Maryanski looked solely at the face of the IOC report and did not do any independent investigation. He never visited the nursing home, and he never talked to the on-site surveyors to determine whether the deficiencies cited by the IOC Team were significant. He never saw the underlying documentation which formed the basis of the report. Mr. Maryanski has no background either in nursing or medicine and had no knowledge of purpose the tests that were allegedly not performed. On October 4, 1984, the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification (OLC) conducted the annual survey of the facility. Mr. Maryanski did not determine whether the deficiencies found by the IOC Team had been corrected at the time of the annual survey. An IOC Team surveyor returned on November 21, 1984, and found that all of the deficiencies cited during the IOC inspection had been corrected. A resurvey of the facility was conducted on December 27, 1984, by OLC. All deficiencies noted in OLC's original inspection had been corrected. All nursing home facilities in Florida are rated by HRS as conditional, standard, or superior. In addition to its financial significance, the rating of a facility is important because it affects the facility's reputation in the community and in the industry. The rating for a facility goes into effect on· the day of the follow-up visit of OLC if all deficiencies have been corrected. Therefore, Plantation would have received a superior rating, effective December 27, 1984, had it not been for the IOC report Mr. Maryanski never tried to determine whether the deficiencies in the IOC report had been corrected subsequent to the report being issued. Under rule lOD-29.128, Florida Administrative Code, there are extensive regulatory and statutory requirements which must be met for a facility to be granted a superior rating. Plantation met all of the enumerated requirements, yet it received only a standard rating. Mr. Maryanski based his determination on the IOC report despite the fact that it was outdated and the deficiencies in that report were corrected by November, 1984, prior to the December, 1984, resurvey by the OLC. There was nothing in the annual survey report of the OLC to preclude a superior rating. This is the first time a facility has been denied a superior rating based upon a report other than the annual report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Plantation Nursing Home be given a superior rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Post Office Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Braynon; Esquire District X Legal Counsel, 201 West Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Accepted as set forth in Finding of Fact 21. 5-6. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22-23. 7-9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. 10. Rejected as immaterial. 11-12. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24-25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 26. 15-16. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 20 and 24. 17-19. Accepted generally as set forth in Finding of Fact 26. In Background section. Cumulative. Accepted in Finding of Fact 18. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. 25-31. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 4-7. 32-43. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 8-10. 44. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 45-46. Accepted in Finding of Fact 11. 47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 48-49. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 50-57. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 13-16. 58. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 1, 20, 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Finding of Fact 19 and Background. 5-8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 13 except as to time frame for intermediate patients which should be 90 days. Accepted that the documentation showed a gap, but proposed finding rejected in that the evidence did not show that, in fact, the patient was not reviewed with the proper time frame. Accepted, without naming the patients, and explained in Finding of Fact 6.
The Issue Whether there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County?
Findings Of Fact HCR is a health care corporation. Its sole business is designing and constructing nursing homes. During the twenty years it has been in the business, HCR has built approximately 180 nursing homes. HCR currently operates approximately 10,000 nursing home beds in twelve states including Florida. HCR filed an application for a certificate of need to construct a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County. The Department denied this request. The only issue in this case is whether there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home facility in Manatee County. If such a need exists, the Department has agreed that HCR "meets all applicable statutory and rule criteria." The need for nursing home beds is determined under Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10-5.11(21)(a), Florida Administrative Code, contains the following Department goal: The Department will consider applications for community nursing home beds in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of community nursing home beds calculated by the methodology described in subsections (21)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of this rule. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides for a determination of bed need three years into the future "according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs 1 through 10." Under the methodology provided in subparagraphs 1 through 10, need is determined on a subdistrict basis if a departmental service district has been divided into subdistricts. Manatee County is located in District 6. District 6 has been divided into subdistricts for purposes of determining nursing home bed need. Manatee County has been designated as a subdistrict. Rule 10-17.018, Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, nursing home bed need is to be determined under the methodology of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, for Manatee County. The parties have agreed and the evidence proves that there is no need for nursing home beds in Manatee County based upon an application of the methodology of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Formula"). In fact, an application of the Formula indicates that there will be an excess of 105 nursing home beds in Manatee County three years into the future based upon the following: 876 nursing home beds needed - (765 existing beds + 90 percent of 240 approved beds) = (105). Based upon an application of the Formula, there is clearly no need for any additional nursing home beds in Manatee County. This determination, however, does not totally resolve the issue in this case. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the Department is to determine bed need according to the Formula "[i] n addition to other statutory and rule criteria . . . " Also, Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, provides in relevant part, the following: In the event that the net bed allocation is zero, the applicant may demonstrate that circumstances exist to justify the approval of additional beds under the other relevant criteria specifically contained in the Department's Rule 10-5.11. Based upon these provisions of the Department's rules, it appears clear that if no nursing home bed need is shown to exist based upon an application of the Formula, other statutory and rule criteria should be considered, i.e., are there adequate like and existing services in the subdistrict? Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, however, goes on to provide: Specifically, the applicant may show that persons using existing and like services are in need of nursing home care but will be unable to access nursing home services currently licensed or approved within the subdistrict. Under this provision, the applicant must demonstrate that those persons with a documented need for nursing home services have been denied access to currently licensed but unoccupied beds or that the number of persons with a documented need exceeds the number of licensed, unoccupied and currently approved nursing home beds. Existing and like services shall include the following as defined in statute or rule, adult congregate living facilities, adult foster homes, homes for special services, home health services, adult day health care, adult day care, community care for the elderly, and home care for the elderly. Patients' need for nursing home care must be documented by the attending physicians' plans of care or orders, assessments performed by staff of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or equivalent assessments performed by attending physicians indicating need for nursing home care. As discussed under the Conclusions of Law, infra, this portion of the Department's rule (hereinafter referred to as the "Specific Exception") is not the only alternative method of demonstrating a need for nursing home beds when there appears to be no need based upon an application of the Formula. A need for nursing home beds can be demonstrated even if there is no need indicated under the Formula and the Specific Exception is not complied with based upon a consideration of other statutory and rule criteria. The Specific Exception is, however, the only method by which an applicant can demonstrate the need for a new nursing home facility based upon an access problem in the relevant service district. HCR has attempted to prove there is a need for its proposed 120 bed facility based in part upon a consideration of Rule 10-5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code. This rule provides generally for a consideration of the extent to which all residents of the service area and, in particular, low income persons, the elderly and others, can access existing nursing home beds. In particular, HCR has attempted to prove that there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home because of alleged access problems under Rule 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code, during the "peak season" in Manatee County and alleged access problems of Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients and respite care patients. As discussed under Conclusions of Law, infra, HCR has failed to comply with the Specific Exception in attempting to demonstrate need for its proposal under Rule 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, any evidence concerning access problems cannot be considered. HCR has also attempted to demonstrate need for its proposal based upon an application of Rules 10-5.11(4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. These rules require a consideration of the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of providing the proposed health services and the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services. In particular, HCR has attempted to prove that like and existing services in Manatee County are not meeting the needs of Alzheimer patients and respite care patients and that there are no alternative, less costly or more effective methods of providing HCR's proposed services. If HCR had succeeded in demonstrating need for its proposal under these rules, a certificate of need would have been recommended even though the Specific Exception was not complied with. HCR has agreed that its proposed facility will meet the alleged need for Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients and respite care patients in Manatee County by dedicating a thirty- bed wing to the care of Alzheimer patients, a thirty-bed wing to respite care patients and guaranteeing access to fifty percent of its beds to Medicaid patients. The following findings of fact are made with regard to the specific categories of persons allegedly in need of nursing home care. Although HCR's proposed findings of fact concerning access problems of these groups are not relevant because of its failure to comply with the Specific Exception, findings are made in an abundance of caution in case the Department or a Court ultimately determines that need can be demonstrated based upon access problems even when the Specific Exception is not complied with. Medicaid Patients. Manatee County generally experiences a "peak season" from November to March during which time nursing home bed use increases. The peak season in 1984-1985, however, was only about seven weeks. During the peak season there is some difficulty in placing Medicaid patients in nursing home beds in Manatee County. Between January, 1985 and March, 1985, the Department's Manatee County office placed twenty-two Medicaid patients in nursing home beds located outside of Manatee County. Some Medicaid patients have also been placed in adult congregate living facilities even though such placements are contrary to the prohibition against placing patients in need of skilled nursing home services in such facilities. L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital has also had to place patients in nursing homes on a temporary basis outside of Manatee County. During the past year, only twenty-four patients were placed in nursing homes outside Manatee County. The evidence does not establish how many of those patients were Medicaid patients, however. Alzheimer Patients. Alzheimer's disease is a disease which primarily afflicts persons in their 50's and 60's. It can, however, afflict younger persons also. The disease progresses through three stages and has no cure. During the first stage, the afflicted person experiences forgetfulness, impairment of judgement and inability to perform routine tasks. During the second stage, the afflicted person begins to wander. During the third and final stage, the afflicted person becomes dependent and incontinent. Currently there are approximately 160 Alzheimer patients in the five existing nursing homes in Manatee County. None of these nursing homes has a special program designed for Alzheimer patients. The evidence does not, however, support a finding that Alzheimer patients are not being adequately cared for. The evidence also does not establish how many persons in Manatee County are afflicted by Alzheimer's disease or the number of persons so afflicted who are in need of nursing home care. Generally, it is not until the third stage of the disease that nursing home care becomes necessary. Even then some Alzheimer patients are cared for in the home, private boarding facilities, or mental hospitals. The evidence does establish that no person afflicted with Alzheimer's disease has been refused admittance to a nursing home bed in Manatee County. The evidence also establishes that there is a 303 bed nursing home located in neighboring Hillsborough County which treats only Alzheimer patients. Hillborough County is located in District 6. Finally, the evidence demonstrates that Alzheimer patients would benefit from a special wing dedicated to the care of Alzheimer's disease in its final stages. Respite Care Patients. Respite care is the placement of a person in need of care under the supervision of another person for a short period of time. One purpose of this care is to free-up the primary care giver for a short period of time. The patient needs supervision or may need skilled nursing care. The length of the care can vary from a few hours to several weeks. HCR has proposed to establish a thirty-bed wing in its proposed facility that will be dedicated solely to the care of respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks. None of the existing nursing homes in Manatee County provides the type of specialized wing HCR in proposing. The evidence establishes that there is a need for such a service in Manatee County. The evidence does not establish, however, how many nursing home beds are needed. There was testimony that there was a need for fifty nursing home beds. This testimony was, however, purely a "guess". Additionally, this estimate was not limited to the type of respite care HCR proposes to provide; the respite care giving rise to this guess included respite care for as short a period as three to five days. Short-term respite care needs are currently being met by existing programs in Manatee County. DHRS Exhibit 4 does not corroborate the fifty bed estimate because it is not at all clear what the data on this Exhibit means. Based upon the foregoing, there is a need for nursing home beds for Medicaid patients during the "peak season" and for respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks because of an access problem. The need of these patients, however, has not been properly demonstrated pursuant to the Specific Exception and therefore cannot be considered. If this need could be considered even though the Specific Exception has not been complied with, the evidence fails to demonstrate how many additional beds are needed. Additionally, two new nursing homes have been approved for construction which will add 240 nursing home beds in Manatee County. The addition of these beds will eliminate some, if not all, of the need of Medicaid patients. There is a need for nursing home beds for respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks because of the lack of adequate like and existing services. HCR has, however, failed to prove that this need is sufficient to justify its proposal. The evidence fails to demonstrate a need for Alzheimer patients sufficient to justify HCR's proposal based upon the care presently being given to Alzheimer patients in Manatee County. Although the ability of Alzheimer patients to access beds is not relevant because of HCR's failure to comply with the Specific Exception, the evidence also fails to demonstrate any access problem of Alzheimer patients. Alzheimer patients would benefit from a dedicated nursing home wing. This finding, however, based upon the other findings of fact in this case, does not justify HCR's proposal. Even if it were concluded that HCR does not need to comply with the Specific Exception in this case, the evidence does not support a finding that a 120 bed facility should be approved. The only evidence as to the total number of nursing home beds allegedly needed in Manatee County was presented by Mr. Jay Cushman, an expert in the field of health planning. According to Mr. Cushman there is a need for a minimum of 193 additional nursing home beds in Manatee County. Mr. Cushman's opinion was based upon the criteria of Rules 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), (4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. In particular, Mr. Cushman relied upon the effect on nursing home bed use of Manatee County's peak season and the needs of Alzheimer patients, respite care patients and Medicaid patients. Mr. Cushman's opinion was based upon his determination that there is a need for a total of 1,174 nursing home beds in Manatee County. This figure was arrived at by adding Mr. Cushman's projected need for Medicaid patients (40 beds), Alzheimer patients (121 beds), respite care patients (50 beds) and the current peak census of nursing homes in Manatee County (718 beds). The sum of these figures was multiplied by 1.137 (to account for population growth in Manatee County over the next three years) and the result was divided by ninety percent (to account for a maximum occupancy rate of ninety percent). Mr. Cushman's determination of need, to the extent his figures are based upon purported access problems associated with Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients, respite care patients and persons in need of care during the peak season, should not and cannot be considered because of the lack of compliance with the Specific Exception. Since Mr. Cushman did take into account alleged access problems without complying with the Specific Exception in arriving at his conclusion that 193 nursing home beds are needed in Manatee County, Mr. Cushman's opinion of need is rejected. Even if it was proper for Mr. Cushman to consider access problems despite the failure to comply with the Specific Exception, the weight of the evidence does not support Mr. Cushman's opinion. In arriving at his estimate of the need for Medicaid patients, Mr. Cushman relied in part upon the fact that twenty-four patients (twenty-five according to Mr. Cushman) had been placed in nursing homes located out of Manatee County by L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital personnel. The evidence, however, does not prove that all of these patients were Medicaid patients. Mr. Cushman's determination that 50 beds are needed for respite care patients was based upon on the opinion of Mr. Russell Kitching. Mr. Kitching's estimate was rejected, supra. The most significant problem with Mr. Cushman's determination of bed need is his estimate of the need for Alzheimer's patients. The evidence does not support a conclusion that there is a need for additional nursing home beds for Alzheimer's patients. The evidence proved that no Alzheimer's patient in Manatee County has been denied access to a nursing home. Finally, Mr. Cushman's opinion is contrary to, and did not take into account, the fact that Manatee County is projected to have an excess of 105 nursing home beds under the Formula. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that HCR has failed to prove that there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the certificate of need application filed by HCR for a 120-bed nursing home to be located in Manatee County be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire LARAMORE & CLARK, P.A. The Bowen House 325 N. Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John F. Gilroy, Esquire CULPEPPER, TURNER & MANNHEIMER P. O. Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are thus whether the acts and omissions charged occurred, whether they constitute violations of Section 400.022(1)(j) and 400.141, Florida Statutes, and related rules, and whether an administrative fine is appropriate pursuant to 400.102(c) and Section 400.121, Florida Statutes. Upon the commencement of the hearing, the petitioner moved to amend paragraph 8 of its Complaint, so that the date "March 4" would read March 14." The motion was granted on the basis that there was only a clerical error involved and paragraph 8 correctly alleges that there-was a nursing staff shortage from February 20 to March 14, 1980. Eight witnesses were called by the Petitioner, and two by the Respondent. Ten exhibits were adduced as evidence. The Respondent has submitted and requested rulings upon ninety-five proposed findings of fact. In that connection, all proposed findings, conclusions, and supporting arguments of the parties have been considered. To the extent that the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the parties, and the arguments made by them, are in accordance with the findings, conclusions and views stated herein they have been accepted, and to the extent such proposed findings and conclusions of the parties, and such arguments made by the parties, are inconsistent therewith they have been rejected.
Findings Of Fact Manhattan Convalescent Center is a nursing home facility located in Tampa and licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On January 22, February 20, February 25, March 3, March 6, and March 14, 1980, a number of Department employees representing the Department's medical review team, and the Office of Licensure and Certification, consisting of registered nurses, hospital consultants and Department surveillance team members, made inspections of the Respondent's facility for the purpose of ascertaining whether the premises, equipment and conduct of operations were safe and sanitary for the provision of adequate and appropriate health care consistent with the rules promulgated by the Department and whether minimum nursing service staff standards were being maintained. Thus, on January 22, 1980 a member of the medical review team, witness Maulden, observed a rat run across the floor in one of the wings of the nursing home facility. On February 20, Muriel Holzberger, a registered nurse and surveyor employed by the Petitioner, observed rodent droppings in one of the wings of the facility and on February 20, March 12 and March 14, 1980, numerous roaches were observed by various employees of the Department making inspections throughout the facility. On February 20, 1980 strong urine odors were present on the 200, 300 and 400 wings of the facility as well as in the lobby. The odor was caused by urine puddles under some patients' chairs in the hallway, wet sheets, and a spilled catheter. On February 20 and 25, 1980 the grounds were littered with debris and used equipment, the grass and weeds on the grounds needed cutting and there was a build up of organic material, food spills and wet spots on the floors. The Respondent's witness, Ann Killeen, as well as the Petitioner's hospital consultant, Joel Montgomery, agreed that a general state of disrepair existed at the Respondent's facility, consisting of torn screens, ill fitting exterior doors with inoperative or missing door closers and missing ceiling tile. Interior and exterior walls were in need of repair and repainting. Additionally, eleven bedside cords for the nurse paging system were cut, apparently by patients, and on February 25, 1980, a total of 36 nurse paging stations were inoperative. A substantial number of these cords were cut by a patient (or patients) with scissors without the knowledge of the Respondent and steps to correct the condition were immediately taken. On January 22, 1980 Petitioner's representatives, Mary Maulden and Alicia Alvarez, observed a patient at the Respondent's facility free himself from physical restraints, walk down the hall and leave the facility. A search for nursing staff was made but none were found on the wing. After three to five minutes the Assistant Director of Nurses was located and the patient was apprehended. Nurse Alvarez's testimony revealed that the Respondent's nursing staff was in and out of, and working in that wing all that morning except for that particular point in time when the patient shed his restraints and walked out of the facility. On March 3, 1980 Department employee, William Musgrove, as part of a surveillance team consisting of himself and nurse Muriel Holzberger, observed two patients restrained in the hall of the facility in chairs and Posey vests, which are designed to safely restrain unstable patients. The witness questioned the propriety of this procedure, but could not establish this as a violation of the Respondent's patient care policies required by Rule 10D-29.41, Florida Administrative Code. The witness reviewed the Respondent's written patient care policy required by that Rule and testified that their policy complied with it and that the policy did not forbid restraining a patient to a handrail in the facility as was done in this instance. The witness was unable to testify whether patients were improperly restrained pursuant to medical orders for their own or other patients' protection. A hospital consultant for the Department, Bill Schmitz, and Marsha Winae, a public health nurse for the Department, made a survey of the Respondent's facility on March 12, 1980. On that day the extensive roach infestation was continuing as was the presence of liquids in the hallways. On February 20, 1980 witness Joel Montgomery observed a lawn mower stored in the facility's electrical panel room which is charged as a violation in paragraph 3 of the Administrative Complaint. The lawn mower was not shown to definitely contain gasoline however, nor does it constitute a bulk storage of volatile or flammable liquids. Nurse Holzberger who inspected the Respondent's nursing home on February 20, February 25, March 3 and March 6, 1980, corroborated the previously established roach infestation and the presence of strong urine odors throughout the facility including those emanating from puddles under some patients' chairs, the soaking of chair cushions and mattresses and an excess accumulation of soiled linen. Her testimony also corroborates the existence of 36 instances of inoperative nurse paging devices including the 11 nurse calling cords which had been cut by patients. This witness, who was accepted as an expert in the field of proper nursing care, established that an appropriate level of nursing care for the patients in this facility would dictate the requirement that those who are incontinent be cleaned and their linen changed more frequently and that floors be mopped and otherwise cleaned more frequently. Upon the second visit to the facility by this witness the nurse call system had 9 paging cords missing, 11 cords cut, and 15 of the nurse calling devices would not light up at the nurses' station. This situation is rendered more significant by the fact that more than half of the patients with inoperative nurse paging devices were bedridden. On her last visit of March 6, 1980 the problem of urine puddles standing on the floors, urine stains on bed linen, and resultant odor was the same or slightly worse than on the two previous visits. An effective housekeeping and patient care policy or practice would dictate relieving such incontinent patients every two hours and more frequent laundering of linen, as well as bowel and bladder training. On March 6, 1980 controlled drugs were resting on counters in all of the facility's four drug rooms instead of being stored in a locked compartment, although two of the drug rooms themselves were locked. The other two were unlocked, but with the Respondent's nurses present. Ms. Holzberger participated in the inspections of March 3 and March 6, 1980. On March 3, 1980 there were no more than 14 sheets available for changes on the 4:00 p.m. to midnight nursing shift. On March 6, 1980 there were only 68 absorbent underpads and 74 sheets available for changes for approximately 65 incontinent patients. The unrefuted expert testimony of Nurse Holzberger established that there should be available four sheets for each incontinent patient per shift. Thus, on these two dates there was an inadequate supply of bed linen to provide changes for the incontinent patients in the facility. On March 6, 1980 Nurse Holzberger and Nurse Carol King observed 12 patients who were lying on sheets previously wet with urine, unchanged, dried and rewet again. This condition is not compatible with generally recognized adequate and appropriate nursing care standards. Incontinent patients should be examined every two hours and a change of sheets made if indicated. If such patients remain on wet sheets for a longer period of time their health may be adversely affected. On March 6, 1980 these same employees of the Petitioner inspected a medical supply room and found no disposable gloves, no adhesive tape, no razor blades and one package of telfa pads. There was no testimony to establish what the medical supply requirements of this facility are based upon the types of patients it cares for and the types and amounts of medical supplies thus needed. The testimony of Robert Cole, the facility's employee, who was at that time in charge of dispensing medical supplies, establishes that in the medical supply room (as opposed to the nurses' stations on the wings) there were at least six rolls of tape per station, 50 razors, four boxes or 80 rolls, 300 telfa pads and 200 sterile gloves. Nurses Holzberger and King made an evaluation of the Respondent's nurse staffing patterns. Ms. Holzberger only noted a shortage of nursing staff on February 24, 1980. Her calculations, however, were based on an average census of skilled patients in the Respondent's facility over the period February 20 to March 4, 1980 and she did not know the actual number of skilled patients upon which the required number of nursing staff present must be calculated on that particular day, February 24, 1980. Further, her calculations were based upon the nurses' "sign in sheet" and did not include the Director of Nurses who does not sign in when she reports for work. Therefore, it was established that on February 24 there would be one more registered nurse present than her figures reflect, i.e., the Director of Nurses. Nurse King, in describing alleged nursing staff shortages in the week of March 7 to March 13, 1980, was similarly unable to testify to the number of skilled patients present on each of those days which must be used as the basis for calculating required nursing staff. She rather used a similar average patient census for her calculations and testimony. Thus, neither witness for the Petitioner testifying regarding nursing staff shortages knew the actual number of patients present in the facility on the days nursing staff shortages were alleged. In response to the problem of the roach infestation, the Respondent's Administrator changed pest control companies on March 26, 1980. The previous pest control service was ineffective. It was also the practice of the Respondent, at that time, to fog one wing of the facility per week with pesticide in an attempt to control the roaches. Further, vacant lots on all sides, owned and controlled by others, were overgrown with weeds and debris, to which the witness ascribed the large roach population. The problem of urine odors in the facility was attributed to the exhaust fans for ventilating the facility which were inoperable in February, 1980. She had them repaired and, by the beginning of April, 1980 (after the subject inspections), had removed the urine odor problem. The witness took other stops to correct deficiencies by firing the previous Director of Nurses on March 14, 1980, and employing a new person in charge of linen supply and purchasing. A new supply of linen was purchased in February or March, 1980. The Respondent maintains written policies concerning patient care, including a provision for protection of patients from abuse or neglect. The Respondent's Administrator admitted existence of the torn screens, broken door locks, missing ceiling tiles and the roach infestation. She also admitted the fact of the cut and otherwise inoperable nurse paging cords in the patients' rooms, but indicated that these deficiencies had been repaired. The various structural repairs required have been accomplished. All correction efforts began after the inspections by the Petitioner's staff members, however.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the evidence in the record, it is RECOMMENDED that for the violations charged in Counts I, II, IV, VI, IX and X of the Administrative Complaint and found herein to be proven, the Respondent should be fined a total of $1,600.00. Counts III, V, VII and VIII of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1981. (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: AMELIA PARK, ESQUIRE JANICE SORTER, ESQUIRE W. T. EDWARDS FACILITY 4000 WEST BUFFALO AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR TAMPA, FLORIDA 33614 KENNETH E. APGAR, ESQUIRE EDWARD P. DE LA PARTE, JR., ESQUIRE 403 NORTH MORGAN STREET, SUITE 102 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need ("CON") authorizing establishment of a 60-bed sheltered nursing home adjacent to a 75-unit life care residential facility in HRS Health District IX, Palm Beach County, Florida, should be granted (in whole or in part), or denied.
Findings Of Fact I. The Proposal Petitioner is a not-for-profit Florida corporation organized to provide retirement and nursing home services to aged Episcopalians in the three Episcopal Dioceses in Florida: Central, Southwest and Southeast. Since 1951, Petitioner has operated a life care facility or community, with adjacent nursing home, in Davenport, Florida. It has 71 residential (well-care) units and 60 nursing home beds, operates at nearly full capacity, and has a 3-to-5 year waiting list. There are 128 residents at the facility, 57 of whom live in the nursing home. Petitioner now seeks to replicate the (Davenport) Crane Gray Inn in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida, in order to better serve the needs of older Episcopalians. The life care community, consisting of a 60-bed skilled nursing home and a 75- unit retirement facility, would be convenient to the residents of the Southeast Florida diocese, but is expected to draw residents throughout Florida. The 60-bed skilled nursing home, for which a CON is required, would be a one-story building measuring 19,100 square feet. Initially estimated to cost $1,705,515, or $68.06 per square foot to construct and equip, actual bids subsequently received have reduced the expected cost to $60.00 per square foot. The total cost of the entire project, including the well- care and nursing-care facilities, is estimated to be $3,600,000. Petitioner intends to obtain certification of the entire project as a continuing care facility in accordance with Chapter 651, Florida Statutes. In March, 1985, the State of Florida Department of Insurance and Treasurer issued Petitioner a provisional license to operate the proposed facility as a continuing care facility.2 Petitioner intends to comply with the reporting and escrow requirements which Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, imposes on life-care facilities. The admission requirements for the proposed life care facility are the same as those which have applied to the Davenport Crane Gray Inn ("Inn"). Before admission, a resident must execute a continuing care or "Resident's Agreement" with the Inn. Under that agreement, in exchange for the future maintenance and support of the resident at the Inn for the remainder of the applicant's life, the applicant transfers all of his or her real and personal property to the Inn. The resident also agrees to execute a will to the Inn to effectuate the transfer of property then owned or later acquired. No entrance fee is charged. The Inn promises to provide the resident with a personal living unit (including all utilities); three meals a day; health care (including medicine, physician fees, dental care, and hospitalization); recreational, educational, social and religious programs; funeral and burial costs; a monthly allowance for personal expenses; weekly maid service and laundry facilities; and transportation for shopping trips and other activities. Either party may terminate the agreement under specified conditions. On termination, the Inn will transfer back to the resident the property previously conveyed, or a sum equal to the value thereof, without interest and deducting therefrom an amount sufficient to compensate the Inn for the resident's care and support while at the Inn. If the resident becomes eligible for social security or government assistance, such assistance is paid to the Inn for the support of the resident. If the resident dies while at the Inn, all property transferred to the Inn on admission is considered to have been earned and becomes the property of the Inn. (Joint Exhibit I) There is no requirement that a prospective resident have any assets and applicants are ostensibly admitted without regard to their financial condition. (However, in the past ten years, only two Medicaid patients or indigent residents have been admitted to the Davenport Inn.) An account for each resident is maintained, to which earnings are transferred and costs of care deducted. Residents without assets are treated the same as those with assets and the account information is treated confidentially. Over time, the accounts of residents are depleted. Currently, 68% of the patients at the Davenport nursing home are Medicaid patients. The per diem rate reimbursed by Medicaid is $51.25. No resident has ever been transferred for lack of funds. However, the average resident, when admitted, transfers assets worth approximately $24,000 to the Inn. Prospective residents of the proposed nursing home will ordinarily come from the adjacent well-care retirement units. The purpose of the nursing home is to serve the individuals residing in the life care community who, as their needs intensify, require skilled nursing care. Only on rare occasions will an individual be admitted directly to the nursing home without first residing in the well-care portion of the life care community. At the Davenport Inn, this has happened only once. Petitioner acknowledges that prospective nursing home patients may come from eligible Episcopalians who reside in nursing homes in the local community. Actual residence in the well-care units will not be a prerequisite to admission to the nursing home. However, no person has been, or will be, admitted to the nursing home without first executing a continuing care agreement. Direct admission of nursing home patients from outside the life care center is permissible under "sheltered nursing home" rules, as construed by HRS officials. Robert E. Maryanski, Administrator of HRS' Community Medical Facilities Office of Health Planning and Development (which implements the CON licensing process) advised Petitioner's counsel on September 20, 1985, that under HRS rules, patients may--if necessary--be admitted directly to the proposed nursing home without first residing in the well-care units. Individuals who have paid for membership with the particular life care center, finding themselves in immediate need of nursing home care, may be directly admitted into the nursing home. (Petitioner's Ex. No. 11) If HRS rules were interpreted otherwise, perfunctory stops in well-care units "on the way to the nursing home" would be encouraged, a practice which would burden patients and serve no useful purpose. Although Petitioner's CON application does not specify a minimum age for admission to the life care community, Petitioner's life care centers are oriented toward members of the Episcopal Protestant Churches who are at an advanced age and "need a place to go for their last days... [In] a lot of cases they have outlived their own children." (TR-34) The average age of the patients in the Davenport nursing home is 89; in the well-care retirement units, 82. The average overall age of members of the Davenport life care community is 84 or 85. Approximately one-half of the residents eventually need nursing care. At Davenport, the minimal age for admission is 71. (TR- 12) According to a member of the Board of Directors of Petitioner, only patients 70 or over will be admitted to the life care community proposed for Palm Beach County. (TR-35) There is already a waiting list of ninety (90) qualified persons for the proposed life care community in Palm Beach County. Out of that figure, only five people currently require nursing home services. After executing the standard continuing care agreement, these five people would be admitted directly to the nursing home facility, without first residing in a well-care unit. Waiting lists are compiled six times a year, with the most recent completed only a week prior to hearing. Petitioner does not intend to utilize all the nursing home beds, since it must keep some beds open to meet the needs of well-care residents. Nursing home beds at the Palm Beach facility would be filled gradually, approximately two per week, so it would take six months to reach optimum capacity. The parties stipulate that all criteria for evaluating CON applications under Section 381.494(6)(c) and Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, have been met or are inapplicable except for the following: The long-term financial feasibility of the project, the availability of operating capital, and the economic impact on other providers (Section 381.494(6) (c)8, 9, Fla. Stat.); The cost of construction (Section 381.494(6) (c)13, Fla. Stat.); The ratio of beds to residential units (Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Fla. Admin. Code). II. Financial Feasibility The historical track record of the Davenport facility over the last 13 years and projections for the proposed facility demonstrate that the proposed nursing home is financially feasible and that Petitioner has, or can obtain sufficient funds to meet its operating costs. Moreover, as a licensed Chapter 651 life care facility, the financial viability of the entire operation will be monitored by the Department of Insurance. Assets available to support the costs of operating the life care community include income and assets derived from incoming residents; estates and bequests; and a fund of 1,300,000.00, functioning as an endowment, to be placed in escrow. The cost for a resident in the well-care units is approximately $27 per day; the cost in the nursing home is approximately $54 per day. Although there is a deficit of approximately $300 per month in the well-care section of the Davenport facility, there is no deficiency in the nursing home. Medicaid payments are sufficient to cover the costs of providing nursing care. Philanthropy should not be required to sustain the operation of the proposed nursing home. Petitioner has never had difficulty in obtaining financial support for its Davenport well-care units. More than one-half of the operating deficit for the well-care units was met by funds at work and did not depend on philanthropy. There are over 200 Episcopal Churches in the three Florida dioceses with 90-100,000 parishioners, who have been responsive to fund- raising efforts in the past. Last year, Petitioner raised $693,000 from fund raising drives. It is reasonably expected that this source of financial support will also be available to support the proposed life care facility, including the nursing home. An endowment fund of $1,300,000 is also available. These funds will be made available to support the proposed life care community. In addition, each new resident contributes an average of $24,000, which is used to defray operating costs. Barnett Bank will finance construction of the project at one-half percent over prime. Petitioner intends to pay off the capital debt in two or three years. The land has already been acquired and some land preparation costs have been paid. Petitioner has expended over $800,000, to date, on the proposed life care community. Petitioner has $120, 000 on hand for the project, in addition to escrowed reserves. An HRS health care planner has misgivings about the financial viability of the project since Petitioner has relied on philanthropy to support its Davenport facility, and would rely on it to some extent to support the proposed facility. However, Petitioner projects that 77% of the nursing home patients at the proposed facility will be Medicaid eligible. Due to efficiencies in operation, Medicaid payments should be sufficient to cover the costs of nursing home patients at the proposed facility, just as they have been at the Davenport nursing home. The various sources of funds available to Petitioner--proven wholly adequate in the past--should be sufficient to cover the other costs of operation and ensure the continued financial viability of the nursing home, as well as the associated well-care units. III. Cost of Construction HRS contends that the initial estimate of construction costs for the proposed nursing home ($68.00 per square foot) is excessive when compared to other 60-bed nursing facilities, where the cost is approximately $10.00 less per square foot. But, through various cost-cutting measures, the cost of the project has now been reduced to approximately $60.00 per square foot, which is reasonable and in line with the other nursing home projects. IV. Ratio of Nursing Rome Beds to Residential Units Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that HRS "will not normally approve an application for new or additional sheltered nursing home beds if approved would result in the number of sheltered nursing home beds that exceed one for every four residential units in the life care facility." The parties stipulate that, absent unusual or exceptional circumstances, this rule would preclude approval of more than 19 of Petitioner's 60 proposed nursing home beds. The proposed nursing home, like the Davenport facility it duplicates, will be unique, unusual or extraordinary, when compared with other nursing homes in Florida, due to the advanced age of its patients. No one under 70 will be admitted. The average age of its patients is expected to approach 89 with the average age of well-care residents approaching 82. Approximately one-half of the well-care residents will eventually require transfer into the nursing home. People of advanced age are more likely to require nursing home care. Based on Petitioner's historical experience at its Davenport facility, it is likely that 60 nursing home beds will be required to meet the needs of residents of the proposed well- care units. It has been shown that the proposed 60 nursing beds will be needed to serve the needs of well-care residents as they age and their health care needs intensify. That has been the case at the Davenport facility, where rarely has a patient been admitted to the nursing home who did not first reside in the well-care units. The proposed nursing home and life care center will draw patients and residents similar to those drawn by the Davenport facility--the state-wide applicant "pool" of both is expected to be the same. For this reason, the proposed nursing home should have no significant impact on the census of, or need for, community nursing homes in Palm Beach County. It appears that the rationale behind the four-to-one (residential units to nursing home beds) ratio of the HRS rule is that, under normal or ordinary conditions, only one nursing home bed will be required to serve the residents of four well- care units. In the instant case, actual experience has shown this assumption to be patently erroneous. If only 19 nursing home beds were allowed Petitioner--because of the ratio cast in HRS rules--it is likely that many well-care residents at the proposed life care center would be forced to find nursing care outside of the center. Displaced, placed in nursing homes distant from the life care community, such patients would lose close contact with spouses and friends. The HRS rule, embracing a numerical ratio for the norm, allows flexibility in particular situations which are shown to be abnormal. The circumstances of the instant case show it to be an abnormal situation, fully justifying approval of 60-beds sought, rather than the 19 otherwise permitted by the HRS rule.
Recommendation Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for a CON authorizing establishment of a 60-bed nursing home in Palm Beach County be GRANTED; and that the CON, on its face, state that issuance is predicated on Petitioner's statement of intent (during Section 120.57(1) licensing proceedings) that (i.) no one under 70 years of age will be admitted to the life care community (including both well-care and nursing-care sections) and (ii.) that, only in relatively rare and unusual cases, will patients be directly admitted to the nursing home without first residing in the well- care residential units of the life care communities.3 See, Section 381.494(8)(g), Florida Statutes (1985). DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1986.
The Issue Whether Petitioners' applications for Certificates of Need should be approved?
Findings Of Fact Ocala Ocala is a general partnership composed of three partners: Ocala Health Care Associates, Inc., Casterfield, Ltd., and Big Sun Healthcare Systems, the lessee and operator of Munroe Regional Medical Center. Ocala is the current holder of an approved CON for 35 community beds in Marion County. If the 21-bed transfer of sheltered beds to community beds is approved, Ocala intends to operate a 56-bed facility. A 56-bed facility is more viable than a 35-bed facility. At the time of the hearing, there were 642 approved and licensed beds and 215 approved not yet licensed beds in Marion County. The 215 beds include Ocala's 35-bed CON. A patient needing subacute care is one who has been released from acute care status by a physician and is ready to be released from a hospital (acute care) to a less costly facility, e.g. a skilled nursing home. Subacute care patients are those needing, e.g., intravenous tubes, respirators, IV medication, decubitus ulcer care, tracheotomy tubes, or antibiotic therapy. Patients needing subacute care should be placed in a nursing home, since this is less costly than hospital care and it allows for acute care beds in a hospital to be used for patients needing acute care. Skilled nursing homes are authorized to provide subacute care, but are not required to do so. In order to provide subacute care, a nursing home may need additional staff and equipment. There is a problem in Marion County with the placement of subacute care patients in nursing homes. This problem is caused by a variety of factors and usually results in a patient remaining in a hospital longer than is necessary. One factor is that some of the existing nursing homes will not accept patients needing certain types of subacute care, e.g., patients needing ventilators or feeding tubes. Another equally important factor is that the nursing homes want to make sure they will get paid and there is usually some delay in determining how the nursing home will be compensated. Other factors include the patients inability to pay and, on occasion, the unavailability of beds. Ocala intends to use its 35-bed approved CON to provide subacute care. Country Club While the application shows the applicant's name as "Country Club Retirement Center," that is the name of the project. The applicant is Mr. J. E. Holland. Mr. Holland's application is for a 60-bed nursing home which will be part of a 250-apartment continuing care community. The facility is to be located in Clermont, in Lake County. Lake County is in Planning Area VII of HRS District III. Planning Area VII also includes Sumter County. Mr. Keach, the only witness presented by Country Club, is Vice President of National Health Care. National Health Care operates a nursing home in Gainesville, Florida. In addition to operating the nursing home, National Health Care assists persons seeking a CON with preparation of the CON application. Mr. Keach and other National Health Care employees assisted Mr. Holland with the preparation of the CON application submitted in this case. National Health Care will not own or operate Mr. Holland's facility. Mr. Keach is of the opinion that there is need in Clermont for a 60- bed nursing home. He bases his opinion on letters of support for the construction of the facility, on petitions signed by persons attending a public hearing, and on four or five visits to the area. Mr. Keach never performed a study which would indicate the number of persons with a "documented need" for nursing home services who have been denied access to a nursing home. At the time HRS issued its State Agency Action Report there were 958 beds approved and licensed in Planning Area VII. Of these, 838 are located in Lake County, with 142 located in a nursing home in Clermont. Also these are swing-beds providing long-term care at a hospital in Clermont. Finally, there were 236 beds approved not yet licensed in Planning Area VII, with 176 to be located in Lake County. The occupancy rate for the nursing home facility located in Clermont is approximately 89 percent. For the six months ending March, 1988, the occupancy rate for Planning Area VII was below 80 percent. There are at least two nursing homes in operation within a 20-mile radius of Clermont. These two nursing homes are located in Winter Garden and one of them has received a CON to add 89 beds. Twenty-Eight Corporation The applicant in this case is Twenty-Eight Corporation. "The owner of the nursing home will be the Levy Nursing Care Center, a limited partnership, which will be owned and secured by Twenty-Eight Corporation." (28 Corporation, Composite Exhibit 1.) Twenty-Eight corporation seeks approval of a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be operated as part of a continuing care project which will include a 50-unit apartment complex. The facility is to be located in Chiefland, Florida, in Levy County. Levy County is in Planning Area II of HRS District III. Planning Area II also includes Alachua, Gilchrist and Dixie counties. At the time HRS issued its State Agency Action Report, there were 1112 licensed nursing home beds in Planning Area II. Of these, 120 are located in Trenton, in Gilchrist County, 180 are located in Williston, in Levy County, and the rest are located in Alachua County. Also, there are 147 beds approved not yet licensed to be located in Alachua County. Chiefland is approximately 12 miles from Trenton. Williston is approximately 27 miles from Trenton. Mr. Keach was the only witness who testified on behalf of Twenty-Eight Corporation. Mr. Keach is vice-president of National Health Care. (See Finding of Fact 17, supra.) Mr. Keach is of the opinion that there is need in the Chiefland area for a 60-bed nursing home. His opinion is based on letters of support and petitions of support he received for the project. Also, his opinion is based on the fact that there is no nursing home located in Chiefland and the nearest nursing home is located in Trenton, 12 miles away. The 1986 District III Health Plan shows the Trenton facility having an occupancy rate of 99.93 percent. Mr. Keach never performed a study which would indicate the number of persons with a "documented need" for nursing home services who have been denied access to a nursing home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order denying Petitioners' applications in these three cases. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-1862, 88-1863, 88-1864 Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Ocala's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Accepted. 2-4. Supported by competent, substantial evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. 5-7. Accepted. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. There is not an absolute absence of facilities willing to accept all patients needing subacute care. Irrelevant. "Serious concerns" are not what is needed under the Rule. First sentence rejected as recitation of testimony. Second sentence irrelevant; issue is whether nursing homes will accept patients, not whether nursing homes will enter into agreement with MRMC. 13-16. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. (a) Rejected to the extent it implies that the approved facilities would not provide subacute care. Mr. Bailey's testimony is that the facilities refused to enter into a relationship with MRMC; this does not establish that the facilities would not provide subacute care. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. The weight of the evidence shows that some facilities would accept same subacute patients. True, but it is unclear if these are the physician's notations the HRS witness referred to. True that charts and logs were provided, but they did not establish the number of patients in need of subacute care in excess of licensed or approved beds. 19-26. Irrelevant. 27-29. Accepted-for what they are, but insufficient to establish need. Twenty-Eight Corporation's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4 Accepted. Irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as hearsay. But see Finding of Fact 31. Mr. Keach testified that Chiefland is 40 miles from Williston. The road map published by the Department of Transportation shows the distance between the two cities at 27 miles. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. However, this special consideration should be given only where numeric need has been established in the District. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as hearsay. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as hearsay. Also, a determination by a family member does not establish medical "need". True that this is Mr. Keach's opinion. However, Mr. Keach's opinion is rejected. His opinion of need is not based on what the Rule requires or on what health planners rely on to establish need. Mr. Keach is not able to testify as to the financial feasibility of the facility because he has no first- hand knowledge of the finances. 21-22. Irrelevant. 23. Rejected. See ruling on 10., supra. 24-26. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. Irrelevant; this is not a rule challenge. Irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as hearsay. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected as argument. Also, unable to determine what the "second portion" is. 37-38. Irrelevant. First phrase accepted. Second phrase rejected to extent implies that only need to show that no other facility exists within 20 miles. Irrelevant. Country Club's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. However, this special consideration should be given only where numeric need has been established in the District. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. 14-17. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. True, but irrelevant. See ruling on 11, supra. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Irrelevant. The Rule also recognizes this. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. 33-34. True, but irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. 35-39. Irrelevant. 40. Rejected as argument. Also, unable to determine what the "second portion" is. 41-42. Accepted 43. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 44. True, but irrelevant. Also, there are approved beds within 20 miles, but located in a different HRS District. Leesburg's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-7. Accepted. Rejected as not a finding of fact. Accepted. 10-15. See Conclusions of Law section of RO. Accepted. Rejected as argument. Accepted. Rejected. Fact that need does not exist under HRS rule doesn't necessarily mean that that facility will not be financially feasible. In any event, Country Club was not able to establish financial feasibility. 20-21. See Conclusions of Law. 22. Rejected as argument. 23-28. Supported by competent substantial evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Accepted.- HRS's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-19. Accepted. Rejected. The HRS witness did not specifically state that HRS needs to see the actual physician referral. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 22-28. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 29. Not a finding of fact. 30-37. Accepted. 38. Irrelevant. 39-42. Unnecessary to the decision reached. Irrelevant. Accepted. 45-46. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. Accepted. Not a finding of fact. 50-65. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 66. Not a finding of fact. 67-71. Accepted, but Ocala's Exhibits 6 & 7 are not amendments to the application but simply more of the same information that was provided with the application. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Darrell White, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 First Florida Bank Building Suite 600 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore Mack, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire 307 West Park Avenue Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Grafton Wilson, II, Esquire 711 NW 23rd Avenue, Suite #4 Gainesville, Florida 32609 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The central issue for disposition is whether Certificate of Need no. 7750, for 24 hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds should be awarded to Petitioner, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s). To resolve that issue it is necessary to resolve factual issues regarding the need for the proposed beds and a legal issue regarding the impact of Health Care and Retirement Corp. of America v. Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, Inc. 671 So.2d 217 (Fla 1st DCA 1996) (Tarpon Springs) on the fixed need pool published in the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994 in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1.
Findings Of Fact The Parties St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (St. Joseph’s) is a not- for-profit hospital which has operated in the Tampa, Florida area for over fifty years. It is currently licensed for 883 acute- care beds; it owns John Knox Village, which includes an adult congregate living facility and medical center nursing home; and it offers other services in a continuum of health care. St. Joseph’s also has a 19-bed, in-hospital skilled nursing care unit which became operational in early 1995. The Agency for Health Care Administration (agency or AHCA) is the state agency responsible for administering and enforcing the certificate of need (CON) process described in sections 408.031 through 408.045, Florida Statutes (“the Health Facility and Services Development Act”). The Process The fixed need pool published by AHCA in vol. 20, number 15, April 15, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly, projected a need for 94 additional nursing home beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the January 1997 planning horizon. There is no evidence that this fixed need pool was challenged. Approximately eleven health care providers, including St. Joseph’s, responded to the fixed need pool notice with applications for CON’s ranging from 10 to 94 beds. Some of those applicants, like St. Joseph’s, were hospitals seeking hospital- based skilled nursing beds. After comparative review of the applications, AHCA issued its state agency action report (SAAR) on September 16, 1994, denying some and granting others, and explaining the basis for its intended actions. Some of the beds were awarded for a hospital-based skilled nursing unit; St. Joseph’s application for 24 in-hospital beds was denied in the comparative review that determined St. Joseph’s application was inferior to others in meeting statutory and rule criteria. The applicants’ petitions for formal hearing were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings by AHCA and were consolidated in a single proceeding relating to the 94 beds in District 6, Subdistrict 1. On October 19, 1995, during the pendancy of appeal of the DOAH Final Order in Tarpon Springs, all of the parties in the consolidated cases executed and filed a stipulation which disposes of 93 out of the 94 available beds in the fixed need pool. The stipulation provides that all of the applicants, except St. Joseph’s, withdrew their petitions for formal hearing. As to St. Joseph’s, the stipulation provides: St. Joseph’s has previously withdrawn its opposition to the applications of all other parties to this proceeding by its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Petitions for Administrative Hearing and Notice of Lack of Opposition, dated September 13, 1995. St. Joseph’s and AHCA stipulate that Case No. 94-6236, wherein St. Joseph’s challenged the denial of its application for certificate of need 7750 to add 24 skilled nursing unit beds, should be held in abeyance pending the final judicial determination of Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, et al. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, et al. (Proceeding below DOAH Case Nos. 94-0958RU and 94-1165RU, reported at 16 FALR 3420, presently on appeal before the First District Court of Appeal). St. Joseph’s acknowledges that the terms of this settlement will deplete the fixed bed need pool determined to be available for this application cycle, assents to the same, and maintains its position that its application should be approved notwithstanding the lack of availability of community nursing home beds within the fixed bed need pool. All other parties to this agreement except for AHCA hereby withdraw their petitions filed in this proceeding in opposition to the application of St. Joseph’s for certificate of need 7750 and waive any challenge or protest that they may have to the issuance of certificate of need 7750. St. Joseph’s hereby agrees not to oppose the transfer of up to seven (7) beds from this application cycle to TGH. After remand of all of the consolidated cases except St. Joseph’s (DOAH no. 94-6236), AHCA entered its final order on December 13, 1995, awarding CON’s for 93 beds to various of the applicants. Some of those 93 beds were awarded for hospital- based skilled nursing units. This final order depleted the fixed need pool of all but one bed. In their prehearing stipulation filed on August 29, 1996, AHCA and St. Joseph’s admitted these relevant facts: The appropriate planning area is Hillsborough County; The appropriate planning horizon for the application is January 1997. Rule 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code was appropriately used in determining the bed need for Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1, for the first nursing home batching cycle of 1994; and The numbers used to derive the project pool of 94 beds in Hillsborough County, District 6, Subdistrict 1 for the January 1997 planning horizon were accurate and appropriate. At the hearing and in its proposed recommended order, St. Joseph’s concedes that it did not apply for beds under “not normal” circumstances. The Project St. Joseph’s proposes to establish a 24 bed, hospital- based skilled nursing unit in an area of its main hospital building by converting 24 acute care beds to this use. The project involves 19,600 square feet of renovation at a total project cost of $684,731, including conversion costs of $331,940. Actual out-of-pocket costs for the project are $352.791. The skilled nursing beds within the hospital facility are intended to contribute to St. Joseph’s goal of providing a full continuum of care for its patients, with services provided at different levels for a medically-appropriate and cost- effective outcome. St. Joseph’s anticipates that the patient using the skilled nursing (also called “subacute care”) unit would be one coming from the acute care setting and requiring less-acute care, but a more intensive level of care and a shorter length of stay than generally offered in a typical nursing home. All ancillary services and therapies will be available at the hospital seven days a week. Rehabilitative services, which are critical to the patient likely to use the skilled nursing beds, include physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, and recreation therapy. Need Analysis/Impact on Existing Programs Virtually all of the referrals to the proposed new beds will come from within St. Joseph’s. This is the experience of the new 19 bed unit. The hospital’s doctors and their patients prefer to not transfer to an outside facility and they plan in advance, as part of their treatment goals, that the subacute rehabilitative phase of treatment will be in St. Joseph’s own skilled nursing unit. The multi-discipline health care team evaluates and identifies patients who will benefit from such treatment; patients are not automatically shifted down to the unit. The existing unit enjoys a near-100 percent occupancy rate and has a waiting list for patients. Sometimes patients are held in an acute care bed while awaiting transfer to a vacant bed in the skilled nursing unit. This is an inappropriate use of the acute care bed. Few, if any patients would come from other hospitals. Since many hospitals now have their own skilled nursing units, there is little exchange of patients. In the experience of St. Joseph’s staff, other hospitals generally fill their own units from within in their own “continuum of care” system. John Knox Village is not an alternative for patients who need to “step-down” from acute to subacute care. John Knox is eleven miles from St. Joseph’s and does not provide the intensity of care that is offered in the hospital-based skilled nursing unit. There are subacute care, or skilled nursing care, beds in Hillsborough County in free-standing, not hospital-based units. These alternative facilities are not all fully occupied and some offer similar services and treat patients comparable to those treated in the hospital-based units. Evidence that the free-standing skilled nursing facilities are not appropriate alternatives to St. Joseph’s new beds was largely anecdotal. Although Dr. Wasylik, St. Joseph’s chief of orthopedics, is generally familiar with facilities in which he has patients, his observation that transfer of patients from St. Joseph’s would not be appropriate is based on his concern that the “continuity of care” would be disrupted. In other words, even before surgery and admission to an acute care bed, a “critical pathway” in the patient’s rehabilitation is developed. Another facility might have a different pathway that would disrupt the rehabilitative process. Better continuity of care, in Wasylik’s view, translates into quicker, and thereby more cost-effective, recovery. Financial Considerations Although the agency found some inconsistencies in the financial data included in St. Joseph’s application, those inconsistencies affected only the scoring of the application in a competitive batching cycle. The agency witness who provided financial review of the application conceded there was no problem with funding the project, and due to the small size of the project in relation to the size of St. Joseph’s, the project would not have a significant impact on the cost of other services provided by St. Joseph’s. The proposed project would generate a positive financial return for St. Joseph’s. In the proforma financial statement included with the application, the hospital used an occupancy rate of 74%; the actual occupancy rate experienced in the new 19 bed unit is higher. Some of the problems the agency found when reviewing St. Joseph’s application were adequately explained at hearing. For example, the actual cost of the project is less than what the agency found in the financial projections in the application. Also, if, as the agency contends, St. Joseph’s has over-stated its projection of Medicaid patients, a lower Medicaid utilization rate will actually inure to the benefit of St. Joseph’s, since the Medicaid reimbursement rate is lower than for other payor sources. While not obvious on the face of the application, the financial assumptions provided by St. Joseph’s were sufficient to extrapolate valid projected salary expenses in the second year of operation. In summary, a CON application, by necessity, includes estimates and projections of expenses and revenue generated by the proposed project. St. Joseph’s now has the experience, which it did not have when the application was prepared, of the actual expenses and revenue from its 19 bed unit. That actual experience helps validate its prediction of financial feasibility for the proposed 24 beds. Architectural Issues At hearing, St. Joseph’s clarified its intent to not delicense nor relocate acute care beds to make room for the proposed 24 bed skilled nursing unit. Nor does it intend to “phase in” the skilled nursing beds, if approved. Neither of these intentions is clear from the face of the application and the architectural review by the agency raised questions on these issues. The questions affected St. Joseph’s overall standing in a competitive review process, but are not serious enough to foreclose approval if the application is considered on its own merit. The application states that the new beds would be co- located with the existing 19 beds. But if there is not sufficient room, as long as St. Joseph’s can accomplish the project at or below the approved project cost, and as long as St. Joseph’s obtains agency approval for placing the beds elsewhere (which approval is routinely granted), the precise location of the beds within St. Joseph’s facility is not a problem. The beds may not, nor are they intended to be, co-mingled with acute care beds in the hospital. Upon construction, the 24 beds will meet all of the licensure, building code and other regulations applicable to a skilled nursing unit within an acute care hospital. Balancing the Criteria and Summary of Findings There is little dispute that St. Joseph’s has the financial resources to complete the approved project and to operate it successfully. Nor is quality of care, either in the existing facility and projected in the future, an issue of dispute. The questions raised in the financial review and architectural review are not impediments to approval. There are two significant problems with St. Joseph’s proposal. St. Joseph’s serves the entire planning district, and the impact of new beds must be considered in that district-wide health-planning perspective. St. Joseph’s generates enough patients from within its own hospital to fill the beds close to capacity. Other facilities providing similar services in the district are not at full capacity. The possibility of those existing facilities serving as an alternative to new beds was not adequately explored by St. Joseph’s, but was rejected out of an abundance of pride in its own fine services, or physician and patient loyalty. Patient and physician preference does impact “real world” utilization of health care facilities but cannot drive the health planning decisions that are made in the CON process. The second, and most significant impediment to St. Joseph’s application is that only one bed remains in the fixed need pool established for the relevant planning horizon. As discussed below, Tarpon Springs did not invalidate that fixed need pool. St. Joseph’s application does not reflect a willingness to accept any fewer than the requested beds, much less an award of only one single bed. (See, Respondent’s Exhibit 12, CON application, p. 34)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter its final order denying CON number 7750 to St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of January 1997. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ivan Wood, Esquire Baker & Hostetler Suite 2000 100 Louisiana Houston, Texas 77002 Steven A. Grigas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether proposed Rules 10-5.002, 10-5.0025, 10-5.003, 10-5.004, 10-5.005, 10-5.008, 10-5.0085, 10-5.010, 10-5.0105, 10-5.020, and 10- 5.024, published in Volume 16, Number 13, Florida Administrative Weekly, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact 10-5.002(1) Proposed Rule 10-5.002(1) defines the term "acquisition" to mean "the act of possessing or controlling, in any manner or by any means, a health care facility, major medical equipment, an institutional health service or medical office building as one's own." The proposed rule is HRS's attempt to clarify the term's meaning as used in Section 381.706, Florida Statutes. It is based on dictionary definitions, primarily, Webster's Dictionary, Ninth Edition, but also Black's Law Dictionary. Armond Balsano, an expert in health planning, did not believe the definition to be reasonable and thought it was unclear, ambiguous, and open ended. However his opinion in this regard was not persuasive. Proposed Rule 10-5.002(1) is reasonable and sufficiently clear to withstand this challenge. 10-5.002(13) and 10-5.008(2)(d)--Skilled Nursing Issues Proposed Rule 10-5.002(13) defines "community nursing home beds" as relevant to this proceeding to include "acute care beds licensed pursuant to Chapter 395, Part I, F.S., but designated as skilled nursing beds, which are reviewable pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) [the nursing home bed need methodology]." Proposed Rule 10-5.008(2)(d) relates to fixed need pools and states: (d) Skilled Nursing Units in Hospitals. Beds in skilled nursing units which are a distinct part of a hospital will be counted in the nursing home bed inventory, even though they retain their licensure as acute care beds. Essentially, proposed Rule 10-5.008(2)(d) requires that skilled nursing beds in a distinct unit in a hospital be categorized as hospital "general" beds on the hospital license, but that they be carried at the same time on the inventory of community nursing home beds for purposes of projecting need under "pool" projections utilized by HRS for evaluating need for new beds. Proposed Rule 10-5.008(2)(d) attempts to codify what has been HRS's policy. This rule proposes that licensed acute care beds, which form a distinct part of a hospital-based skilled nursing unit, be counted in the nursing home bed inventory to project future need with respect to the nursing home bed need formula. Thus, these beds will no longer be counted or used in the acute care bed need formula to project the acute care bed need. From a health planning standpoint, several reasons exist for and against the inclusion of these hospital-based skilled nursing units within the nursing home bed inventory. A hospital cannot use its acute care beds as skilled nursing beds without a certificate of need. However, pursuant to this rule, to obtain these distinct unit beds a hospital is forced to compete with nursing home applicants for those beds. Skilled nursing beds in hospitals are "general" beds set up in a special category for which there is no specialty hospital bed methodology. Applications are reviewed under the nursing home bed methodology. A skilled nursing unit in a hospital is a unit, certified under the Health Care Finance Administration program, to identify a distinct part of the hospital as being a service in which there is 24-hour nursing with an RN nurse on the day shift. There also must be skilled nursing multi-disciplinary treatments and therapy services provided. The Health Care Finance Administration categorizes such beds as hospital beds, a distinct part of a hospital. Skilled nursing facility (SNF) beds in a hospital are used to treat acutely ill patients with an average length of stay of 20 days, who are different from the extended care patients found in community nursing homes, who have lengths of stay of one year or longer. Hospital skilled nursing patients are overwhelmingly Medicare patients, whereas community nursing home patients are overwhelmingly Medicaid patients. In Florida, Medicaid does not reimburse for care provided in the hospital-based skilled nursing unit. Hospital-based skilled nursing units are reimbursed by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) on a cost-based method. This system of reimbursement is also used with respect to non-hospital-based skilled nursing facilities. Furthermore, this means that hospital-based units are no longer reimbursed under the DRG (Diagnosis Related Groups) system. Medicare limits the patient benefit period to 100 days, regardless of the patient setting. Except for hospitals having higher allowable costs, federal guidelines do not differentiate between hospital and non-hospital-based skilled nursing units. The level of staffing is higher in a hospital nursing unit than in any community nursing home. Specialized equipment and services are offered in the hospital skilled nursing unit which are not offered in the community nursing homes. There are different conceptual approaches to care in the skilled nursing unit in a hospital as compared to those provided in community nursing facilities. Acutely ill patients on intravenous feeding or hyperalimentation, and those with multiple diagnoses require the hospital level nursing care. These units are not intended to provide residential care. Hospital beds are licensed under Rule 10D-28, whereas nursing home beds are licensed under Rule 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. Although the proposed rule requires skilled nursing beds in distinct units of hospitals to be comparatively and competitively reviewed with community nursing home applications, the two types of beds are not comparable. This creates an unfair comparison. As a matter of good health planning, these skilled units in hospitals should be reviewed differently and separately from regular community nursing home beds. By their nature, SNF beds in distinct units in hospitals are in fact "hospital" beds under Chapter 395 and not nursing home beds under Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Hospital-based skilled nursing units are not considered special care units as defined in Rule 10D-28, Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, special care units deal with very specialized intensive care settings. However, pursuant to some federal guidelines and state licensing requirements, a skilled nursing unit is considered a custodial type setting. For example, special care units are surveyed about once every two years and skilled nursing facilities once every year. However, failure to conduct a survey is not a determinative factor for special care units continuing under the Medicaid/Medicare programs. Skilled nursing units are not as fortunate. In fact, failure to survey a skilled nursing unit leads to the expiration of its enrollment in the Medicaid/Medicare programs. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, defines the various types of hospital beds and states that beds not covered under any specialty bed need methodology, which a skilled nursing unit is not, shall be considered general beds. This is why these hospital-based skilled nursing units are licensed as general acute care beds. The proposed rule amendments also present logistical problems. Hospitals and nursing homes are licensed under different chapters of the Florida Statues and the Florida Administrative Code, and those standards do not match. Their projects are in different planning cycles. HRS intends that hospitals apply for skilled nursing units on the nursing home application currently in use, but admits that the application does not really fit this type of project. The proposed rule amendments regarding skilled nursing units will be costly and burdensome. Although skilled nursing units offer valuable services and few currently exist, under the nursing home need rule it will be difficult to prove need for these projects. A hospital desiring to establish one will likely find itself having either to challenge the fixed need pool for nursing home beds or litigate the almost inevitable denial of its application for lack of need. Either course of action would involve time and expense over and above those usually encountered in the CON process, particularly because such an application would likely draw the opposition of existing nursing homes, even though their services are not really comparable. The proposed rule amendments do not comport with the basic health planning policy of reducing over-bedding by encouraging conversion to other services. It is unlikely a hospital could get a skilled nursing unit by showing a numeric need under the nursing home need methodology, and any attempt to show exceptional circumstances would be hampered by the lack of utilization data. Such beneficial conversions will probably also be chilled by the difficulty in converting a skilled nursing unit back to general acute care use, should it not be successful. Given the extreme acute care over-bedding which exists throughout the state, it is not anticipated that there will be any need for additional acute care beds for the foreseeable future. Since a skilled nursing unit would not be counted in the acute care bed inventory, the reconversion to acute care use would have to undergo CON review and would almost certainly be denied. 10-5.002(52) Proposed Rule 10-5.002(52) defines refinancing costs, which Rule 10- 5.004(2)(c) states are subject to expedited review under Section 381.706(2). The purpose of this definition is to provide guidance to applicants by identifying examples that are often encountered in either bond refunding or refinancing. The definition is straightforward in nature and encompasses the elements common in refinancing. Mr. Balsano, testifying for Adventist, readily acknowledged the preciseness of this definition, but faulted the definition for its absence of any discussion as to the potential benefit of refinancing. However, Mr. Balsano's concerns were misplaced. Distinctions exist between the benefits of refinancing and the meaning of refinancing. Indeed, the benefits of refinancing go to the merit of whether or not the certificate of need should be granted. Since every applicant is required to address the review criteria found in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, the proper forum for addressing the benefits of refinancing is in the CON application itself. Proposed Rule 10- 5.002(52) is simply a definition. 10-5.004(2)(g)--Projects Subject to Expedited Review: Capital Expenditure Projects This proposed rule allows applicants who propose a capital expenditure project to improve, repair, or correct their existing facility to apply for a certificate of need on an expedited basis. This proposed rule is conducive to encouraging existing facilities to make needed improvements by seeking approval of the expenditure expeditiously and without the delays associated with batching cycles. It is important for a provider to make and complete corrections or improvements quickly in order to minimize the disruption of patient care. Some of the more common capital expenditures include expansion of emergency departments or emergency rooms and the renovation or expansion of other patient care areas. An application to relocate a hospital is also considered a capital expenditure. Under extreme circumstances of pervasive physical plant deficiencies, coupled with a lack of practical renovation options to overcome plant deficiencies, an existing health care facility might apply for a replacement facility. Only when such replacement facility would (1) involve no new beds or changed bed use (e.g., from general acute care to comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds), (2) involve no substantial change in services, and (3) involve no substantial change in service area would HRS consider such an application to be solely reviewable as a capital expenditure and thus entitled to expedited review under the proposed rule. HRS reviews replacement facility applications by carefully assessing the applicants' claims of pervasive physical plant problems. HRS sends a team of experts, including architects, to the existing facilities to independently judge whether the physical plant is in such a condition as would warrant replacement and whether renovations could serve as a practical alternative from a physical standpoint. HRS also performs an economic assessment to compare the alternatives of replacement versus renovation in order to determine the most cost-effective alternative. Replacement facility applications typically involve a determination not of whether dollars will be spent, but rather, how they are best spent--by replacement or by renovation. As such, HRS helps to contain health care costs without participation by competitors in these institution- specific decisions. Pursuant to Section 381.709(5)(b), Florida Statutes, competitors do not have standing to challenge a proposed capital expenditure and, therefore, there is no adequate reason to defer review of these projects until a future application cycle. Further, when a capital expenditure approval is sought to replace or relocate an existing facility, no one other than the applicant/existing facility can apply to spend or make those expenditures. An unrelated entity cannot compete to replace another entity's existing facility. Conducting a comparative review with respect to a capital expenditure project for the replacement of a hospital is illogical, unworkable, and futile. 10.5.008(1)(c)3 and 10-5.008(3)(b)--Capitalized Costs Proposed Rule 10-5.008(1)(c) requires that a letter of intent describe the proposal with specificity. Subsection (1)(c)3 sets forth the following requirement: 3. A proposed capital expenditure must be rounded to the nearest dollar . . . . If no capital expenditure is proposed, the applicant must so indicate. If the actual capital expenditure has already been incurred, either wholly or in part, and the project will account for such expenditures as capitalized costs, regardless of the purpose, then the total capital expenditure of the project shall be indicated. As related to this same subject, proposed Rule 10-5.008(3)(b) states: (b) Capital expenditures incurred for projects not originally subject to Certificate of Need review must be identified as a proposed expenditure when such expenditure will be capitalized in a project for which a Certificate of Need is required. HRS asserts that this proposed rule codifies HRS's existing policy and that the purpose of this provision is to develop consistency in how applicants treat an already incurred capital expenditure. It is also allegedly intended that this proposed rule give uniformity concerning how project costs are calculated and allocated. For example, if an applicant is going to convert space from one use to another, the value of the space must be included in the applicant's capital expenditure estimate. While Ms. Gordon-Girvin, HRS's health planning expert, opined that this proposed rule is consistent with current practices in the health care market place concerning how capital expenditures are treated and that it forms a common basis of comparison for comparing the applicants' treatment of capitalized costs, the greater weight of the credible evidence does not support these opinions. Actually, the effect of these proposed rules is that a certificate of need applicant, who has previously made capital expenditures and later pursues a certificate of need project utilizing such prior capitalized costs, must identify and include those prior capital expenditures as a portion of the certificate of need project, even though no actual incremental funds will be necessary or spent in connection with the project. One of the problems with proposed Rules 10-5.008(1)(c)3 and (3)(b) is that they both ignore a distinction between fixed costs and variable costs which is fundamental to a financial evaluation of any project. Specifically, it is inappropriate to require an applicant who will have no incremental costs in implementing a project to allocate a portion of prior capital expenditures, where such an application is measured against a competing application in which the entire outlay for capital costs will be necessary. This distorts the evaluation due to inappropriately comparing prior fixed costs to future variable costs. An example of the illogical result of the proposed rules provides guidance. If a hospital has already spent one million dollars to add a CON- exempt outpatient cardiac cath lab, and later seeks to establish an inpatient cardiac cath program, under these proposed provisions, that hospital would have to represent a cost of one million dollars in its application to convert the outpatient cardiac cath lab to an inpatient project. From a health planning and financial standpoint, this is inappropriate. Having to include capital costs which have already been incurred and viewing those costs in the context of the decision to approve or reject a CON project is misleading. Ultimately, the purpose and objective of the CON process is to minimize duplication of health care resources. The proposed rules work in conflict with that goal. Conversion of underutilized resources to resources that could be more beneficially utilized is a policy that is encouraged by HRS. This policy is encouraged in the various need methodologies. One of the reasons to encourage a conversion is that often zero dollars are involved to convert a project from one CON-approved use to another CON-approved use. Proposed Rules 10-5.008(1)(c)3 and (3)(b) would eliminate consideration of the minimal cost involved in a conversion project and are therefore unreasonable. Moreover, the proposed rules could end up creating excess resources in the system simply because they would eliminate the preference for conversion as opposed to new construction. With respect to allocating prior capital expenditures, the proposed rules, as alleged by HRS, are intended to codify existing HRS policy as well as provide uniformity to the process of ascertaining project costs. These proposed rules do neither. In point of fact, HRS has accepted, within the last three years, conversion projects indicating a zero project cost in the application. The proposed rules are thus inconsistent with current HRS policy of accepting and evaluating these applications and are contrary to HRS's stated intention in this proceeding. However, with respect to providing uniformity to the process of ascertaining project costs, the proposed rules provide no methodology by which prior capital cost allocations are to be determined. Indeed, there is no uniformity proposed regarding how a health care facility or applicant accounts for capital expenditures. Generally, a capital expenditure is one that is "material" and the useful life of the item capitalized exceeds one year. What is material to one applicant may be entirely different from that which would be material to another applicant. Thus, the uniformity of presentation of prior capitalized costs contained in CON applications submitted to HRS for review will not and cannot exist as envisioned by HRS in its proposed rules. 10-5.005(2)(e) Proposed Rule 10-5.005 relates to exemption from CON review and Subsection (2)(e) states as follows: (e) Failure to initiate the exemption within twelve months after it appears in the Florida Administrative Weekly will result in the notice of exemption being void. The alleged basis for this proposed rule is to protect those persons pursuing an exemption by ensuring that they are still eligible for it under the same facts and circumstances. Additionally, HRS has encountered problems in the past when entities have received a determination of exemption for a project but have failed to implement the project. In one case, HRS gave a nursing home an exemption to replace a facility on site. After discharging the patients, the nursing home took no further action. However, these beds are still licensed and are included in the bed inventory. Such a situation artificially suppresses the need for nursing home beds in that district for the planning horizon. The proposed rule is an attempted response to this problem. The laws implemented by the proposed rules are Section 381.706 and 381.713(1). Pursuant to these sections, HRS must grant an exemption if the applicant meets the statutory definitions. Further, if a project is exempt, it is not subject to review. Exemption requests may be made at any time and are not subject to batching requirements. Once a project is deemed to be exempt and not subject to review, HRS ceases to have jurisdiction over the project and HRS, accordingly, has no jurisdiction to void an exemption. 10-5.008(2)(f) Proposed Rule 10-5.008(2)(f) establishes a procedure for HRS and applicants to follow when a departmental need methodology does not exist for a proposed project. The proposed rule attempts to clarify for applicants how best to present themselves when applying for a project for which no methodology has been adopted in an existing rule. This is particularly useful to applicants in addressing the need component required by statute. Policy utilized but not yet adopted by HRS will be provided to applicants in addressing the need component required by statute; however, applicants are not bound by that policy and may tender their need calculations. This proposed rule gives credence to the fact that there may be different methodologies and allows applicants the opportunity to make all the necessary arguments to demonstrate the nature and extent of entitlement to a certificate of need. 10-5.0085(4) Proposed Rule 10-5.008(4) describes shared service arrangements and delineates the procedures applicants must follow to initiate or terminate a shared service. The part of the proposed rule challenged by FHA and the area on which it focused concerned the termination of a shared service arrangement. Proposed Rule 10-5.008(4) provides in pertinent part: (4)(a) The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services where none of the applicants are currently authorized to provide the service: * * * Any of the parties providing a shared service may seek to dissolve the arrangement. This action is subject to review as a termination of service. If termination is approved by the department, all parties to the original shared service give up their rights to provide the service. Parties seeking to provide the service independently in the future must submit applications in the next applicable review cycle and compete for the service with all other applicants. * * * 6.b. The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services when one of the applicants has the service: * * * e. Dissolution of a shared services contract is subject to review as a termination of service. * * * If termination is approved, the entity(ies) authorized to provide the service prior to the contract retains the right to continue the service. All other parties to the contract who seek to provide the service in their own right must request the service as a new health service and are subject to full Certificate of Need review as a new health service. (Emphasis added) The basis for requiring CON review for a termination of a shared service as delineated above is found in Section 381.706(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1989). If a shared service arrangement terminates, the party who originally had the service would retain the service. This is reasonable because the entity would have already been granted a certificate of need for the service, singularly offered. The party would be placed back in the same situation it was in prior to the shared service. Conversely, in situations where neither party originally had the service, the remaining parties would have to apply for the service in a batched review. This, too, is reasonable in that the service would no longer be shared and the ability to provide it singularly would be evaluated anew. Here, the party would also be placed back in the same situation it was in prior to the shared service. Additionally, a shared service arrangement (and approval of it) is based on certain benefits present within that arrangement. Upon termination the same benefits may not be present. The identity of the parties and their relationships to each other will have changed. Review at this point provides an applicant the opportunity to compete again to establish the service in its own right under a different set of circumstances, and it allows other providers to compete either for the service in their own right or through another shared arrangement. Such a policy is prudent because the very reason for the shared service was to produce benefits that were not otherwise obtainable singularly. Indeed, even FHA's own witness, Mr. Bebee, acknowledged that certain advantages to a shared services arrangement might not be present when such an arrangement terminates. 10-5.010(2) Proposed Rule 10-5.010(2) concerns what local health plan is to be used and addressed in a CON application, and it provides as follows: The applicable local health plan is the most current plan adopted by the appropriate local health council and which has been accepted and approved in writing by the Department at the time letters of intent are due or, if not accepted by the Department, as reviewed and commented on by the Department. The agency will provide to all prospective applicants those items of the local health plan which must be addressed in the application. HRS asserts that the purpose of this amendment to existing Rule 10- 5.010 is to assist applicants by identifying various components of the plan to which they should address their application and thereby maximize their time and effort and, ultimately, their chances for approval and that this proposed rule codifies current departmental practice of providing those items of the local health plan which must be addressed by the applicant. Contrary to HRS's assertion that this proposed rule is clarifying in nature, the rule in fact goes far beyond those parameters. "Reviewed and commented on by the Department" means that the local health council's adopted plan has been reviewed for consistency with existing need methodologies and has been commented on by HRS. HRS maintains that "commented on" does not mean verbal comments. The proposed rule does not, however, specify that only written comments were intended. Indeed, HRS admitted that the way the rule is drafted it takes into account oral as well as written comments. Statutorily, HRS is required to adopt as a rule the local health plans or portions thereof to be used in the CON review regulatory process. Local health plans generally contain allocation factors, preferences, and policies with respect to the particular district. Within the last several months, HRS has sought to adopt as a rule preferences and policies set forth in the various local health plans around the state of Florida. HRS withdrew those proposed rules. Proposed Rule 10-5.010(2) does not make reference to or account for the fact that the local health plans must be adopted as rules by HRS. HRS cannot circumvent statutory requirements by proposing that an applicant address "approved plans," nor can it require an applicant to address local health plans with which HRS is not in full agreement with the local health council as to whether the plan is consistent with statutory guidelines. Indeed, where HRS and the local health council are in disagreement, an applicant is pulled between HRS and the local council. This proposed rule allows HRS to simply reject the expressed wants of the local health council and to insert its own comments and views, thereby inserting itself into a province exclusively reserved to the local health councils. 10-5.020 Proposed Rule 10-5.020 involves addition of one sentence to the existing rule. The added language provides that HRS will issue a license to the CON holder in accordance with the CON and will not issue a license for fewer beds than the total on the CON. The proposed addition to this rule addresses a problem currently facing the Department, and it reflects a change in agency policy for HRS. Basically, the added language clarifies for an applicant or certificate of need holder that the Office of Licensure and Certification shall only issue a license consistent with the terms of the certificate of need. The proposed rule addition conforms to several health planning goals. First, it requires the implementation of a project in accordance with the certificate of need. Second, the language addresses HRS's current problem of need suppression by industry members. Third, it seeks to ensure uniform development of services. This proposed rule does not penalize hospitals who want to do phase-in type projects. On the contrary, the language seeks to ensure that needed beds and services will be implemented in the horizon year in accordance with the application and entitlement demonstrated by the applicant. Economic Impact Statement The Summary of the Estimate of the Economic Impact states in relevant part: The proposed amendments are expected to have no adverse impact either on existing and new applicants for certificate of need, or on small and minority businesses . . . . The Economic Impact Statement (EIS) addresses the cost to the agency of implementing the proposed rules, an estimate of the cost to persons directly affected by the proposed rules, an estimate of the impact of the proposed action on competition, a statement of the date and method used in making those estimates, and an analysis of the impact on small businesses as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. Specifically, the EIS states that the proposed rules "will have a minimal economic impact on current or future certificate of need applicants and the public at large." There is no competent, substantial evidence to establish with specificity the existence of any defects in the EIS which impaired the fairness of the rulemaking proceeding or the correctness of the agency actions related to the EIS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED: 1. Proposed Rules 10-5.002(1) and (52), 10-5.004(2)(g), 10-5.008(2)(f), 10-5.0085(4), and 10-5.020 are valid. 2. Proposed Rules 10-5.002(13); 10-5.008(1)(c)3, (2)(d), and (3)(b); 10- 5.005(2)(e); and 10-5.010(2) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, 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 10th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE FINAL ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in these cases. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioners Venice Hospital and Adventist Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(3); 5(5); 6(6); 10(14); 12(15 and 16); 15-17(25-27); and 19(28). Proposed findings of fact 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 13, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 25 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed finding of fact 2 is unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 14, 20, 23, and 26 are unsupported by the credible, competent, and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner FHA Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(7); 5(10); 6(11); 8-12(12- 16); and 13-17(19-23). Proposed findings of fact 2, 3, 18, 19, and 21-24 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order Proposed finding of fact 7 is unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 20 is unsupported by the credible, competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Humana Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 6(34, 35, and 38). Proposed findings of fact 2, 5, and 7-13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed findings of fact 1, 3, 4, and 14-19 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioners NME and PIA Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2(34, 35, and 38); 3-6(39- 42); 8(53); and 9(54 and 55). Proposed findings of fact 1 and 7 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed findings of fact 10 and 11 are irrelevant because these Petitioners dismissed their challenge to the EIS in the Stipulation of the parties admitted as Joint Exhibit 2. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Sarasota Proposed findings of fact 1-4, 6, 7, and 13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed finding of fact 5 is unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 17, 18, and 20 are unsupported by the credible, competent, and substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 8-12, 14-16, and 19 are irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent HRS Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1 and 2); 2(28); 3(46); 4(47-49); 5(51); 7(29); 8(32 and 33); 9(33); 11(8); 13(17); 14(18); 15(23); 16(23 and 24); 17(36); 19(37); 21(57); and 22(58). Proposed findings of fact unnumbered paragraph re: 10-5.005(2)(e); 10; 12; 18; 20; and unnumbered paragraph re: Economic Impact Statement are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed findings of fact 1A and 6 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor HCA DOCTORS Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Final Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 6(30) and 7(31). Proposed findings of fact 2-5 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Final Order. Proposed findings of fact 1 and 9-11 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 8 is irrelevant. *NOTE: THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER'S EXHIBIT "A" [RULE 10-5.002, 10-5.004(2), 10-5.005(2), 10-2.008(1)(n), 10-5.008(5)(h), 10-5.010(2), 10-5.020] IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE DIVISION'S CLERK'S OFFICE. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffery A. Boone, Attorney at Law Robert P. Mudge, Attorney at Law 1001 Avenida del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, FL 34284 Kenneth F. Hoffman, Attorney at Law 2700 Blair Stone Road Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 James C. Hauser, Attorney at Law 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 C. Gary Williams, Attorney at Law Stephen C. Emmanuel, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Theodore C. Eastmoore, Attorney at Law 1550 Ringling Boulevard Post Office Box 3258 Sarasota, FL 34230 Robert A. Weiss, Attorney at Law John M. Knight, Attorney at Law The Perkins House, Suite 101 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Thomas R. Cooper, Attorney at Law Edward G. Labrador, Attorney at Law Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 103 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Radey, Attorney at Law Elizabeth W. McArthur, Attorney at Law Suite 1000, Monroe-Park Tower 101 North Monroe Street Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, FitzGerald & Sheehan, P.A. The Perkins House--Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Liz Cloud, Chief Bureau of Administrative Code Room 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Room 120, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
Findings Of Fact FMCC's application is to provide a 102-bed long-term care nursing facility in Fort Myers, Florida, while AHC's and HSI's applications are to provide 120-bed long-term nursing care facilities. When each of these applications was presented to the south Central Florida Health Systems Council, Inc. (HSA), the application of FMCC was approved and forwarded to Respondent recommending approval and the other two applications were disapproved and so forwarded. The primary reason given by HSA for disapproving HSI's application was lack of firm financing and for disapproving AHC's application was cost of construction. Trained personnel to man the proposed facilities are in short supply in Lee County. Applicants' plans to import personnel, if necessary, from other parts of the country were supported by no evidence to indicate such personnel would be amenable to move to Lee County. All applications were disapproved by Respondent and each applicant requested a hearing which resulted in this consolidated hearing. At present there are 741 existing or approved long-term care nursing home beds in Lee County, Florida. A 120-bed facility at Cape Coral became operative in February, 1979 and a 60-bed addition to Beacon-Donegan Manor nursing home has also been approved. Prior to the opening of the newest 120-bed facility at Cape Coral, the occupancy rate for the other long-term care nursing homes was greater than 90 percent. Due to its recent opening, no evidence was presented as to the occupancy rate in Lee County following the opening of the Cape Coral facility. The population of Lee County in 1978 was 184,841 with 41,984 more than 65 years old, which is less than 23 percent of the population. This is in line with the population forecasts by the University of Florida and validates the estimated 1980 population figures which were used by all parties in submitting their applications. In 1978 Respondent proposed a State Health Plan which included a determination that the long-term care nursing home bed needs were 27 per 1,000 population greater than 65 years old. This determination was unacceptable to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) whose decision is binding on Respondent. In refusing to accept this standard, HEW reaffirmed the requirement that the formula contained in the Hill-Burton Act be utilized in determining certificates of need. Following the Hill-Burton formula results in no additional long-term care nursing home beds needed in Lee County. Modification of the results produced by use of the Hill-Burton formula when extenuating and mitigating circumstances exist is authorized by the Florida Medical Facilities Plan. Accordingly, when use of Hill-Burton formula produces results contrary to obvious facts, such as a showing of no need for additional facilities when occupancy rates are high and long waiting lists for admission exists, these extenuating circumstances are considered and a finding of need is made. The parties stipulated that extenuating circumstances, notably the greater than 90 percent occupancy rate in nursing homes in 1977 and most of 1978 and the existing waiting lists created need for 100 to 120 additional beds. No evidence was presented establishing a need for more than 100-120 additional long-term care nursing home beds in Lee County. In fact, no evidence was presented showing the current occupancy rate, current waiting lists, or any other information not previously submitted to the Health Systems Agency was here presented other than the latest Census Report, which merely confirmed the accuracy of the forecasts. Even if the 27 beds per 1,000 population greater than 65 which was proposed by the South Central Florida Health Systems Agency were used to establish the number of beds needed, their limitation, that no more than 50 percent be added in the two-year planning period, would preclude approving more than one additional nursing home at this time. Absent evidence showing a need for more than one additional nursing home, the only issue remaining is which of the applicants is best qualified to provide the best service at the lowest cost for the stipulated need. HSI submitted proposed construction costs and patient charges in line with those submitted by FMCC. However, although their application states, and the Health Systems Agency apparently accepted, their allegation that an option to lease had been obtained on the property on which the proposed facility was to be erected, testimony at the hearing disclosed that only an oral agreement to lease the property had been obtained by HSI. An oral agreement affecting a long-term lease of real property comes within the Statute of Frauds and is unenforceable. This fact alone renders all cost estimates submitted by HSI suspect. Further, the financing proposed by HSI to construct the facility shows less than $200,000 equity capital available and a requirement to borrow $1,300,000. One ground noted by the Health Systems Agency for disapproving this application was the inadequacy of their financing. No evidence presented at this hearing contradicted this Health System Agency's finding. AHC operates some 50 nursing homes in 14 states with two nursing homes in the Orlando area. A certificate of need has been obtained for a third nursing home in Jacksonville. Florida Living Care, Inc., the parent corporation of FMCC, manages some 44 nursing homes and owns 25. It has certificates of need for 6 nursing homes in Florida, one of which is completed and in operation, while 3 are under construction. AHC proposes to finance 87 percent of the cost of the 120-bed project, or $2,160,000, in a 40-year loan at 8.5 percent interest. FMCC proposes to finance 80 percent of the cost of a 102-bed project, or $1,000,000, in a 25-year loan at 9.5 percent interest. Although no testimony regarding the current status of mortgage money was presented, it is recognized that interest rates are at historically high levels and that FMCC is more likely to get financing on the terms it proposed than is AHC on the terms the latter proposed. HSI proposed costs and charges result in average costs of $30.16 per patient per day. FMCC proposed costs and charges result in average costs of $30.96 per patient per day. AHC proposed costs and charges result in average costs of $34.40 per patient per day. No significant difference exists in the services proposed by each of the applicants. Savings from combined purchasing can result when numerous facilities are operated. Both AHC and FMCC are in a better position in this regard than is HSI. Additional savings in group food purchasing can result when facilities are within 200 miles of each other. The facilities FMCC's parent corporation is opening in Sebring and Port Charlotte are close enough to Fort Myers to allow group food purchasing for these facilities. AHC's construction costs are approximately 50 percent higher per bed than are the costs submitted by FMCC and HSI. This factor must result in higher charges to amortize these higher construction costs.
Findings Of Fact In April, 1984, the Petitioner, Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America d/b/a Heartland of Palm Beach, applied for a certificate of need for 120 community nursing home beds in Palm Beach County, Florida. In July, 1984, the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) gave notice of initial intention to deny the application. HRS Exhibit 5. The instant proceedings are the result of the request of the Petitioner for a formal administrative hearing from that denial. On January 22, 1986, the parties jointly moved for a continuance of the final hearing in this case then scheduled to commence on February 3, 1986, and in paragraphs 3 through 6, represented that the purpose of the requested continuance was to allow the Petitioner to gather data as to two alleged underserved groups: patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease and sub-acute care patients. The Petitioner asserted that such data would support an amended, updated application for certificate of need to be filed by the Petitioner for the purpose of showing need pursuant to the special exception allowed in the rules. In paragraph 8 of the motion, HRS agreed to give serious consideration to the updated application and supporting documents. The motion was granted by order dated February 3, 1986, and at the request of both parties, the final hearing was reset for April 3, 1986. The parties have agreed that all statutory and rule criteria have been satisfied by the Petitioner in this case except for the issue of need as determined by rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, and that question is the sole issue in this case. T. 5; Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. Petitioner's initial application did not mention the intention to provide special services for victims of Alzheimer's disease, and the Petitioner did not amend or update its application with HRS in that respect, except to the extent that it presented such testimony in the formal administrative hearing. T. 104. The application is not in evidence. The initial review of Petitioner's application by HRS did not consider special services to Alzheimer's patients. T. 117; HRS Exhibit 5. HRS has adopted rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, to determine need for additional community nursing home beds. Using a planning horizon of 1987, which is 3 years after the date of application, the rule calculates a net surplus of 511 community nursing home beds for Palm Beach County. Even using the 1989 planning horizon, there is still a net zero bed need using the rule formula for Palm Beach County. T. 100; HRS Exhibit 2; T. 97 and 102. Alzheimer's disease is a degenerative process of the brain characterized primarily by loss of memory and impairment of a variety of routine functions. T. 160-161. Diagnosis of the disease is difficult since there are related degenerative mental disorders. Moreover, positive diagnosis typically requires examination of brain tissue, and the process of obtaining brain tissue is intrusive. T. 162-163. For these reasons, the diagnosis is typically of "senile dementia of the Alzheimer-type," or Alzheimer's disease or related disorders. T. 163. The cause of the condition is not known, although research into possible surgical techniques to ameliorate the effects is being conducted in the Jupiter, Florida, area. T. 73. Alzheimer's disease primarily afflicts elderly persons, although some younger persons may also be victims. T. 163. Person suffering from Alzheimer's disease typically have memory loss, communicative problems, aphasia, trouble understanding, confusion, disorientation, inability to recognize care givers, waking at night, interrupting the care giver's sleep, wandering, mealtime problems, inappropriate sexual activity, incontinence, and social disfunctions. T. 184. Such persons exhibit negative behavior such as resistence to care, demanding, aggression, anger, emotional outbursts due to inability to perform routine tasks, and delusions. Id. Four stages of progressive degeneration are expected with Alzheimer's disease. The first is forgetfulness and loss of ability to perform complex tasks which formerly could be performed. In the second stage, communication problems occur and also loss of memory as to the names of common objects. Wandering and becoming lost also may occur. Stage three is characterized by physical deterioration such as loss of weight, incontinence, and loss of control of other bodily functions. In the fourth stage, a patient will become unable to communicate at all, and may become comatose and bedridden. The course of the disease is from 12 to 16 years or longer and can involve many of the problems described above. T. 217-218. A family member is usually the person first required to provide care for an Alzheimer's victim. T. 165. The responsibilities caused by such care, and the manner in which the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease are exhibited, cause the family care-giver to feel trapped, fatigued, depressed, angry, resentful, and frustrated. T. 167. At times, the family care-giver is elderly and can suffer health problems from the responsibility. T. 82-83. The burden upon the family member can be alleviated by day care, which involves care only during the day, and respite care, which can involve overnight care for several days. T. 167, 147-148. Day care and respite care can also serve the function of establishing a relationship with staff and collection of data and records, both of which become useful for the time when the patient's disease progresses to the point that continuous inpatient care is required. T. 83, 220-223. Alzheimer's patients in a nursing home need special care directed toward their particular disability described above. Of primary concern is that the nursing home be structured to provide an environment that minimizes confusion and compensates for the disabilities of the Alzheimer's disease victim. Separation from other elderly residents, who are not cognitively impaired, is important to prevent confusion of the Alzheimer's patient and to protect the other residents from disruptive intrusions. The physical facility should be constructed and furnished so as to minimize confusion and stimulation. Colors should be subdued, flooring should not mute the sound of footsteps, patterns should not be used, and common appliances should have distinguishing shapes and be clearly identified or labeled. Spaces for quiet and for wandering should be provided. Features to compensate for forgetfulness, such as lights which automatically turn on when a door is opened, should be provided. T. 219- 227, 57-58, 63-64, 81. Staffing must be trained to recognize and help alleviate problems that arise from behavior caused by Alzheimer's disease. T. 74-75, 234- 235, 80, 83-84. Finally, since Alzheimer's disease patients become upset with change due to recognition and memory impairment, continuity of care (staffing and physical surroundings) becomes important. T. 221, 223, 78, 82-83. Alzheimer's disease victims who need inpatient care also need all of the normal forms of skilled nursing care that other elderly persons need. This may occur over a course of years, or may be the results of a sudden injury, such as a broken hip. T. 220-223, 147-148, 79. As discussed above, it is important to be able to provide such care in the same facility since continuity of care is so important, and transfers to new surroundings are disruptive. Any current holder of a certificate of need for community nursing home beds in Palm Beach County may, if it wishes, provide special services to persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease. T. 122. Existing nursing homes in Palm Beach County accept Alzheimer's disease victims, but none provide special services for these patients except perhaps Darcy Hall, which provides adult day care. T. 143, 76, 82, 168-169, 171, 200-201, 210-211. Existing adult congregate living centers and adult day care centers in Palm Beach County similarly do not have special services or programs for victims of Alzheimer's disease. T. 145. Existing nursing homes could provide such services to Alzheimer's patients, though approval of HRS by expedited review to change substructure might be required, but none has done so. T. 154. Alzheimer's patients are often inappropriately restrained, or mixed with non-Alzheimer's disease patients. T. 77. Dr. Eugene Loeser is a physician, board certified in neurology, and is in private practice in Jupiter, Florida. T. 157-158. Dr. Loeser created a list of questions to ask physicians in Palm Beach County to explore the need for special nursing home programs for Alzheimer's disease patients, and that list of questions is HRS Exhibit 8. T. 169, 186-189. Using these questions Dr. Loeser conducted a survey of 36 physicians in Palm Beach County, which included 8 family practitioners, 10 internists, 14 neurologists, 2 neurosurgeons, and 2 psychiatrists. T. 170. There are approximately 1,000 physicians in Palm Beach County, T. 31, and Dr. Loeser admitted that his survey was only of a small percentage. T. 170. Dr. Loeser did not attempt to make the survey statistically valid. T. 178. The physicians contacted were selected from the telephone book from Jupiter in the north to Lake Worth in the south. T. 171, 183. Dr. Loeser attempted to contact representatives of several specialities. T. 181. The specialities were selected as those likely to see Alzheimer's patients. T. 170. Of the 36 physicians contacted, 35 had seen patients having Alzheimer's disease. Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Of these, 27 physicians had "difficulty in finding appropriate placement" for these patients in terms of supervision, care and treatment. Petitioner's Exhibit 5; HRS Exhibit 8. The same number of physicians felt that facilities with appropriate programs for placement of Alzheimer's disease or similar disorder patients were not presently available in Palm Beach County. Id. From the responses, Dr. Loeser estimated that these physicians had seen somewhat more than 600 patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease or related disorders in the last year. T. 171. Dr. Loeser personally estimated that he typically had difficulty finding a treatment and care facility for about 10 Alzheimer's disease patients annually. T. 185. He then estimated from responses received that the physicians surveyed were unable to find an appropriate program for about 135 patients annually. Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Dr. Loeser further estimated that among his own patients, about one or two per week needed some form of day care, T. 185, and from the responses of the physicians in the survey, estimated that such physicians annually had 150 patients needing day care. T. 175. Determination of placement problems for Alzheimer's disease patients from actual patient records or placement orders from physicians would be difficult because these records are confidential. Consent from the patient would be needed, and consent from an Alzheimer patient would be difficult due to the nature of the mental impairment caused by the disease. T. 173. The survey conducted by Dr. Loeser was not unreasonable for failure to contact more physicians. The survey accurately reflects a group of Alzheimer's disease patients treated by the physicians contacted, and does not purport to account for Alzheimer's disease patients treated by other physicians. Thus, the need identified by Dr. Loeser's survey, while underinclusive of total need, is reasonably accurate for the need identified. Palm Beach County currently has at least an estimated 16,597 persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease, and this number is expected to be 18,172 by 1988. T. 24. HRS itself estimates that the number of Alzheimer's victims in Palm Beach County in 1986 to be 27,200. Petitioner's Exhibit 6. It is further estimated that approximately 80 percent of such patients will require some sort of custodial care in the future. T. 76. Based upon the foregoing statistics, as well as the fact that existing Palm Beach County nursing homes do not provide special services or care for Alzheimer's disease patients, there is a need for the Alzheimer facility proposed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner proposes to establish a 120 bed nursing home in Palm Beach County designed and staffed to provide care and treatment to meet the special needs of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. T. 45. The Petitioner, Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Palm Beach, is willing to have any certificate of need issued in this case to be conditioned upon it building, developing, and operating the proposed nursing home limited as it has proposed in this formal administrative hearing. T. 48-49. Thus, findings of fact 18 through 21 which follow relate to the manner in which the Petitioner proposes that a certificate of need may be conditioned and limited. The proposed physical design of the nursing facility is set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit 1. T. 49. The cost is estimated to be $3.7 million. T. The design includes a courtyard to allow patients to wander safely. T. 41. It also includes a shaded porch, an outdoor patio, and a lounge off the patio. Id. Security from wandering is proposed to be provided by a "Wanderguard" system of wristbands and sensing devices that sound an alarm as a patient passes an exit point. Id. Additionally, the proposed facility would have a therapeutic residential kitchen for patients still able to use a residential kitchen. Id. One room would be set aside as a quiet room. T. 42. It is contemplated that such a room will minimize the need for calming drugs. T. 224. Also to be provided are separate dining areas, areas for therapy, and separate nursing wings and sub-acute care wings. T. 42-43. Alzheimer patients would be separated from non-Alzheimer patients, fixtures would have shapes, colors, and labels to facilitate identification; wall and floor coverings would not use patterns, and the flooring would be vinyl or tile instead of carpet. T. 42, 225-228. The proposed plan of the facility contemplates that there be space for all stages of care for Alzheimer's patients: day care, respite care, nursing care, and sub-acute care. Petitioner's Exhibit 1; T. 221-222, 39-40, 56. The Petitioner also proposes to provide individual treatment plans, to include physical therapy, occupational therapy, social work, and recreational therapy. T. 230-231. Support groups for family members of the patient will be provided. T. 233. The Petitioner states that the staff for the proposed facility must be appropriately trained to know Alzheimer's disease and the special needs of these patients. T. 234. Ongoing education for staff is viewed as being imperative. Id. The Petitioner recognizes the need to provide greater staffing for peak periods. T. 235. Monthly in-service training will be provided by the parent corporation. T. 236. Moreover, the parent corporation, Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, will develop and implement a program of staff training specifically for Alzheimer's disease. T. 237. Staff for the proposed facility will be adequately trained to properly deal with the problems of Alzheimer's patients. For a 24 hour period, a staff to patient ratio of 1 to 2.5 will be provided. T. 238. This ratio includes only nursing staff, aides, and activities and occupational rehabilitation staff. Id. The Petitioner proposes to designate and commit its entire facility to Alzheimer's patients. T. 60. But from a fiscal point of view, the Petitioner proposes to not deny admission to persons not having Alzheimer's disease. T. 66-68. At least 60 beds will be dedicated to patients with Alzheimer's disease, and these are expected to fill with persons in stages two and three of the disease. T. 67-68. When these patients reach more advanced stages of their disease, it is expected that they will be treated in the other 60 bed section, which is skilled nursing and sub-acute care. T. 68; Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Thus, the Petitioner expects ultimately to fill its entire facility with Alzheimer's disease patients consistent with its dedication and purpose. The facility proposed by the Petitioner would meet the unique needs of Alzheimer's disease patients and their families, and would be the only facility in Palm Beach County to provide a wide spectrum of care for Alzheimer's disease patients. Petitioner's proposal is consistent with priorities IV, V 3 and 4, and VI, Long Term Care section, District IX Health Plan (1985). T. 150-152. On March 6, 1986, the General Counsel of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services sent a memorandum to "all attorneys" construing and implementing the decision in the Gulf Court case, Gulf Court Nursing Center v. DHRS, 10 F.L.W. 1983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). On the next day, Robert E. Maryanski, Administrator, Community Medical Facilities, Officer of Health Planning and Development, sent the memorandum to his staff and told them to use the opinion as a guideline for the initial review of a CON application settlement and preparation for hearings. HRS Exhibit 6. HRS recognizes that there are three ways that an applicant for a certificate of need for nursing home beds can show need even though the rule shows a zero bed need. The third way is for "equivalent assessments" to be submitted by "attending physician." T. 113; HRS Exhibit 4, rule 10- 5.11(21)(b)10, F.A.C. HRS staff construes rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, F.A.C., as requiring that each attending physician of each Alzheimer's patient document that his or her patient is in need of specialized services and that the patient is without access to those special services. T. 124. The issuance of certificate of need 4194 to the Joseph L. Morse Geriatric Center was issued pursuant to the special circumstances exception of rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, F.A.C., since the rule did not show bed need. T. 127. There was nothing in the application in that case to show that elderly Jewish persons were denied access to existing nursing home facilities in Palm Beach County. Id. See also T. 130. There was, however, evidence that a large group of elderly Jewish persons were not being provided kosher dietary services at existing nursing homes. T. 129, 134. This evidence was not presented by attending physicians, however. T. 136. The certificate of need 4194 to the Joseph L. Morse Geriatric Center was also approved using priority VI, long term care section, District 9 local health plan, which provides in the second sentence for consideration of "ethnic- type services including special dietary requirements . . . ." HRS Exhibit 7; T. 134. Due to changes in federal funding, patients needing sub-acute care (less than hospital care, but more than an ordinary nursing home) do not qualify for cost reimbursement. T. 85-88. It appears that about one-half of all nursing home admissions in Palm Beach County are for three months or less. This may be a pool of persons needing sub-acute care. Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Long Term Care Section, page 4; T. 27-28. There was other general testimony that there was a "need for sub-acute care in Palm Beach County, T. 88, 146, and the local health plan, priority V 4, page 31, supports the grant of a certificate of need to an applicant that will provide such care. Petitioner Exhibit 3. There is also a need for sub-acute care in the final stages of Alzheimer's disease to provide continuity of care. T. 221. See also finding of fact 10. No one has petitioned to intervene in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 381.494(8)(c), Florida Statutes, issue a certificate of need to Health Care and Retirement Corporation of American, d/b/a Heartland of Palm Beach, for 120 community nursing home beds limited and conditioned upon all such beds being dedicated only to the provision of such services and facilities for victims of Alzheimer's disease as described by the Petitioner in this case and set forth in findings of fact 18 through 21 of this order, with 30 of such beds established for sub-acute care needs of Alzheimer's disease patients. It is further recommended that the certificate of need not contain approval for general community nursing home beds, but be limited to Alzheimer's disease patients. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 8th day of July, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-3337 Pursuant to section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., the following are specific rulings upon all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties which have been rejected in this Recommended Order. Findings of Fact Proposed by the PETITIONER: 7. Sentences 3 and 4 have been rejected because the evidence was not sufficiently complete to describe nursing homes in Florida in general, and because the issue in this case is the need in Palm Beach County, thus making these proposed facts not relevant. 10. Sentence 3 is rejected since the testimony did not clearly show that therapeutic kitchens "should be available." 13. Sentences 9 and 10 are rejected because the evidence did not categorically show that it "would not be possible" to use actual physician orders, or that "physicians do not typically arrange their records so that orders of that kind could be extracted from their records." Similarly sentence 12 is rejected for lack of categorical evidence to prove impossibility. 17. Evidence that the entire facility is "completely fenced and enclosed" cannot be located in the record, and thus sentence 7 is rejected. The bulk of the discussion in proposed finding of fact 20 has been rejected because it is argument or conclusions of law. Those portions of this proposed finding which propose a finding that the Respondent's interpretation of rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, is wrong or unreasonable are rejected as argument or conclusions of law. Most of the factual statements were adopted. Findings of Fact Proposed by the RESPONDENT: All proposed findings of fact by the Respondent have been adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Harden King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire Laramore & Clark, P.A. 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
