The Issue The issue is whether the Agency should approve the Certificate of Need applications filed by Manatee Memorial and/or HMA, each of which proposes to establish a new acute care hospital to serve the city of North Port in Sarasota County, Acute Care Subdistrict 8-6.
Findings Of Fact Parties Manatee Memorial Manatee Memorial, the applicant for CON 9767, is a subsidiary of Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS). UHS is a publicly-traded corporation that is headquartered in Pennsylvania. UHS is a financially-sound company. In 2003, its net revenues were approximately $3.6 billion, its net operating income was $355.7 million, and its after-tax net income was $199.2 million. Manatee Memorial is also financially-sound despite a net loss of $2.5 million in 2003. It had net income of $13.9 million in 2002, and its net revenues increased from $164.5 million in 2002 to $180.9 million in 2003. As of December 31, 2003, Manatee Memorial’s total assets exceeded its total liabilities by $56.3 million. UHS operates approximately 100 healthcare facilities in the United States and abroad. The facilities operated by UHS include behavioral health/psychiatric facilities, surgery centers, and 37 acute care hospitals. Three of the acute care hospitals operated by UHS are in Florida. They are Wellington Regional Medical Center in south Palm Beach County, Manatee Memorial Hospital (MMH) in Bradenton, and Lakewood Ranch Medical Center (Lakewood Ranch) in Manatee County, near the Manatee County/Sarasota County border. MMH and Lakewood Ranch are operated under a single license issued by the Agency. Manatee Memorial is the licensee. MMH started as a community hospital in the 1950’s. It was acquired by UHS in 1996 and has undergone significant capital improvements since the acquisition. MMH has 319 beds. It provides tertiary services, including open-heart surgery (OHS) and interventional cardiology services. It has a Level II neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and a full-service emergency department (ED) that operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (24/7). Lakewood Ranch opened in September 2004. It has 120 beds and a 24/7 ED. It offers obstetrical (OB) services, but it does not have any NICU beds. It does not provide any tertiary services. MMH and Lakewood Ranch are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). MMH and Lakewood Ranch accept all patients without regard to their ability to pay. MMH has been recognized as a “Top 100” hospital by Solucent, and it has received other accolades for the quality of care and community support that it provides. There is significant overlap in the medical staffs at Lakewood Ranch and MMH. The Lakewood Ranch CON application projected that the hospital would have an average daily census (ADC) of 46.8 in its first year of operation, which equates to a 39 percent utilization rate. Manatee Memorial’s witnesses acknowledged at the hearing that Lakewood Ranch would likely not meet those projections. The total cost of Lakewood Ranch was $48.7 million, which is $8.1 million more than was projected in the CON application for the hospital. Approximately $2.9 million of the “cost overrun” was attributed to additional IT systems beyond those specified in the CON application. HMA HMA, the applicant for CON 9768, is a subsidiary of Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA, Inc.) HMA, Inc., is a publicly-traded corporation that is headquartered in Naples. It operates 57 hospitals in 16 states. HMA, Inc., is a financially-sound company. Its net revenues increased from $1.1 billion in 1998 to $3.2 billion in 2004. Its net income increased from $137 million to $325 million over that same period. HMA, Inc., operates 14 acute care hospitals and two behavioral health/psychiatric facilities in Florida. It also has CON approval for new acute care hospitals in Brooksville and Naples. Most of the hospitals operated by HMA, Inc., are in non-urbanized areas. According to its 2004 annual report, HMA, Inc., “focuses on non-urban America because many of those communities are underserved medically, have populations that are growing faster than the national average, and offer competitive advantages compared to major urban areas.” The Florida hospitals operated by HMA, Inc., include Charlotte Regional Medical Center (Charlotte Regional) in Punta Gorda, Peace River Regional Medical Center (Peace River) in Port Charlotte, and Venice Hospital in Venice. Charlotte Regional has 208 beds, including 156 acute care beds and 52 psychiatric beds. It has a 24/7 ED and it offers OHS and inpatient psychiatric care. It does not offer OB services. Peace River has 212 beds, but only 170 of the acute care beds were available for use at the time of the final hearing. It has a 24/7 ED and a 20-bed skilled nursing unit. It offers OB services, but it does not have any NICU beds. Venice Hospital has 342 licensed beds. It has a 24/7 ED and a skilled nursing unit. It offers OHS and inpatient rehabilitation services. A majority of the beds at Charlotte Regional, Peace River, and Venice Hospital are in semi-private rooms. Charlotte Regional, Peace River, and Venice Hospital are all accredited by JCAHO, and they all accept patients without regard to their ability to pay. Charlotte Regional has been recognized as one of the top 100 cardiovascular hospitals in the country. Peace River and Venice Hospital were formerly not-for- profit hospitals operated by the Bon Secuors organization. Peace River was formerly known as Bon Secours St. Joseph’s Hospital (BS-St. Joe) and Venice Hospital was formerly known as Bon Secours Venice Hospital (BS-Venice). HMA, Inc., entered into an agreement to acquire BS-St. Joe and BS-Venice in November 2004. The acquisition, which was completed in February 2005, also included a hospital in Virginia, a nursing home in Port Charlotte, and “health parks” in northern Charlotte County, Venice, and North Port. BS-St. Joe and BS-Venice were not profitable at the time that they were acquired by HMA. The financial performance of those hospitals has improved significantly under HMA’s management, primarily through better management of accounts receivable. Englewood Englewood is owned and operated by HCA, Inc. (HCA). HCA is a publicly-traded corporation and the largest for-profit acute care hospital chain in the country. Englewood is located in the city of Englewood, which is in Sarasota County on the Cape Haze Peninsula near the Sarasota County/Charlotte County line. Englewood has 100 beds and a 24/7 ED. It does not offer OB services. Its largest service lines are cardiology, general medicine, orthopedics, and pulmonology. Englewood is accredited by JCAHO. It has received special accreditation for its chest pain center and certification from the American Stroke Association for its stroke care. Englewood accepts all patients without regard to their ability to pay. Englewood’s building has one floor. All of its beds are in semi-private rooms, except for four isolation rooms. Englewood is authorized to use its acute care beds as “swing beds” to provide skilled nursing care. Englewood’s primary service area (PSA) includes the Cape Haze Peninsula. Its secondary service area (SSA) includes south Venice and the mostly-undeveloped portion of North Port to the west of the Myakka River in zip code 34287. Englewood’s census ranges from 30 to 90 patients, depending upon the time of the year. During the “season” in 2005, its census peaked at 93 patients and averaged 73 patients. At the time of the final hearing, Englewood’s census was in the mid-50’s. Fawcett Fawcett is owned and operated by HCA. Fawcett is located in Port Charlotte, directly across the street from Peace River and five miles south of the city of North Port. Fawcett has 238 beds, a 24/7 ED, a 20-bed intensive care unit (ICU), a 20-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR) unit, and a diagnostic cardiac cath lab. Fawcett does not offer OB services. It will be opening an ambulatory surgical center in December 2005. Fawcett is accredited by JCAHO, and it was recently designated as a primary stroke center. Its oncology unit is affiliated with the Moffitt Cancer Center. Fawcett accepts all patients without regard to their ability to pay. Fawcett’s building has four floors. All of its beds are in semi-private rooms, except for the ICU beds and two isolation rooms. Fawcett suffered significant damage during Hurricane Charley in August 2004. The hospital’s fourth floor, which had 78 beds (including 10 ICU beds), was closed as a result of the damage. At the time of the final hearing, Fawcett was still in the process of repairing the damage to the fourth floor, and it had only 165 beds (including the CMR beds and 14 ICU beds) available for use. Fawcett’s PSA includes two of the North Port zip codes, 32486 and 32487. Those zip codes encompass the vast majority of the city’s geographic area. Agency The Agency is the state agency that administers the CON program. It is responsible for reviewing and taking final agency action on CON applications. Application Submittal and Review and Preliminary Agency Action Manatee Memorial and HMA each filed letters of intent and CON applications in the February 2004 batching cycle for hospital beds and facilities. Each application sought Agency approval to establish a new acute care hospital in Subdistrict 8-6 to serve the city of North Port. The fixed need pool published by the Agency for the February 2004 batching cycle identified a need for zero new acute care beds in Subdistrict 8-6. There were no challenges to the fixed need pool. HMA’s letter of intent was filed in the “grace period” established by Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(1)(d) in direct response to Manatee Memorial’s earlier-filed letter of intent. Manatee Memorial’s application was designated CON 9767, and HMA’s application was designated CON 9768. The applications complied with the technical submittal requirements in the statutes and Agency rules, and they were properly accepted for review by the Agency. The Agency comparatively reviewed the CON applications filed by Manatee Memorial and HMA. The Agency’s review of the applications complied with the applicable statutes and Agency rules. The Agency’s review culminated in a State Agency Action Report (SAAR) issued on June 11, 2004. The SAAR recommended denial of Manatee Memorial’s CON 9767 and approval of HMA’s CON 9768. The SAAR was issued prior to HMA’s acquisition of BS- St. Joe and BS-Venice. The Agency’s preference for HMA’s application over Manatee Memorial’s application was primarily based upon its assessment that HMA’s projected utilization was more reasonable and attainable than Manatee Memorial’s projected utilization. The SAAR recommended that the approval of HMA’s application be conditioned upon HMA providing 6.9 percent of the patient days at its North Port hospital to Medicaid patients and 2.9 percent of the patient days to charity patients. Those percentages were derived from the payor-mix assumptions used in the revenue projections in Schedule 7A of HMA’s CON application. The Agency published notice of its decisions on the CON applications in the Florida Administrative Weekly on June 25, 2004. The petitions for administrative hearing were all timely filed. The Agency reaffirmed its support for HMA’s application and its opposition to Manatee Memorial’s application at the final hearing through the testimony of Jeffrey Gregg, the bureau chief over the Agency’s CON program. Mr. Gregg testified that the Agency’s support of HMA’s application is unaffected by HMA's acquisition of BS-St. Joe and BS-Venice even though he acknowledged that the acquisition may have implications on the competition for acute care services in market in and around the city of North Port. Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6 District 8 is comprised of Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Lee, Glades, Hendry, and Collier Counties. There are six subdistricts in District 8, only two of which are relevant to this case. They are Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6. Subdistrict 8-6 is comprised of Sarasota County. There are no other counties in the subdistrict. There are four acute care hospitals in Subdistrict 8-6: Sarasota Memorial Hospital (Sarasota Memorial), Doctors Hospital of Sarasota (Doctors), Venice Hospital, and Englewood. Sarasota Memorial and Doctors are in northern Sarasota County in the city of Sarasota. Venice Hospital and Englewood are in southern Sarasota County. Sarasota Memorial is a not-for-profit, taxpayer supported hospital. Doctors is an HCA hospital. Sarasota County is bordered on the south by Charlotte County, which is the only county in Subdistrict 8-1. There are three acute care hospitals in Subdistrict 8-1: Peace River, Charlotte Regional, and Fawcett. There are a total of 1,776 licensed acute care beds at the seven hospitals in Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6. That number has remained constant since at least 2002. The overall annual occupancy rate for the hospitals in Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6 was 49.53 percent in 2002. In 2003 and 2004, the overall annual occupancy rate was approximately 46.4 percent. Between 2002 and 2004, Charlotte Regional had the highest occupancy rate of any of the hospitals in Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6, but its occupancy rate did not exceed 67 percent in any of those years. In 2004, its annual occupancy rate was only 56.6 percent. The occupancy rates at the existing hospitals is higher during the “season,” but the evidence was not persuasive that any of the existing hospitals are routinely at or over capacity during the “season” or at any other time during the year. In 2002, there were a total of 321,696 patient days at the hospitals in Subdistricts 8-1 and 8-6. By 2004, the total number of patient days had declined to 301,099. Some, but not all, of that decline is attributable to Hurricane Charley, which directly hit the Port Charlotte area in August 2004 causing significant damage to Fawcett and disrupting service at the other hospitals in the area. There are no geographic barriers between Sarasota and Charlotte Counties. The service areas of the hospitals in southern Sarasota County and the hospitals in northern Charlotte County overlap, and there is significant cross-migration of patients between the counties. There is significant competition for acute care services in both Charlotte and Sarasota Counties. No hospital organization has a dominant market position. In 2004, for example, Sarasota Memorial had a 47 percent market share in Sarasota County, the HCA hospitals had a 22.8 percent market share, and the HMA hospitals (including the former Bon Secours hospitals) had a 21.4 percent market share. In the combined Sarasota County/Charlotte County “market,” the HMA hospitals (including the former Bon Secours hospitals) had a 33.7 percent market share, Sarasota Memorial had a 31.4 percent market share, and the HCA hospitals had a 25.6 percent market share. City of North Port (1) Generally The city of North Port is located in southern Sarasota County. The southern border of the city is the Sarasota County/Charlotte County line. The city roughly corresponds to the area encompassed by zip codes 34286, 34287, and 34288. Zip code 34289 is also a North Port zip code, but there is no geographic area assigned to that zip code. The city was platted in the 1960’s by General Development Corporation. The plats covered approximately 75 square miles of land and included approximately 70,000 residential lots, only 20 percent of which have been developed. There are also several large "developments of regional impact" under construction or in the planning stages within the city that together are projected to add at least 15,000 more residential units to the city over the next 15 to 20 years. A number of the streets that were constructed when the city was originally platted have fallen into disrepair, which hampers the provision of police, fire, and EMS. The city is currently conducting a comprehensive street inventory to assess the extent of the problem. Additional undeveloped land has been annexed into the city over the years, which has increased the city's size to 103 square miles. Currently, North Port is the fourth largest city in the state in terms of landmass. The Myakka River runs through the western portion of the city. The land to the west of the Myakka River is mostly undeveloped and includes the Myakka State Forest. Residential lots and open space make up approximately 95 percent of the city’s platted land area. The non-residential uses are clustered in five “activity centers” around the city. Major roadways through North Port include Interstate 75 (I-75), which runs east-west in the vicinity of the northern city limit and then north-south in the vicinity of the eastern city limit; U.S. Highway 41 (US 41), which runs parallel to I-75 in the southern portion of the city; Price Boulevard, which runs parallel to I-75 and US 41 through the center of the city; and Toledo Blade Boulevard and Sumter Boulevard, which run north- south near the center of the city. Toledo Blade, Sumter, and Price Boulevards are in need of widening, and there are several intersections on those roads that are operating below their adopted levels of service. It is not clear when the widening will occur, and the city’s concurrency management ordinance may soon require a moratorium on the issuance of building permits in the geographic areas impacting those intersections. The city is also in the process studying how to control its growth. The possibility of a moratorium is part of that study, but no recommendations had been formulated on that issue as of the date of the hearing. As a result, the likelihood of a moratorium on building permits in areas other than those which impact the intersections referenced above is unknown. Two of the activity centers are located on Toledo Blade Boulevard, two are located on Sumter Boulevard, and the other is located US 41. Hospitals are considered a permitted use in the activity centers. There is currently no acute care hospital or 24/7 urgent care facility in North Port. The North Port Health Park, which was acquired by HMA in February 2005 along with BS-St. Joe and BS-Venice, offers a variety of outpatient services and diagnostic procedures (e.g., echocardiography, mammograms, and “CAT scans”). It also includes approximately 20 physician offices and a clinical laboratory. The volume of diagnostic procedures at the North Port Health Park increased significantly between 1999 and 2004. There has also been steady growth in its laboratory volume over that period. Patients frequently come to the North Port Health Park with conditions requiring emergency services or hospitalization, which requires an ambulance to be called to transport the patient to one of the existing hospitals in the area. North Port city officials have been actively pursuing the establishment of a hospital in the city for several years. In 2003, the city engaged health planner Gene Nelson to study the feasibility of a hospital in the city. At the time, the City was considering filing its own CON application. Mr. Nelson presented a report to the City Council in June 2003, in which he concluded that it was “premature” for a hospital in North Port at that time. He projected that a hospital in North Port could “eventually” reach census levels to support a 59-bed to 74-bed hospital, and that even under more “aggressive” or “optimistic” assumptions, there would be a need for only 84 beds in 2010. The city ultimately decided to devote its efforts to encouraging an existing hospital company to build a hospital in the city and, in that regard, the City Commission voted to actively support those efforts through a “locally based campaign to collect letters of support for the hospital.” In January 2004, the City Council adopted a resolution reaffirming its “objective” to get a hospital in the city and expressing its support for Manatee Memorial’s proposal to build the hospital. There is considerable support for the establishment of a hospital in North Port from the residents of the city. The Agency received more than 20,000 letters and petitions from city residents urging the Agency to approve a hospital in the city. A community’s desire for a new hospital does not mean there is a “need” for a new hospital. Under the CON program, the determination of need for a new hospital must be based upon sound health planning principles, not the desires of a particular local government or its citizens. There are approximately 40 physicians who practice in North Port, but only nine of those physicians have full-time practices in the city. The others have part-time practices, meaning that they are in their North Port office for only part of the week. Most of the physicians practicing in North Port are primary care physicians, but there are also specialists in cardiology, oncology, general surgery, radiology, and other fields. Many of the physicians have their offices in the North Port Health Park. Population The city of North Port has grown steadily since 1970. In 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the city’s population was 22,797. Approximately 31 percent of the city’s residents are in the 65 and older (65+) age cohort. The largest percentage of the residents in the 65+ age cohort are in zip code 34287, which is growing at a slower rate than the other zip codes in the city. The median age in the city is declining. In 1990, the median age was 49, and in 2000, the median age was 41. In 2004, according to the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), the city’s population was 35,721. BEBR publishes the “official” population estimates for cities and counties in Florida. It does not project future populations and it does not provide population data by zip code. Claritas is a national demographic research firm. It projects future population by zip code, by age cohort, and with other demographic information. Health planners commonly rely upon the population projections from Claritas in preparing CON applications. Claritas projects future population in five-year increments, and it updates its population projections annually. At the time Manatee Memorial and HMA filed their CON applications, the most current Claritas data was for the period of 2003-2007. Population projections beyond 2007 were extrapolated based upon the annual population increases reflected in the available Claritas data. At the time of the final hearing, the most current Claritas data was for the period of 2004-2008. The North Port Planning and Zoning Department uses its own methodology to project future population for the city. The population projections are used in the city’s capital improvement planning and in the development of its comprehensive plan. The city’s methodology uses Census data as the starting point and then projects the future population by using a “rolling average” of the number of residential building permits issued in the previous five years to develop a projected number of residential building permits for each future year. A factor of 2.48 individuals per household (which is a North Port- specific figure from the U.S. Census Bureau) is then used to project the annual increase in population for each year in the future. A factor of 10 percent is added to the projection for seasonal residents. The evidence was not persuasive that the projections based upon the city's methodology are reliable. The city’s methodology typically results in population projections that are materially higher than the official BEBR estimates. For example, the city’s methodology projected a 2004 population of 39,662, which is approximately 11 percent higher than the official BEBR estimate of 35,721. The city’s methodology is based upon building permits, not certificates of occupancy or some other measure that would indicate that the residence was completed and, more importantly, inhabited. The city’s methodology also assumes continued growth at the historical rate and does not take into account the possibility of a moratorium on the issuance of building permits, which was being studied by the city at the time of the final hearing. The Claritas population projections are not entirely accurate either. Claritas typically under-projects future population in fast-growing areas, such as North Port. For example, the 2003-2007 Claritas data projected that the city’s 2004 population would be 32,487, which was approximately 9.1 percent lower than the official BEBR estimate of 35,721. The variance between the Claritas population projections and the projections based upon the city’s methodology are more pronounced in the later years. In 2010, for example, the city’s projected population based upon an extrapolation of the 2003-2007 Claritas data was 39,446 as compared to 72,066 based upon the city’s methodology. The population projections based upon the 2003-2007 Claritas data are too low and the projections based upon the city’s methodology are too high. On balance, the most reasonable population projections for the city of North Port contained in the record are those in Exhibit EF-10. Those projections, which were based upon the updated Claritas data for 2004-2008 and then extrapolated for 2009 and 2010, are as follows: 36,733 in 2004; 38,613 in 2005; 40,601 in 2006; 42,703 in 2007; 44,928 in 2008; 47,283 in 2009; and 49,777 in 2010. The 2004-2008 Claritas data better takes into account the city’s historically-high growth rate than does the 2003-2007 Claritas data, but it results in a more realistic projection of the city’s 2010 population than does the city’s methodology. Hospital Discharges There were 4,473 non-tertiary patients from the North Port zip codes discharged from a hospital in Florida in 2004.1 Only 1,356 (or approximately 30.3 percent) of the non-tertiary patients from the North Port zip codes were discharged from a hospital in Subdistrict 8-6, which means that almost 70 percent of the patients “out-migrated” from the subdistrict. Approximately 86.9 percent of the patients who “out-migrated” were discharged from a hospital in Subdistrict 8-1, which is adjacent to the city’s southern border. Overall, in 2004, approximately 91 percent of the non-tertiary patients from the North Port zip codes were discharged from a hospital in Subdistrict 8-1 (60.5 percent) or Subdistrict 8-6 (30.3 percent). Those percentages were similar in 2002 and 2003. The average length of stay (ALOS) related to those discharges was approximately 4.5 days, which means that North Port patients generated approximately 20,129 non-tertiary patient days in 2004. If a hospital had captured 100 percent of North Port’s non-tertiary patients in 2004, it would have had an ADC of 56 patients. There were 499 OB patients from the North Port zip codes discharged from a Florida hospital in 2004. Those discharges resulted in 1,172 OB patient days, which means that the ALOS for the OB patients from the North Port zip codes was 2.34 days. Approximately 95 percent of the North Port OB patients were discharged from either Sarasota Memorial (56.5 percent) or BS-St. Joe (38.3 percent), which is now Peace River. If a hospital captured 100 percent of the North Port OB patients in 2004, its OB unit would have had an ADC of 4 patients. The Proposed North Port Hospitals (1) HMA Generally HMA’s proposed North Port hospital (hereafter “North Port HMA”) will be an 180,167 square foot (SF) facility with 80 beds. All of the beds at North Port HMA will be in private rooms. The rooms are large enough to be converted into semi- private rooms, if necessary. The design of North Port HMA is similar to that of other HMA hospitals, but the size of the hospital and scope of the services offered at North Port HMA was tailored based upon North Port's demographics. North Port HMA will have a 9-bed OB unit, a 12-bed ICU, a 24/7 ED, and it will offer some outpatient services. The hospital will not have a cardiac cath lab or a dedicated pediatric unit, and it will not offer tertiary services. The total project cost for North Port HMA will be approximately $78 million, or $975,730 per bed. The project will be funded by HMA, Inc., from its “existing cash, future cash flow, and possible proceeds from the issuance of debt [by HMA, Inc].” HMA’s CON application includes a letter from the Corporate Comptroller of HMA, Inc., confirming that HMA, Inc., “will provide any and all funding or financial resources which may be required for the completion and continued operation of [North Port HMA].” HMA did not commit in its CON application to build North Port HMA in the city of North Port, but its witnesses testified at the final hearing that the hospital will be built in the city. The precise location of the hospital was not specified. North Port HMA will have three floors. The first floor will include the ED, operating rooms, radiology department, the clinical laboratory, outpatient services, and ancillary space such as kitchen/dining, medical records, and administrative offices. The second floor will include patient rooms and the ICU. The third floor will include patient rooms. North Port HMA is designed and engineered for vertical expansion, and it will be “pre-stressed” for additional floors. North Port HMA will utilize a picture archive communication system (PACS) and other digital IT systems. Patient clinical information will be maintained electronically, updated at the point of care, and will be available to clinicians through a secure network in the hospital. Service Area and Utilization Projections The PSA for North Port HMA is the city of North Port, which is comprised of zip codes 34286, 34287, 34288, and 34289. The PSA is reasonable. A SSA is not geographically defined, but HMA projected in the application that 20 percent of the admissions at North Port HMA would come from outside of the PSA. The projected 20 percent in-migration from the SSA is somewhat optimistic for a non-tertiary community hospital, but it is nevertheless reasonable under the circumstances.2 HMA used Claritas' population projections to project the utilization of North Port HMA. The utilization projections assumed that North Port HMA will have a 55 percent market share in the PSA in its first year of operation and a 70 percent market share in the PSA in its second year of operation. These market share assumptions are reasonable and attainable based upon HMA's historical experience and the considerable community support for a hospital in the city. North Port HMA was projected to open in 2007, and HMA’s CON application includes utilization projections for the hospital’s first two years of operation in 2007 and 2008. The application projected that North Port HMA would have 15,695 patient days in its first year of operation and 20,629 patient days in its second year of operation, which is an ADC of 43 patients and a utilization rate of 53.8 percent in year one (2007) and an ADC of 57 patients and a utilization rate of 70.6 percent in year two (2008). The methodology used to calculate those figures was as follows: first, the projected patients from the PSA were calculated by applying the 2003 age-cohort specific use rates to the PSA’s projected 2007 and 2008 populations; then, the market share assumptions were applied and a factor of 20 percent was added to reflect “in-migration” from the SSA; and finally, an ALOS of 4.6 was used to convert the discharges to patient days. The 4.6 ALOS, which is based upon the actual 2003 discharge data for residents of the PSA, is reasonable even though the 2004 discharge data reflects a slightly lower ALOS of 4.5. Use of age-cohort specific use rates to project future discharges is reasonable. However, application of the 2003 use rates to the projected 2007 and 2008 populations is not reasonable because the median age in the city of North Port is declining, and as the population’s age declines, so does its use rate. Nevertheless, the utilization projections for North Port HMA are reasonable and attainable. The utilization projections in HMA's CON application are more conservative than the projections based upon the updated Claritas population projections, a declining use rate, and the lower 2004 ALOS of 4.5.3 (2) Manatee Memorial (a) Generally Manatee Memorial’s proposed North Port hospital (hereafter “North Port Hospital”) will be a 200,000 SF facility with 120 beds. It will have a mix of private and semi-private rooms. North Port Hospital will have a 20-bed “women’s center,” a 20-bed ICU/critical care unit (CCU), a 24/7 ED, and a diagnostic cardiac cath lab. It will not offer tertiary services. The “women’s center” will be more than an OB unit. It will offer range of services related to women’s health, including general gynecological care, pre-natal and post-natal care, delivery of babies, mammography and other breast cancer services, and gynecological surgery. The total project cost for North Port Hospital will be approximately $59.7 million, or $497,448 per bed. The funding for the project will be provided by UHS from its “net cash flow from operation.” Manatee Memorial’s CON application includes a letter from UHS’s Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer confirming that UHS will finance North Port Hospital. Manatee Memorial committed in its CON application to build North Port Hospital in the city of North Port, but no specific site was identified. Manatee Memorial has not yet acquired or contracted to purchase any property in the city. North Port Hospital will have three floors. The first floor includes the “women’s center,” ED, laboratory, outpatient services, cardiac cath labs, surgery suites, and ancillary space such as medical records, kitchen/dining, and administrative offices. The second floor includes the ICU/CCU, pediatric unit, and patient rooms. The third floor includes patient rooms. The design, space plan, methods of construction, and equipment at North Port Hospital will be similar to that at Lakewood Ranch. Indeed, Manatee Memorial’s witnesses described North Port Hospital as a “mirror image” of Lakewood Ranch, which is also a 120-bed non-tertiary hospital with a 20-bed ICU/CCU and a 20-bed “women’s center.” North Port Hospital is designed for horizontal expansion, which causes less disruption to the ongoing operations of the hospital than does vertical expansion. North Port Hospital will utilize a PACS and other “state of the art” IT systems. Patient clinical information will be maintained electronically, updated at the point of care, and will be available to clinicians through the hospital’s secure wireless network. The mechanical and engineered systems at North Port Hospital are appropriate, as is the hospital's design.4 Manatee Memorial will not fully equip North Port Hospital at start-up. Instead, as it did with Lakewood Ranch, it will minimally equip each patient room with the required equipment (e.g., bed, headwall, etc.) but it will only provide the specialized equipment necessary to serve the projected patient census for the first year of operation. Additional equipment will be incrementally added as census increases. (b) Service Area and Utilization Projections The PSA and SSA for North Port Hospital, which are the same as the PSA and SSA for North Port HMA, are reasonable. North Port Hospital was projected to open in 2008, and Manatee Memorial’s CON application includes utilization projections for the first three years of operation, 2008-2010. The utilization projections assume that North Port Hospital will have a 45 percent market share in the PSA in its first year of operation, a 60 percent market share in its second year of operation, and a 70 percent market share in its third year of operation. These market share assumptions, which are slightly more conservative than those projected for North Port HMA, are reasonable and attainable. Manatee Memorial projected in its CON application that North Port Hospital would have 17,413 patient days in 2008; 25,798 patient days in 2009; and 33,327 patient days in 2010. Those patient days equate to ADCs of 48 patients in 2008, 71 patients in 2009, and 92 patients in 2010, which, in turn, equate to utilization rates of 39.7 percent in 2008, 58.9 percent in 2009, and 76.1 percent in 2010. The methodology used by Manatee Memorial to calculate those figures was as follows: first, the 2008-2010 populations were projected by using the 2003 BEBR estimate as a starting- point and then applying the city’s building permit-based methodology described in Part D(2) above; then a use rate of 142 was applied to the 2008-2010 populations to calculate the discharges from the PSA; then, after applying the market share assumptions, a 20 percent factor was added to reflect “in- migration” from the SSA; and, finally, the discharges were converted to patient days by applying an ALOS of 4.2. The results of this methodology are not reasonable. As discussed in Part D(2), the city’s methodology for projecting future population is not reliable and tends to overstate the future population. Moreover, the use rate is overstated because it is not age-cohort specific and it did not take into account the declining age of the city’s population. The combined effect of applying an overstated use rate to the overstated 2008-2010 populations is a significant overstatement in the projected patient days and utilization rates at North Port Hospital. The most reasonable projections of the discharges from the PSA for 2008-2010 are those in Exhibit EF-10 (pages XI- 1, XII-1, and XII-2): 5,433 in 2008; 5,709 in 2009; and 6,000 in 2010. Those projections are based upon the updated Claritas population projections and a declining use rate. Applying the market share assumptions and ALOS used in the methodology in Manatee Memorial’s CON application to those more reasonable discharge projections results in projected patient days at North Port Hospital of 12,835 in 2008; 17,983 in 2009; and 22,050 in 2010.5 If an ALOS of 4.5 were used (rather than the 4.2 ALOS used in Manatee Memorial’s CON application), the projected patient days would be 13,752 in 2008; 19,268 in 2009; and 23,625 in 2010.6 The utilization rate at North Port Hospital based upon those patient-day projections will be between 29.3 and 31.4 percent in 2008, between 41.1 and 44 percent in 2009, and between 50.3 and 53.9 percent in 2010. Statutory and Rule Criteria There was no credible evidence that there is a need for two new acute care hospitals in the city of North Port or in southern Sarasota County. Therefore, if either of the CON applications at issue in this proceeding is to be approved, it should be the one that best satisfies the applicable statutory and rule criteria. (1) § 408.035(1), (2), and (5), Fla. Stat. (2005),7 and Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. (a) Generally Subsections 408.035(1), (2), and (5), Florida Statutes, are interrelated and require an evaluation of the availability and accessibility of the existing hospitals in the district and the extent to which the proposed new hospital would “enhance access” for residents of the district. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. also requires consideration of those issues, as well as population demographics and dynamics and market conditions. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. is implicated when the Agency does not have a rule methodology or policy for calculating need, which is now the case for acute care beds. The utilization levels at the existing hospitals is a measure of their availability, but the Agency does not focus on utilization levels to the same extent that it did before the recent “deregulation” of acute care bed additions at existing hospitals. North Port Population Growth and Demographics There has been steady population growth in the city of North Port since 2000, and that the growth is projected to continue over the applicable planning horizon. The city's population grew by 56.7 percent between 2000 and 2004, and it is projected to grow by an additional 39.3 percent between 2004 and 2010. These percentage growth rates are misleading, however, because of the city’s small size.8 The actual population figures are a better measure of the city’s projected growth for CON purposes. Those figures reflect an increase of only an additional 14,000 persons between 2004 and 2010, which is a modest amount of growth. In 2010, the city’s population is still projected to be less than 50,000. The percentage of the city’s population in the 65+ age cohort is declining, as is the median age of the city’s population. These declines are significant because the elderly generally utilize hospital services at a higher rate than younger persons. The projected population growth in the city of North Port through 2010 is not in and of itself a basis for approving a new hospital in the city, and the declining elderly population and median age in the city also weigh against the approval of a hospital in the city. Quality of Care and Utilization at the Existing Hospitals and Market Conditions Manatee Memorial and HMA do not contend that there are problems with the quality of care at the existing hospitals currently serving the city of North Port, and the evidence establishes that the existing hospitals, which are all JCAHO- accredited, provide high quality care. There is not a shortage of acute care beds in the existing hospitals serving the city of North Port, and the evidence establishes that there are more than enough available beds at the existing hospitals, even during the “season.” The capacity constraints experienced at several of the hospitals during the 2004-2005 “season” are attributable to the impacts of Hurricane Charley, which resulted in the loss of 78 beds (including a 10-bed ICU) at Fawcett and also caused strains on the other hospitals. Even though the utilization rates at the existing hospitals are not as significant now as they once were, it is still noteworthy that none of the hospitals in Charlotte and Sarasota Counties had a occupancy rate above 57 percent in 2004 and that the number of patient days in those hospitals decreased by approximately 20,000 between 2002 and 2004. Availability and Accessibility of the Existing Hospitals and Enhancing Access The accessibility of the existing hospitals in an area is typically evaluated in terms of geographic, programmatic, cultural, and financial access. Geographic access concerns arise when there are substantial impediments to patients obtaining services at the existing hospitals in a timely manner, and typically involve distance, travel time, geographic barriers, or other similar factors. Programmatic access concerns arise when specific programs or services are not available at the existing hospitals or when the quality of the existing programs or services is inadequate. Cultural access concerns arise when cultural factors, such as race, ethnicity, and/or national original, impede patients from obtaining services at the existing hospitals. Financial access concerns arise when indigent patients are denied or have difficulty in obtaining care because of policies or practices in place at the existing hospitals. Manatee Memorial and HMA did not contend in their CON applications, nor is the evidence persuasive that a hospital in North Port is needed to address programmatic, cultural, or financial access concerns. Manatee Memorial and HMA contend that a hospital is needed in North Port to address existing geographic access problems and/or to enhance geographic access to acute care and emergency services for North Port residents. Geographic Access, Generally There are no significant geographic barriers between North Port and the existing hospitals, although it is necessary to cross a drawbridge over the Intracoastal Waterway to get to Venice Hospital. There are five acute care hospitals within 20 miles of North Port. Two of the hospitals, Peace River and Fawcett, are less than five miles south of the city’s southern border. As discussed in Part D(3) above, there is significant "out-migration" of patients from North Port in Subdistrict 8-6 to hospitals outside of the subdistrict. "Out-migration" of patients from one subdistrict to hospitals in another subdistrict can be an indication of an access problem. The proximity of North Port to Peace River and Fawcett explains the significant level of “out-migration” of patients from the city to those hospitals in Subdistrict 8-1. Indeed, in 2004, approximately 72.2 percent of the North Port patients who were discharged from a hospital outside of Subdistrict 8-6 were discharged from either BS-St. Joe (now Peace River) or Fawcett.9 Thus, the significant level of “out- migration” of patients from the city to hospitals outside of Subdistrict 8-6 does not, in and of itself, indicate an access problem. The CON applications indicate that there are as many as six hospitals within a 30-minute drive of North Port, and that four are within a 17-minute drive. Those drive times were corroborated by several of the witnesses who testified at the hearing. A 30-minute drive time is the generally accepted standard for access to acute care services. There was anecdotal testimony that the drive times can be significantly longer if there is an accident on US 41 or I-75, but the more persuasive evidence was that the “typical” drive times are those reflected in the CON applications. The evidence was not persuasive that the current drive times will be longer in the future even though the city’s population is expected to increase. Indeed, although there was testimony that the city is considering a moratorium on development due, in part, to the congestion on the city’s roads, there was also testimony that there are planned or ongoing capital improvements to expand the capacity of the roads. A hospital in North Port is not necessary to address a geographic access problem. As recognized by Mr. Nelson in his report to the city regarding the need for a hospital in North Port, “[t]he proximity of two hospitals within 10 miles negates a geographic access argument.” It cannot be determined whether, or to what extent, a hospital in North Port will enhance geographic access because it is unknown where the hospital will be located. Indeed, it is possible that because of the city’s large landmass some North Port residents will be as close to one or more of the existing hospitals even if there is a hospital within the city limits. Access to Emergency Care Another “access” argument advanced by Manatee Memorial and HMA focuses on perceived problems with access to emergency care in the existing hospitals. One measure of access to emergency care is the length of time that patients stay in the ED from the time of their arrival to the time of their discharge (hereafter “ED-LOS”). A related measure of access to emergency care is the number of patients who leave the ED without treatment or against medical advice (collectively “LWOTs”). A longer ED-LOS does not directly correlate to a “delay” in access to emergency care because the ED-LOS includes not only the time that the patient is waiting to be seen, but also the time that the patient is being assessed and treated, which can vary based upon the complexity or severity of the patient’s medical condition. A two to three-hour ED-LOS is a reasonable standard. HMA has established a two-hour “goal” for ED-LOS at its hospitals. Charlotte Regional, Peace River, and Venice Hospital have been unable to meet the two-hour goal. ED-LOS fluctuates throughout the year. It is higher between December and April, which generally corresponds to the “season” in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties. The number of LWOTs also fluctuates throughout the year and, like ED-LOS, LWOTs are typically higher during the “season.” This indicates that, as would be expected, there is a correlation between longer ED-LOS and LWOTs. The ED-LOS at Charlotte Regional has increased over the past several years. For example, its average annual ED-LOS increased from two hours and 46 minutes in 2003 to three hours and 16 minutes in 2005 (through March), and its average ED-LOS in March 2005 was three hours and 45 minutes. The ED-LOS at Venice Hospital has also increased over the past several years. In 2003, its average annual ED-LOS was 2.94 hours and, in 2005 (through March), its average ED-LOS was 3.55 hours. The average ED-LOS in February 2005 was 4.18 hours. The record does not reflect the average ED-LOS at Peace River, although there was anecdotal testimony that the ED- LOS can be as long as six to eight hours during the “season.” The number of LWOTs at Charlotte Regional has been increasing over the past several years, as has the number of LWOTs at Venice Hospital. LWOTs have also been a problem at Peace River. The ED-LOS at Fawcett was approaching two hours prior to Hurricane Charley, but it has increased since the hurricane. The anecdotal testimony that the ED-LOS at Fawcett is “routinely” six-to-eight hours during the “season” was not persuasive. The ED-LOS at Englewood is two-to-three hours. Charlotte Regional’s ED has 12 beds and had approximately 19,000 visits in 2004. The ED has long been in need of expansion and/or renovation, but there are no current plans to expand the ED. Expansion of the ED would be difficult because of the age of the hospital, its location in a floodplain, and limited space on the current site. Peace River’s ED was expanded in December 2003 to include 24-beds and a 10-bed observation unit. Its patient volume has grown from 16,000 visits in 1990 to 32,000 visits in 2004, and despite the expansion, Peace River’s ED continues to be overburdened during the “season.” Fawcett’s ED is 5,700 SF and has 13 treatment “rooms,” some of which are separated by curtains. The ED has not been expanded since 1992 despite increasing volumes. In 2004, Fawcett’s ED had 21,000 visits. In April 2005, Fawcett received approval from HCA for a $7.3 million expansion to its ED. The expansion will increase the size of the ED to 12,500 SF and 20 treatment rooms. Architectural plans for the expansion had not been prepared at the time of the final hearing, but it was expected that construction on the expansion would begin by the end of 2005 and be completed by December 2006. The expansion of Fawcett's ED will help to enhance access to emergency care at Fawcett. Englewood’s ED has eight beds and two “fast track” beds. It had approximately 17,000 visits in 2004. Englewood’s ED is approximately the same size as Fawcett’s ED, but with fewer beds. There are no plans to expand the ED at Englewood because, as noted above, ED-LOS has not been a problem at Englewood. Another measure of access to emergency care is the frequency that the existing hospitals are on “diversion.” A hospital goes on diversion when it is unable to receive any additional emergency patients and the EMS providers are instructed to take additional patients to another hospital. There are a number of reasons that a hospital may go on diversion. Common reasons include an overcrowded ED, a lack of ICU beds or inpatient beds to move ED patients into, or a piece of equipment (such as a CT scanner) being unavailable. A hospital may be on “full” diversion status, meaning that it is unable to accept any patients, or it may be on diversion status for only certain types of patients, such as OB patients or patients in need of CT scans. Diversion has not been a significant problem in Charlotte County, but it is becoming more common for one or more of the hospitals in the county -– Charlotte Regional, Peace River, and Fawcett -– to be on diversion, particularly during the “season.” When one of the hospitals goes on diversion, there is often a “domino” effect at the other hospitals resulting in all three of the hospitals being on diversion at the same time. When all of the hospitals are on diversion at the same time, EMS requires each hospital to take patients on a rotational basis. The most common reason that Charlotte Regional goes on diversion is a lack of inpatient beds to receive patients admitted through the ED, which results in a “bottleneck” of patients in the ED. The length of time that Charlotte Regional remains on diversion typically ranges from two to 12 hours. The most common reason that Fawcett goes on diversion is a lack of inpatient beds to move patients into from the ED. This problem was exacerbated by the damage to the hospital caused by Hurricane Charley and, as a result, Fawcett has been on diversion considerably more since the hurricane than it was prior to the hurricane. For example, in February 2005, Fawcett was on diversion for a total of 260 hours, as compared to 13 hours in February 2004 and 62 hours in February 2003. Fawcett also has gone on diversion when its CT scanner is unavailable. Fawcett recently received approval from HCA to add a second CT scanner, which should alleviate the need to go on diversion based upon the unavailability of its CT scanner. The expansion of Fawcett's ED will help to reduce Fawcett's need to go on diversion, as will the completion of the repair work to the fourth floor of the hospital. Englewood rarely has to go on diversion. In 2005, it was only on diversion three times and, in 2004, it was only on diversion twice. The primary reason that Englewood goes on diversion is when its CT scanner is unavailable. Emergency patients from North Port do not significantly contribute to the ED overcrowding issues faced by the Charlotte County hospitals. The only persuasive evidence regarding the number of emergency patients from North Port who utilized the EDs at the existing hospitals was the transport data compiled by North Port EMS. That data reflects that between March 1, 2004, and March 1, 2005, 706 patients were transported by North Port EMS to BS-St. Joe/Peace River and 701 patients were transported by North Port EMS to Fawcett, which is less than two patients per day to each hospital and only a small fraction of the total ED visits at Peace River (32,000 in 2004) and Fawcett (21,000 in 2004). On average, a North Port EMS ambulance is “out of service” for 86 minutes when it is transporting a patient to an area hospital. That time starts when the ambulance is dispatched on a call and ends when the ambulance returns to the city. The average “out of service” times for transports to Peace River and Fawcett (which are the two closest hospitals to the city) are 67 minutes and 82 minutes, respectively. The only variable portion of the “out of service” time is the time that the ambulance is in transit from the location where the patient is picked up to the hospital and the time that it is in transit from the hospital back to the city. The remainder of the “out of service” time is fixed in the sense that it will occur no matter where the patient is ultimately transported. As reflected in Exhibit HMA-14 (page 14-22), the fixed portion of the out of service time can be 31 to 36 minutes, and includes the time between dispatch and arrival at the patient’s location, the time that it takes the paramedics to deliver the patient to the hospital’s nursing staff and exchange report information, and the time that it takes the paramedics to clean and restock the ambulance. The North Port EMS system is strained when one of its ambulances is out of service because the city only has three ambulances. North Port EMS is expected to get another ambulance in 2005. A hospital in North Port may reduce the strain on the North Port EMS system by reducing the variable component of the “out of service” time for its ambulances. However, the evidence was not persuasive as to the extent of the reduction since it is unknown where the hospital would be located in the city. Approval of a hospital in North Port would not eliminate the strain on the North Port EMS. Even if one of the proposed hospitals at issue in this proceeding were approved, trauma patients and patients in need of tertiary services would still need to be transported to another hospital in the area. Even though the EDs at the existing hospitals are heavily utilized and, at times, overcrowded, the evidence was not persuasive that there is a significant access problem for emergency services in the area. The evidence was also not persuasive that the approval of a hospital in North Port would materially enhance access to emergency services. Access to OB Service The evidence was not persuasive that there are access problems for North Port residents with respect to OB services, and, to the contrary, the evidence establishes that OB services are available and reasonably accessible at Peace River and Sarasota Memorial. A hospital in North Port would provide more convenient access to OB services for North Port residents, at least those who are closer to the North Port hospital than they are to Peace River. OB patients would also benefit from having more convenient pre-natal care and other OB/GYN services that are proposed as part of the “women’s center” center at Manatee Memorial’s North Port Hospital. However, it is not necessary to provide many of those services in a hospital setting, and the inclusion of those services does not justify the approval of a hospital in North Port. More convenient or enhanced access to OB services resulting from a hospital in North Port does not, in and of itself, justify the approval of the CON applications. In 2010, there are projected to be only 686 OB discharges from the North Port zip codes, which, based upon the 2004 ALOS of 2.34, will generate 1,606 patient days. If a North Port hospital captured 100 percent of those patients, its OB unit would have an ADC of only five patients in 2010. There is more than enough capacity at the existing hospitals that offer OB services to accommodate those patients, and it is unlikely that a hospital in North Port would get 100 percent of the OB patients from the city because the high-risk patients will likely go to a hospital that has a NICU. Summary In sum, the evidence was not persuasive that there is a “need” for a hospital in North Port due to the projected population growth in the city or that there are significant problems in accessing emergency or other care at the existing hospitals in the area that would be materially enhanced through the approval of a hospital in North Port. As a result, and in light of the relatively low utilization rates at the existing hospitals, the criteria in Subsections 408.035(1), (2), and (5), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C- 1.008(2)(e)2. strongly weigh against the approval of either CON application. (2) § 408.035(3), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(3), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicants’ ability to, and record of, providing quality of care. Manatee Memorial and HMA each has a history of providing a high quality of care at its existing hospitals, and it is reasonable to expect that each would provide a high quality of care at its proposed North Port hospital. All of the existing hospitals that currently serve North Port are JCAHO-accredited, and it is undisputed that they provide a high quality of care. The evidence was not persuasive that the quality of care provided at either of the proposed North Port hospitals would be materially higher than that provided at the existing hospitals currently serving North Port.10 In some respects, the quality of care provided at the proposed North Port hospitals will be lower than that provided at the existing hospitals. For example, neither hospital will offer interventional cardiology services, which is (or is becoming) the standard of care for treating heart attack patients, and neither hospital will have any NICU beds to provide “back-up” for high-risk deliveries. The evidence was not persuasive that the quality of care provided at North Port HMA will be materially higher than that provided at Manatee Memorial’s North Port Hospital, or vice versa.11 In sum, Manatee Memorial and HMA each satisfies the criteria in Subsection 408.035(3), Florida Statutes, and that statute does not materially weigh in favor of either CON application over the other. (3) § 408.035(4), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(4), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the availability of staff, funds, and other resources necessary to establish and operate the proposed hospitals. It was undisputed that, with the assistance of their parent companies, Manatee Memorial and HMA have the financial and managerial wherewithal to establish and operate their respective North Port hospitals. Schedule 6 of Manatee Memorial's CON application projects that North Port Hospital will have 252.93 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in its first year of operation and 399.96 FTEs by its third year operation. The number of “nursing” FTEs –- registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical nurses, nursing aides, etc. -- in each of those years are 124.01 and 225.48. Schedule 6 of HMA's CON application projects that North Port HMA will have 307.7 FTEs in its first year of operation and 352 FTEs in its second year operation. The number of “nursing” FTEs in each of those years are 158.8 and 180.07. The staffing projections, including the number of “nursing” FTEs, in each of the CON applications are reasonable. The salary projections in each of the CON applications are reasonable.12 There has been an adequate supply of RNs and other clinical staff in Charlotte and Sarasota Counties despite the nursing shortage in Florida. Although some of the existing hospitals in the area experienced increased vacancy rates after Hurricane Charley, they generally have had relatively low vacancy and turnover rates. For example, the pre-Hurricane Charley vacancy rate at Fawcett was only four percent and, even after the hurricane, the vacancy rate at Englewood was only three percent. Manatee Memorial and HMA will each be able to attract the nurses and other personnel necessary to staff their proposed North Port hospitals at the FTE and salary levels identified in their respective CON applications. The evidence was not persuasive regarding the extent to which a hospital in North Port would draw staff from or otherwise impact the operations of the existing hospitals from a staffing perspective. The testimony offered by Englewood and Fawcett witnesses on these issues was imprecise and largely speculative. With respect to attracting physicians to the proposed North Port hospitals, it is significant that there are a number of specialists and other physicians who already have offices in the city of North Port and who have expressed support for a hospital in the city. It is reasonable to expect that many of those physicians will obtain staff privileges at a North Port hospital and, indeed, several testified that they would do so. HMA is in a better position to attract physicians to its proposed North Port hospital with minimal impact on the existing hospitals than is Manatee Memorial because HMA already employs physicians at the three hospitals it operates in the area from which it can draw medical staff (as Manatee Memorial did from MMH when Lakewood Ranch opened), and HMA also owns the North Port Health Park where a large number of the physician offices in the city are located. In sum, Manatee Memorial and HMA each satisfy the criteria in Subsection 408.035(4), Florida Statutes, and between the two competing applications, the criteria in that subsection marginally weigh in favor of HMA. (4) § 408.035(6), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(6), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the short-term and long-term financial feasibility of the proposed hospitals. Generally A CON project is financially feasible in the short- term if the applicant has the ability to fund or secure the funding for the capitalized project costs and initial working capital needs of the project in conjunction with the applicant’s other ongoing and planned capital projects. A CON project is financially feasible in the longterm if it will at least break-even in the second year of operation. If the project continues to show a loss in the second year of operation, it is not financially feasible in the longterm unless it is nearing break-even and it is demonstrated that the hospital will break even within a reasonable period of time. HMA It is undisputed that North Port HMA is financially feasible in the shortterm. Schedule 8A of HMA's CON application projects that North Port HMA will have an after-tax net profit of approximately $3.05 million in its second year of operation. The reasonableness of the revenue and cost projections that resulted in that projected net profit was not contested and, as discussed in Part E(1)(b) above, the underlying patient days and utilization are reasonable and attainable. Therefore, North Port HMA is financially feasible in the longterm. Manatee Memorial Manatee Memorial’s North Port Hospital is financially feasible in the shortterm. Even if the construction and other start-up costs for North Port Hospital are materially higher than projected in the CON application (see Part F(6) below), UHS has the financial wherewithal to fund the project. With respect to long-term financial feasibility, Schedule 8A of Manatee Memorial's CON application projects that North Port Hospital will generate a net profit of approximately $3.5 million in its second year of operation (2009), and that by its third year of operation (2010), the hospital will generate a net profit of approximately $12.3 million. It is not unreasonable to look at North Port Hospital’s third year of operation (rather than its second year) in evaluating the hospital’s long-term financial feasibility because, unlike North Port HMA, North Port Hospital is not projected to “mature” until its third year of operation. For example, North Port Hospital is not projected to obtain a 70 percent share of the North Port market until its third year of operation, whereas North Port HMA is projected to have a 70 percent market share by its second year of operation. The projected net profits in Schedule 8A of Manatee Memorial’s CON application are overstated because, as discussed below, the underlying revenues have been overstated and the underlying expenses have been understated in several material respects. First, the revenues are based upon unreasonable and overstated utilization projections. The 2010 ADC at Manatee Memorial’s North Port Hospital will likely be no more than 64.7 patients (see Part E(2)(b) above), rather than the ADC of 76.1 projected in the CON application. The financial impact of the overstated utilization is an overstatement of the hospital’s projected 2010 net profit by at least $4.7 million.13 Second, the revenues attributable to the cardiac cath lab are based upon significantly overstated projections of cardiac cath volume. The cardiac cath lab at North Port Hospital is projected to have 10,359 inpatient and outpatient “procedures” in 2010, which, according to an expert in the administration of cardiac cath labs, is an “unheard of” number for a single cardiac cath lab at a non-tertiary hospital. The projections of cardiac cath procedures are based upon the experience at MMH. For example, the ratio of inpatient to outpatient procedures at MMH is 2.43, which is the same ratio projected for North Port Hospital. It is not reasonable to base the projected volume of cardiac caths and/or cardiac cath “procedures” at North Port Hospital on the experience at MMH because MMH has an OHS program and hospitals with OHS programs perform considerably more cardiac caths than hospitals without OHS programs. In 2004, for example, the District 8 hospitals without OHS programs averaged only 190 cardiac caths, as compared to an average of 1,476 cardiac caths for hospitals with OHS programs. Manatee Memorial acknowledges in its PRO that the projected cath procedures in the CON application are “on the high side,” but it contends that it is “not materially out of line” with the lab’s capacity because MMH did 24,629 inpatient and outpatient procedures in its two cardiac cath labs in 2003. In 2003, MMH did 17,467 inpatient "procedures" and had 1,387 cardiac cath cases, which is a ratio of 12.6 procedures per case. Manatee Memorial’s North Port hospital will likely have a ratio closer to 4.5 procedures per case, which is the ratio at Englewood and Fawcett and, as reflected in Exhibit HMA-59, is more in-line with the experience at the other hospitals in the area that do not offer OHS. The most reasonable projection of the number of cardiac cath procedures at North Port Hospital is contained in Exhibit EF-12 (at pages 6-7) which projects that the hospital will have a total of 1,473 inpatient and outpatient cardiac cath “procedures” in 2010. Indeed, that projection is likely slightly overstated because it is based upon the overstated population projections in Manatee Memorial’s CON application. The financial impact of the overstatement of cardiac cath procedures is an overstatement of the 2010 net income at North Port Hospital by approximately $5.5 million. Third, the revenues attributable to the OB unit are based upon overstated projections of OB patient days. The application projects that Manatee Memorial’s North Port hospital will have 3,770 OB patient days in 2010, which equates to 1,573 births. The record does not reflect how those figures were calculated. The health planner who prepared Manatee Memorial’s CON application testified that she did not project the number births and/or OB patient days that would likely be generated by North Port residents between 2008-10. The most reasonable projections of the number of births and OB patient days generated by North Port residents in 2010 are those referenced in Part D(3) above, which were derived from the data in Exhibit EF-10, at pages XV-1 through XV-3. The overstatement of OB patient days in Manatee Memorial’s CON application results in an overstatement of OB “charges” by approximately $1.81 million.14 The record does not reflect the degree to which net profit is overstated as a result of the overstatement in OB charges because the OB costs referenced in Manatee Memorial’s CON application are not projected on a patient-day basis. Finally, depreciation expenses are understated due to the significant understatement of the total project cost for North Port Hospital discussed in Part F(6) below. The understatement of the total project cost directly impacts North Port Hospital’s net profit by understating the depreciation expense by approximately $3.9 million per year. North Port Hospital will more likely than not generate a net loss in its third year of operation as a result of the overstated revenue projections and understated depreciation expense. Therefore, North Port Hospital is not financially feasible in the longterm. Summary In sum, the criteria in Subsection 408.035(6), Florida Statutes, weighs in favor of HMA because its proposed North Port hospital is financially feasible. (5) § 408.035(7), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(7), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of “[t]he extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost effectiveness.” The market for acute care services in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties is competitive, as is the North Port market. There are multiple hospitals (and hospital companies) serving the area, none of which has a dominant share of the market. The 2004 market shares of the acute care discharges from the North Port zip codes were as follows: BS-St. Joe (26.9 percent); Fawcett (20.19 percent); Sarasota Memorial (14.7 percent); BS-Venice Venice (13.78 percent); Charlotte Regional (6.94 percent); Englewood (5.9 percent); Doctors Hospital (2.39 percent); all other providers (9.19 percent). Thus, in 2004, the Bon Secours hospitals had a 40.68 percent market share, HMA had a 6.94 percent market share, HCA had a 28.48 percent market share, and Sarasota Memorial had a 14.7 percent market share. The hospitals’ respective market shares were similar in 2002 and 2003, which reflects a relatively stable market for acute care services. HMA now has the largest market share of the North Port market (approximately 47.6 percent) as a result of its acquisition of the Bon Secours hospitals in February 2005. The stated purpose of HMA’s acquisition of the Bon Secours hospitals was to create a “strategic southwest Florida network encompassing Collier County, Lee County, Charlotte County, and Sarasota County.” According to HMA, “these strategic networks will provide patients and communities with an improved continuity of care and access to even more quality health care close to home.” The evidence was not persuasive that the addition of North Port HMA to this “strategic network” will give HMA inordinate leverage with physicians or payors, although the possibility will exist. The approval of North Port HMA will increase HMA’s share of the North Port "market" from 47.6 percent to 82.7 percent. It will also increase HMA’s share of the Sarasota County "market" (from 21.4 to 29.1 percent) and HMA's share of the Sarasota County/Charlotte County "market" (from 33.7 to 39 percent). The evidence was not persuasive that the approval of North Port HMA would be anti-competitive even though it would result in HMA becoming a dominant provider in North Port. Indeed, there will still be healthy competition for acute care services in the broader Sarasota County or Sarasota County/Charlotte County "markets". Nevertheless, the approval of North Port HMA will certainly not “foster” competition. The approval of North Port Hospital would add a new competitor to the market and, to that end, it would “foster” competition. However, the evidence was not persuasive as to how or to what extent the competition fostered by Manatee Memorial’s entry into the market would promote cost effectiveness. In sum, the criteria in Subsection 408.035(7), Florida Statutes, marginally favors Manatee Memorial over HMA, but this criteria is not given significant weight because of the significant competition that currently exists in North Port and the surrounding areas and that will continue to exist in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties even if a hospital is approved in North Port. (6) § 408.035(8), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(8), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction. It was stipulated that the site development costs contained in the CON applications are reasonable and appropriate even though neither of the applicants has identified a site for its proposed North Port hospital. It was undisputed that the construction costs ($39.8 million or $221 per SF) and the total project costs ($78 million) for North Port HMA are reasonable. The reasonableness of the construction costs and the total project costs for North Port Hospital is in dispute. Schedule 1 of Manatee Memorial’s CON application reflects that the construction costs for North Port Hospital will be $32.9 million, which equates to $165 per SF. The $165/SF construction cost includes “bricks and mortar only.” Manatee Memorial’s architect unequivocally testified that the cost does not include any equipment costs. The $165/SF construction cost is not reasonable, and as described by one construction cost expert, it is “way off the Richter scale.” The $165/SF construction cost would be even more unreasonable if, as suggested by several Manatee Memorial witnesses, that figure includes fixed equipment costs, notwithstanding the unequivocal testimony of Manatee Memorial’s architect that the $165/SF construction cost does not include such costs. The $165/SF cost is only slightly higher than the construction cost of Lakewood Ranch, as reflected on the Final Project Cost Report (Cost Report) for that hospital, even though Lakewood Ranch was completed in 2004 and the construction of North Port Hospital will not begin until 2008. The Cost Report reflects that the actual construction costs for Lakewood Ranch were $33,111,591 and that the facility had 185,000 SF. The Cost Report indicates that that the $33 million figure includes fixed equipment costs, but it does not itemize those costs. The fixed equipment costs were estimated in the Lakewood CON application at $4 million, and using that figure, the “bricks and mortar” construction costs at Lakewood Ranch were approximately $157/SF.15 Inflating the $157/SF cost of Lakewood Ranch to 2008 would result in construction costs of approximately $180/SF. A construction cost of $180/SF is more reasonable than the $165/SF estimate in Manatee Memorial’s CON application, but it is still lower than would be expected for a hurricane-hardened hospital in southwest Florida. A more reasonable construction cost for North Port Hospital is between $200/SF and North Port HMA’s $221/SF. Thus, North Port Hospital’s construction costs are understated by $7.1 million to $11 million. Schedule 1 of Manatee Memorial’s CON application estimates $12 million of equipment costs for North Port Hospital. That cost includes fixed and movable equipment costs. The $12 million figure does not include all of the IT systems and other “state-of-the-art” equipment identified in Manatee Memorial’s CON application. Manatee Memorial’s equipment expert testified that the total budget for the IT equipment alone will be $10 million to $14 million. The $12 million figure only includes the cost of the equipment necessary for the hospital’s first year of operation because UHS typically does not fully equip its hospitals before they open. Manatee Memorial followed a similar approach -– i.e., incrementally equipping the hospital as census increased -– at Lakewood Ranch. The reasonableness of that approach is not specifically addressed in the Lakewood Ranch Recommended or Final Orders. This approach has the effect of understating the total cost of the project by including only a portion of the equipment costs that will be necessary to fully equip the hospital. A more reasonable estimate of the equipment costs for North Port Hospital is between $23 million to $29 million, which includes the costs of movable equipment, the IT systems, and the other “state of the art” equipment described in Manatee Memorial’s CON application. Thus, Manatee Memorial’s equipment costs are understated by as much as $17 million. Schedule 1 of Manatee Memorial’s CON application projects pre-opening expenses of $250,000. Lakewood Ranch had pre-opening expenses of approximately $3.2 million. It is reasonable to expect similar pre-opening expenses at North Port Hospital since it was modeled after Lakewood Ranch. When Lakewood Ranch's pre-opening expenses adjusted for inflation, the pre-opening expenses at North Port Hospital will likely be $3.5 million. As a result, the pre-opening expenses for North Port Hospital have been understated by approximately $3.25 million. In sum, the total cost of Manatee Memorial’s proposed North Port hospital is understated by as much as $32 million. Each of the proposed hospitals has certain design features that are better than the other hospital. For example, North Port HMA has a full complement of private rooms and shorter hallways, whereas North Port Hospital has a better separation of its various patient entrances. The evidence was not persuasive that either hospital is materially superior to the other from a design perspective.16 In sum, the criteria in Subsection 408.035(8), Florida Statutes, weighs in favor of HMA because its project costs are more reasonable than those projected by Manatee Memorial. (7)_ § 408.035(9), Fla. Stat. and Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.030(2) Subsection 408.035(9), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicants’ past and proposed commitment to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Similarly, Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C- 1.030(2) requires consideration of the impact of the proposed projects on the ability of low-income persons and other medically underserved groups to access care. The statutory reference to “the medically indigent” encompasses what are typically referred to as charity patients. HMA, Inc., and Manatee Memorial each provide a significant level of care to Medicaid and charity patients at their existing hospitals. HMA, Inc., provided approximately $101 million in uncompensated charity care at its Florida hospitals for the 12- month period ending September 30, 2004, which is approximately four percent of its gross patient revenues. For that same period, approximately 7.6 of the gross patient revenues at those hospitals were attributable to Medicaid patients. Manatee Memorial provides more than 90 percent of the charity care in Manatee County, which is not surprising since MMH is the largest and one of the oldest hospitals in the county. In 2004, Manatee Memorial provided approximately $16.6 million in charity care, which is approximately three percent of its gross charges. That figure was offset by a $2.8 million subsidy that Manatee Memorial received from Manatee County for indigent care. Neither HMA nor Manatee Memorial conditioned the approval of its CON application on the provision of a particular level of care to Medicaid or charity patients. HMA offered to condition the approval of its application on a commitment to “accept all Medicaid and indigent patients that are clinically appropriate for services offered by [North Port HMA].” Similarly, Manatee Memorial offered to condition the approval of its application on a commitment that “[a]ll Medicaid & indigent patients will be accepted as are clinically appropriate for services.” The Agency reasonably construed those proposed conditions to be offering nothing more than the law currently requires. Moreover, it is unclear how the proposed conditions could be monitored by the Agency. The Agency did not accept the condition proposed by HMA. Instead, in the SAAR, it conditioned the approval of HMA’s application on the provision of 6.9 percent of the patient days at North Port HMA to Medicaid patients and 2.9 percent of the patient days to charity patients. Those figures were derived from Schedule 7A of HMA’s CON application and the notes thereto. HMA did not challenge those conditions and, therefore, is bound by them if its CON application is ultimately approved notwithstanding the recommendation herein. Mr. Gregg testified that if Manatee Memorial’s application is ultimately approved, the approval should include conditions similar to those imposed in the SAAR on the approval of HMA’s application. The revenues projected in Schedule 7A of Manatee Memorial’s CON application were calculated based upon the assumption that 7.25 percent of the patient days at North Port Hospital will be attributable to Medicaid patients. The percentage of patient days at North Port Hosptial attributable to charity care is not specified on Schedule 7A or the notes thereto,17 but it appears that the percentage is approximately 2.6 percent.18 Thus, if contrary to the recommendations herein, the Agency ultimately approves Manatee Memorial’s CON application, it should condition the approval North Port Hospital providing 7.25 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients and 2.6 percent of its patient days to charity patients. A new hospital in North Port is not necessary to address any financial access problems in the area. There was no persuasive evidence that there is an access problem for Medicaid, charity, or other traditionally medically underserved patients at the existing hospitals in south Sarasota County and north Charlotte County. To the contrary, the evidence reflects that all of the existing hospitals in the area provide access to patients without regard to their ability to pay. As a result, the criteria in Subsection 408.035(9), Florida Statutes, is given minimal weight in determining whether a hospital is needed in North Port. The criteria in Subsection 408.035(9), Florida Statutes, do not materially weigh in favor either CON application over the other. Each applicant has a history of providing Medicaid and charity care and each has proposed to provide approximately 9.8 percent of its patient days to Medicaid and charity patients combined. (8) § 408.035(10), Fla. Stat. Subsection 408.035(10), Florida Statutes, which requires consideration of the applicant’s designation as a Gold Seal Program nursing facility, is not applicable because HMA and Manatee Memorial are not proposing to add nursing home beds. Impact of the Proposed North Port Hospitals on the Existing Hospitals in the Area North Port is in the PSA of both Fawcett and Englewood, if, as is common, the PSA is defined as the zip codes from which the hospital receives 75 percent of its admissions. In 2004, approximately 12 percent of Fawcett’s non- tertiary patients came from the North Port zip codes, and approximately 6.6 percent of Englewood’s non-tertiary patients came from the North Port zip codes. The approval of either of the proposed North Port hospitals will have an adverse impact on Englewood and Fawcett because they will lose patients to the new hospital. The impact on Englewood and Fawcett will be materially the same, no matter which application is approved because, as discussed above, Manatee Memorial is unlikely to achieve its more aggressive utilization projections. If Manatee Memorial somehow achieved its utilization projections, its North Port Hospital would have a significantly greater impact on the existing providers than would North Port HMA. The existing providers’ shares of the North Port market have remained relatively stable since at least 2002 and, therefore, it is reasonable to expect that they would have similar market shares in the future absent a significant change of circumstances, such as the approval of a new hospital in the area. As a result, it is reasonable to use the current market shares when assessing the impact of the proposed North Port hospitals on the existing providers. The approval of North Port HMA will result in a loss of 227 patients (1,046 patient days) at Englewood and a loss of 772 patients (3,553 patient days) at Fawcett in 2008, which will be the North Port hospital’s second year of operation. The financial impact of that lost patient volume is approximately $807,000 at Englewood and $3.1 million at Fawcett. The approval of North Port Hospital will result in a loss of 259 patients (1,191 patient days) at Englewood and 883 patients (4,064 patient days) at Fawcett in 2010, which will be the North Port hospital’s third year of operation.19 The financial impact of that lost patient volume is approximately $917,000 at Englewood and $4 million at Fawcett.20 Those figures only take into account the patients in the North Port zip codes that Englewood and Fawcett will “lose” to the new North Port hospital. They do not take into account additional patients that Englewood and Fawcett are likely to “gain” through growth in the population in the other zip codes in their service areas. The population growth in Englewood and Fawcett’s service area will largely off-set the patient volume that the hospitals would lose from the North Port zip codes. For example, if North Port HMA is approved, Englewood is projected to have only 16 fewer patients in 2008 than it did in 2004, and Fawcett will have only 28 fewer patients in 2008 than it had in 2004. Fawcett is a profitable hospital. Its earnings before depreciation, interest, taxes, and amortization (EBDITA) was approximately $14 million in 2004, and its operating income was $7.7 million in 2002, $5.1 million in 2003, and $1.7 million in 2004. The lower operating income in 2004 was due to the impacts of Hurricane Charley. Englewood is a less profitable hospital than Fawcett. It had operating losses of $1.7 million in 2002, $2.8 million in 2003, and $1.3 million in 2004. Its highest net income before taxes in any of those years was $631,000 in 2004. However, Englewood’s EBDITA (which is the financial indicator that its chief financial officer “really concentrate[s] on”) was approximately $3.6 million in 2004 and was budgeted to be “a little over 3 million” in 2005. The financial impact of the lost patient volume from the North Port zip codes on Englewood and Fawcett is not significant when compared to the EBDITA at those hospitals. The financial impact is even less significant when the population growth in the other zip codes in Englewood and Fawcett’s service area are taken into account. Indeed, the projected net loss of 28 patients at Fawcett equates to a reduction in net income of only $126,700, and the projected net loss of 16 patients at Englewood equates to a reduction in net income of only $56,624. The approval of a hospital in North Port would also impact Peace River and Venice Hospital. In terms of lost patient volume, the impact on Peace River would be slightly greater than the impact at Fawcett and the impact on Venice Hospital would be slightly less than the impact at Fawcett and slightly more than the impact on Englewood. The record does not reflect the financial impact of that lost patient volume at Peace River or Venice Hospital, which experienced significant operating losses prior to their acquisition and financial turn- around by HMA. In sum, the approval of a hospital in North Port will adversely impact the existing hospitals serving the area, including Englewood and Fawcett. The impacts are significant enough to give Englewood and Fawcett standing in this proceeding, but the impact on Englewood and Fawcett (and the other existing hospitals) is not so significant that it independently warrants denial of the CON applications. Stated another way, the adverse impact on the existing hospitals is a factor weighing against approval of the applications, but that factor is given minimal weight.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order denying Manatee Memorial’s CON 9767 and also denying HMA’s CON 9768. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2005.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 10432 filed by East Florida-DMC, Inc. (DMC), to build an 80-bed acute care hospital in Miami-Dade County, Florida, AHCA District 11, or CON Application No. 10433 filed by The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County, Florida d/b/a Jackson Hospital West (JW), to build a 100-bed acute care hospital in Miami-Dade County, Florida, AHCA District 11, on balance, satisfy the applicable criteria; and, if so, whether either or both should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the parties’ stipulations, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, other evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County d/b/a Jackson Hospital West and Jackson Health System (JHS) JHS is a taxpayer-funded health system located in and owned by Miami-Dade County. It is governed by The Public Health Trust of Miami Dade-County, Florida (PHT), a seven-member board. JHS owns and operates three acute care hospitals in Miami-Dade County--Jackson Memorial Hospital (JMH); Jackson North Medical Center (JN); and Jackson South Medical Center (JS)--as well as three specialty hospitals: Holtz Children’s Hospital (Holtz); Jackson Rehabilitation Hospital; and Jackson Behavioral Health Hospital. JHS also owns and operates numerous other non- hospital healthcare facilities within Miami-Dade County. JHS’s applicant in this proceeding is JW which, if approved, will be another acute care hospital in JHS. JHS is an academic teaching institution, and the University of Miami (UM) is JHS’s affiliated medical school. Over 1,000 UM residents staff JMH pursuant to an operating agreement with JHS. JN and JS are not academic medical centers. JHS annually receives sales tax and ad valorem tax revenues from Miami-Dade County in order to help fund its operations. JS and JN are community hospitals operated as part of JHS. JS was acquired in 2001. JS is licensed for 226 beds and is also home to a verified Level II trauma center. The JN facility was acquired by JHS in 2006. The facility is licensed for 382 beds. East Florida (DMC) DMC is an affiliate of HCA Healthcare, Inc. (HCA), the largest provider of acute care hospital services in the world. DMC will operate within HCA’s East Florida Division (EFD), which is comprised of 15 hospitals, 12 surgery centers, two diagnostic imaging centers, four freestanding emergency departments, nine behavioral health facilities, and one regional laboratory, along with other related services. There are three HCA-affiliated hospitals in Miami-Dade County: KRMC; Aventura Hospital and Medical Center (Aventura); and Mercy Hospital, a campus of Plantation General Hospital (Mercy). Kendall Regional (KRMC) KRMC, which is located at the intersection of the Florida Turnpike and Southwest 40th Street in Miami-Dade County, is a 417-bed tertiary provider comprised of 380 acute care beds, 23 inpatient adult psychiatric beds, eight Level II neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) beds, and five Level III NICU beds. It is a Baker Act receiving facility. KRMC is a verified Level I trauma center. It also has a burn program. KRMC is also an academic teaching facility, receiving freestanding institutional accreditation from the Accrediting Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) in 2013. KRMC currently has six residency programs including, among others, surgery, internal medicine, podiatry, anesthesia, and surgical critical care. Its teaching programs are affiliated with the University of South Florida, Nova Southeastern University, and Florida International University. KRMC also participates in scholarly and clinical research. In 2017, KRMC had over 82,000 Emergency Department (ED) visits. It treated over 115,000 total inpatients and outpatients that year. There are 850 physicians on KRMC’s medical staff. It offers a full range of medical surgery services, interventional procedures, obstetrics (OB), pediatric, and neonatal care, among many other service lines. KRMC primarily serves southern and western portions of Miami-Dade County but also receives referrals from the Florida Keys up through Broward County, Palm Beach County, and the Treasure Coast. Its main competitors include, but are not limited to: Baptist Hospital; Baptist West; South Miami Hospital; PGH; Hialeah; CGH; JS, and Palm Springs General Hospital. The Tenet Hospitals PGH, Hialeah, and CGH are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Tenet South Florida. These are all for-profit hospitals. PGH is a 368-bed tertiary facility that opened in the early 1970s. It has 297 licensed acute care beds, 48 adult psychiatric beds, 52 ICU beds, and 15 Level II NICU beds. It is located at the Palmetto Expressway and Northwest 122nd Street in Hialeah, Florida. The hospital employs about 1,700 people and has over 600 physicians on its medical staff. PGH is a tertiary-level facility offering a variety of specialty services, including adult open heart surgery, a comprehensive stroke center, and robotic surgery. It has inpatient mental health beds and serves the community as a Baker Act receiving facility. It also offers OB and Level II NICU services with approximately 1,500 births a year. It has approximately 70,000 ED visits and between 17,000 and 18,000 inpatient admissions per year. In addition to its licensed inpatient beds, PGH operates 31 observation beds. PGH is ACGME accredited and serves a significant teaching function in the community. It has approximately 89 residents and fellows. The hospital provides fellowships in cardiology, critical care and interventional cardiology, and also has rotations in neurology and gastroenterology. Residents from Larkin General Hospital also rotate through PGH. PGH generally serves the communities of Opa Locka, Hialeah, Miami Lakes, Hialeah Gardens, Doral, and Miami Springs. In reality, all of the hospitals in the county are competitors, but more direct competition comes from Palm Springs Hospital, Memorial in Miramar, Mount Sinai, Kendall, and even its sister hospital, Hialeah. Hialeah first opened in 1951 and is a 378-bed acute care facility. It has 356 acute care beds, 12 adult psychiatric beds, and 10 Level II NICU beds. The ED has 25 beds and about 40,000 visits per year. It has approximately 14,000 inpatient admissions and 1,400 babies delivered annually. It offers services including cardiac, stroke, robotic surgery, colorectal surgery, and OB services. The hospital has a Level II NICU with 12 beds. CGH is located in the City of Coral Gables and is near the border between Coral Gables and the City of Miami on Douglas Road. It first opened in 1926. Portions of the original structure are still in use. CGH has 245 licensed beds, over 725 employees, 367 physicians, and over 100 additional allied providers on its medical staff. The hospital has a full-service ED. Its service lines include general surgery, geriatrics, urology, treatment of cardiovascular and pulmonary disease, and others. The hospital has eight operating rooms and offers robotic surgery. The ED has 28 beds divided into the main area and a geriatric emergency room. It had about 25,000 ED visits last year, which is lower than prior years, due in part to the presence of over a dozen nearby urgent care centers. CGH has over 8,500 inpatient admissions per year and is not at capacity. While patient days have grown slightly, the average occupancy is still just a little over 40%, meaning, on average, it has over 140 empty inpatient beds on any given day. The hospital is licensed for 245 beds, but typically there are only 180 beds immediately available for use. Agency for Healthcare Administration (AHCA) AHCA is the state health-planning agency charged with administration of the CON program as set forth in sections 408.31-408.0455, Florida Statutes. The Proposals Doral Medical Center (DMC) DMC proposes to build an 80-bed community hospital situated within the residential district of Doral. The hospital will be located in southwestern Doral in zip code 33126 and will serve the growing population of Doral, along with residential areas to the north and south of Doral. The hospital will be located in the City of Doral’s residential district on Northwest 41st Street between Northwest 109th Avenue to the east, and Northwest 112th Avenue to the west. Doral has seen significant growth in the past 15 years and has been consistently included on the list of the fastest growing cities in Florida. The new facility will have a bed complement of 80 licensed acute care beds, including 72 medical/surgical and eight OB beds. The proposed acute care hospital will be fully accredited by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Facilities and licensed by the State of Florida. No public funds will be utilized in construction of the hospital and it will contribute to the state, county, and municipal tax base as a proprietary corporation. DMC will offer a full range of non-tertiary services, including emergency services, imaging, surgery, intensive care, cardiac catheterization, and women's services, including an OB unit, and pediatric care. DMC will be a general medical facility that will include a general medical component and a surgery component. Although DMC will operate an OB unit, NICU services will not be offered at DMC. If DMC’s patients need more advanced services, including NICU, the EFD hopes they will receive them from KRMC. The open medical staff will be largely community-based, but University of Miami physicians would be welcome at DMC. Before the hospital is built, KRMC will construct and operate a freestanding emergency department (FSED) at the location that will eventually become the ED of DMC. Construction of the FSED is now underway, and Brandon Haushalter, chief executive officer (CEO) of KRMC, estimated that it will open in March or April of 2019. Jackson West JHS proposes to build a community hospital to be known as “Jackson West” near the eastern edge of Doral. The proposed 100-bed general acute care hospital would have medical surgical and obstetrical beds and offer basic acute care services. JHS is a public health system owned by Miami-Dade County. All of JHS’s assets, as well as its debts, belong to the county. JHS is a not-for-profit entity, and therefore does not pay taxes, though it receives hundreds of millions of dollars from property taxes and sales taxes in Miami-Dade County. JHS’s main campus is a large health campus located near the Midtown Miami area in between Allapattah (to the north) and Little Havana (to the south). In addition to JMH, the campus includes Holtz Children’s Hospital, a behavioral health hospital, an inpatient rehabilitation hospital, and several specialty clinics. Bascom-Palmer Eye Institute, a Veterans Administration hospital, and University of Miami Hospital are also located adjacent to Jackson West’s main campus. JMH is a 1,500-bed hospital with a wide array of programs and services, including tertiary and quaternary care, and a Level I trauma program, the Ryder Trauma Center. JMH receives patients from throughout Miami-Dade County, elsewhere in Florida, and internationally. JMH is a teaching hospital and has a large number of residents, as well as professors from the University of Miami, on staff. UM and JMH have had a relationship for many years, and in addition to research and teaching, UM provides physician staffing to JMH. JN is a 342-bed community hospital located in between Miami Gardens and North Miami Beach, just off of I-95 and the Turnpike. JS is a 252-bed community hospital located in the Palmetto Bay area just south of Kendall. It has stroke certification and interventional cardiology, and was recently approved for a trauma program, which began in May 2016. Both JN and JS were existing hospitals that were acquired by JHS. JHS has never built a hospital from the ground up. In 2014, JHS leadership directed its internal planning team to review the healthcare needs of county residents. JHS’s analysis identified a need for outpatient services in western Miami-Dade, the only remaining quadrant of the county in which JHS did not have a hospital or healthcare program at the time. As part of its due diligence, JHS then consulted healthcare firm Kurt Salmon & Associates (KSA) to independently evaluate the data. KSA’s investigation validated a need in the west county for adult and pediatric outpatient services, including need for an FSED. This prompted JHS to explore opportunities for expansion of outpatient services where needed: in the western corridor of Miami-Dade. This was also the genesis of JHS’s long-range plan to first build an FSED in the Doral area, to be followed ultimately by the addition of a general acute care hospital at the site. The JW site is a 27-acre parcel of land located just west of the Palmetto Expressway and north of 25th Street. The site is in an industrial area only a short distance from the western end of the runways at Miami International Airport. The site is located in zip code 33122, which is very sparsely populated. JW proposed a primary service area (PSA) consisting of zip codes 33126, 33144, 33166, 33172/33122, 33174, 33178, and 33182, and a secondary service area (SSA) of zip codes 33155, 33165, 33175, and 33184. JW intends to serve general, acute care non-tertiary patients and OB patients. Detailed below, trends in the JW service area do not demonstrate need for its proposed hospital. The location of the JW site will not contribute to the viability of the proposed hospital. According to 2010 census data, only 328 people live within a one-mile radius of the JW site. Since 2000, only 32 total people have moved into that same area around the JW site--an average of three per year. There are virtually no residences within a one-mile radius of the JW site. From 2000 to 2010, the population within a two- mile radius of the JW site decreased by a rate of 9.4%. The JW health planner projects JW’s home zip code of 33122 will have a total population of only eight (8) people in 2022. From 2012 to 2014, the use rate in the JW service area for non-tertiary patients decreased by 3.9%. That decline continued at a steeper pace of 4.2% from 2014 to 2017. This was largely due to the 65+ age cohort, the demographic of patients that utilize inpatient services the most. The 65+ age cohort is growing at a slower pace in the JW service area than in Miami- Dade or Florida as a whole. Non-tertiary discharges in the JW service area are declining at a greater pace than that of Miami- Dade County--negative 4.2% compared to negative 1.9%. The rate of projected population growth in the JW PSA is decreasing. The projected rate of growth for the JW service area is lower than that of Miami-Dade County and Florida as a whole. The OB patient base JW intends to rely on is projected to remain flat. The inpatient discharges for all ages in the JW service area have declined from 2014 to 2017. For ages 0-17, discharges in the JW service area declined 21.4% during that time period. The discharges for ages 18-44 declined by 4.8%, and the discharges for ages 45-64 declined by 8.9%. The discharges for the important 65+ age cohort declined by 0.1%. Specifically, the discharges for ages 65-74 declined by 6.5%, and the discharges for ages 75-84 declined by 3.3%. The discharges for ages 85+ are the only age cohort that has not declined from 2012 to 2017. Overall, the non-tertiary discharges per 1,000 population (i.e., use rate) for all ages in the JW service area declined from 2012 to 2014 by 6%, and from 2014 to 2017 by 7.8%. Despite these declines in discharges in the JW service area, the health planners who crafted the JW projections used a constant use rate for the 0-17, 18-44, and 45-64 age cohorts. The JW health planners used a declining use rate for the 65+ age cohort. These use rates were applied uniformly across all zip codes, despite wide variance in actual use rates in each zip code. Applying the zip code specific use rates in conjunction with the other assumptions used by the JW health planner demonstrates that the JW projections are unreasonable. For instance, JW’s reliance on a uniform use rate over-projects the number of discharges in JW PSA zip code 33178 by nearly 1,000 patients. This occurs because the population is only growing at a 2% rate in the zip code, but JW’s reliance on service area-wide projections cause the discharges to grow at an extraordinary rate of 8.9% per year. Applying actual use rates across all zip codes causes a drastic change in the JW PSA and SSA definition. Section 408.037(2) requires a CON applicant to identify its PSA and SSA by listing zip codes in which it will receive discharges in descending order, beginning with the zip code with the highest amount of discharges, then proceeding in diminishing order to the zip code with the lowest amount of discharges. The zip codes, which comprise 75% of discharges, constitute the PSA; and the remaining zip codes, which consist of the remaining 25% of discharges, makes up the SSA. However, JW did not project its utilization in this manner. In its application, JW did not define its service area, PSA, and SSA zip codes in descending order by number or percentage of discharges. When this correct adjustment is made, its PSA consists of zip codes 33126, 33172, 33178, 33174, 33144, and 33165; and its SSA consists of zip codes 33175, 33166, 33155, 33182, and 33184. Zip codes 33166 and 33182 were in the original JW PSA, and zip code 33165 was in the original JW SSA. As such, JW’s home zip code should actually be in its SSA. JW health planners call this illogical, but it demonstrates that the JW site is located within a zip code that has almost no population of potential patients. JHS is developing an FSED and outpatient/ambulatory facilities on the JW site regardless of whether its CON application for a hospital is approved. Construction has begun on the JW site, and JHS is actually building a “shelled in” structure intended to house a future hospital, notwithstanding lack of CON approval for the hospital. There is no contingency plan for use of the shelled-in hospital space if CON approval is not obtained. JHS executives unequivocally stated that they intend to continue pursuing CON approval for the JW hospital, even if the proposed DMC hospital is approved. Indeed, JHS has filed third and fourth CON applications for its proposed JW hospital. The budget for the JW campus is $252 million. Sixty to $70 million is being funded from a bond issuance approved by voters in Miami-Dade County. Notably, the bond referendum approved by voters made no mention of a new hospital. The remaining $180 to $190 million is being funded by JHS, which has chosen to only keep 50 days cash-on-hand, and put any surplus toward capital projects. This is well below the number of days cash-on-hand ws advisable for a system like JHS. The specific programs and services to be offered at JW have not been finalized, but it is clear that JW will be a small community hospital that will not offer anything unique or different from any of the existing hospitals in the area, nor will it operate NICU beds. Patients presenting to JW in need of specialized or tertiary services will need to be transferred to another hospital with the capability of serving them, most likely JMH. The Applicants’ Arguments Doral Medical Center (DMC) DMC’s arguments in support of its proposed hospital may be summarized as follows: Geographic features surrounding Doral create transportation access barriers for the residents of the area; Doral is a densely-populated community that is growing quickly and lacks a readily accessible hospital; KRMC, which is the provider of choice for Doral residents, is a growing tertiary facility that cannot sufficiently expand to meet its future demands. DMC will serve much of the same patient population currently served by KRMC and help decompress KRMC’s acute care load so KRMC can focus on its tertiary service lines; From a geographic standpoint, the Doral community and its patients are isolated from much of Miami-Dade County to the north, west, and east, and the nearest hospitals. East Florida-DMC is a subsidiary of HCA and would be a part of the HCA EFD. Michael Joseph is the president of the EFD, which includes 15 hospitals and other facilities from Miami north through the Treasure Coast. Mr. Joseph authorized the filing of the DMC CON application, which proposes an 80-bed basic acute care hospital that includes 72 medical surgical and eight OB beds. As noted, there will be neither unique services at DMC nor any tertiary services, such as a NICU. HCA anticipates that DMC patients needing tertiary services would be referred and treated at KRMC. The proposed hospital would be built on 41st Street, between Northwest 109th Avenue and Northwest 112th Avenue. This site is located on the western edge of Doral, just east of the Everglades. When the consultants were retained to write the first DMC CON application, HCA had already made the decision to go forward with the project. Mr. Joseph described Miami-Dade County as one of the most competitive markets in the country for hospital services. There is robust competition in the Miami-Dade market from the standpoints of payors, physicians, and the many hospitals located in the county, including Jackson, HCA, Tenet, Baptist and others. HCA is not proposing this project because any of the existing hospitals in the area do not provide good quality care. HCA is currently building an FSED on the DMC site that will open regardless of whether the DMC hospital is approved. Mr. Joseph acknowledged that there is a trend toward outpatient rather than inpatient care. Inpatient occupancy of acute care hospitals in Miami-Dade County has been declining in recent years. Managed care has added further pressure on reducing inpatient admissions. Surgical advances have also resulted in fewer inpatient admissions. Surgeries that formerly required an inpatient stay are now often done on an outpatient basis. Mr. Joseph agreed that 30 minutes is a reasonable travel time to access an acute care hospital. The home zip code for the proposed DMC hospital is 33178. KRMC’s market share for that zip code is 20%. Individuals in that zip code are currently accessing a wide variety of hospitals. PGH is only 6.7 miles away and has the fourth highest market share in that zip code. HCA’s healthcare planning expert, Dan Sullivan, acknowledged that, if approved, DMC would likely have an adverse financial impact on KRMC and other area hospitals. Several witnesses testified that the travel time from the DMC site to KRMC is about 10 minutes, and that an ambulance could do it in as little as five minutes. As to the argument that the residents of Doral face geographic access barriers, the evidence did not indicate that there is anything unique about Doral from a traffic standpoint compared to other parts of Miami-Dade County. People come in and out of Doral on a daily basis in significant numbers for work and other reasons via various access points. Witnesses agreed that 25 to 30 minutes is a reasonable drive time for non-tertiary acute care services, and the evidence showed that residents of Doral, and the DMC service area, are well within 30 minutes of multiple hospitals providing more intensive services than are proposed by DMC. Indeed, many residents of DMC’s service area are closer to other hospitals than to the DMC site. None of the DMC witnesses were able to identify any patient in Doral who had been unable to access acute care services, or had suffered a bad outcome because of travel from Doral to an area hospital. The evidence did not establish that there currently exists either geographic or financial access barriers within the service area proposed to be served by DMC. Jackson West As in its Batch One application, JW advances six arguments as to why its proposed hospital should be approved. They are: It will serve a significant amount of indigent and Medicaid patients. JHS already serves residents of the proposed service area, which JW characterizes as “fragmented,” in that residents go to a number of different hospitals to receive services. Development of the freestanding ED and ambulatory center is under way. JW would provide an additional opportunity to partner with UM and FIU. There is physician and community support for the project. JW will add to the financial viability of JHS and its ability to continue its mission. JW presented very little analysis of the types of factors typically considered in evaluating need for a new hospital. JW did not discuss existing providers and their programs and services, the utilization of existing hospitals, and whether they have excess capacity, or other important considerations. Instead, JW advanced the six arguments noted above, for approval of its proposed hospital, none of which truly relate to the issue of need. First, JW states that its proposed hospital will serve a significant level of Medicaid and indigent patients. While it is true that JHS serves a significant amount of Medicaid and indigent patients, there are a number of reasons why this is not a basis to approve its proposed hospital. As an initial matter, JW treads a fine line in touting its service to Medicaid and indigent patients, while also targeting Doral for its better payer mix and financial benefit to JHS. JHS also receives an enormous amount of tax dollars to provide care to indigent and underserved patients. While other hospitals in Miami-Dade County provide care to such patients, they do not receive taxpayer dollars, as does JHS, although they pay taxes, unlike JHS. Also, Medicaid is a good payer for JHS. With its substantial supplement, JHS actually makes money from Medicaid patients, and it costs the system more for a Medicaid patient to be treated at a JHS hospital than elsewhere. More significantly, there is not a large Medicaid or indigent population in Doral, nor evidence of financial access issues in Doral. Second, JW argues that its CON application should be approved because JHS already serves patients from the Doral area, which JW characterizes as “fragmented” because area residents go to several different hospitals for care. This so- called “fragmentation” is not unique to Doral, and is not unusual in a densely-populated urban market with several existing hospitals. The same phenomenon occurs in other areas of Miami-Dade County, some of which actually have a hospital in the localized area. The fact that Doral residents are accessing several different hospitals demonstrates that there are a number of existing providers that are accessible to them. As discussed in greater detail below, residents of the Doral area have choices in every direction (other than to the west, which is the Everglades). JHS itself already serves patients from the Doral area. If anything, this tells us that patients from Doral currently have access to the JHS hospitals. Third, JW argues that its CON application should be approved because development of the JW campus is under way. This is irrelevant to the determination of need, and is simply a statement of JHS’s intent to build an FSED and outpatient facilities on a piece of land that was acquired for that purpose, regardless of CON approval. Fourth, JW argues for approval of its proposed hospital because it would provide an additional opportunity to partner with UM and Florida International University (FIU). However, the statutory criteria no longer addresses research and teaching concerns, and JHS’s relationship with UM or FIU has no bearing on whether there is a need for a new hospital in the Doral area. Moreover, JW did not present any evidence of how it would partner with UM or FIU at JW, and there does not seem to be any set plans in this regard. Fifth, JW claims that there is physician and community support for its proposed hospital, but it is very common for CON applicants to obtain letters in support for applications. Indeed, the DMC application was also accompanied by letters of support. Sixth and finally, JW argues that its proposed hospital will add to the financial viability of HSA and allow it to continue its mission. However, JW provided no analysis of the projected financial performance of its proposed hospital to substantiate this. The only financial analysis in the record is from KSA, a consulting firm that JHS hired to analyze the programs and services to be developed at JW. The KSA analysis posits that the JW FSED project will lose millions of dollars and not achieve break-even unless there is an inpatient hospital co-located there so that JW can take advantage of the more lucrative hospital-based billing and reimbursement. The sixth “need” argument relates to the issue of JHS’s historical financial struggles, which bear discussion. Only a handful of years ago, the entire JHS was in dire financial trouble, so much so that selling all or parts of it was considered. Days cash-on-hand was in the single digits, and JHS fell out of compliance with bond covenants. JHS’s financial difficulties prompted the appointment of an outside monitor to oversee JHS’s finances. Price Waterhouse served in that role, and made several recommendations for JHS to improve its revenue cycle, make accounting adjustments, and improve its staffing and efficiency. As a result of these recommendations, JHS went through a large reduction in force, and began to more closely screen the income and residency of its patients. As a result of these measures, overall financial performance has since improved. Despite its improved financial position, JHS still consistently loses money on operations, including a $362,000,915 loss as of June 30, 2018. JHS clearly depends upon the hundreds of millions of non-operating tax-based revenues it receives annually. JHS’s CEO expressed concerns over decreases in the system’s non-operating revenue sources, and claimed that JHS needs to find ways to increase its operating revenue to offset this. JW is being proposed as part of this strategy. However, JHS’s chief financial officer testified that “the non-operating revenues are a fairly stable source of income.” In fact, JHS’s tax revenues have gone up in the last few years. JHS sees the more affluent Doral area as a source of better paying patients that will enhance the profitability of its new hospital. Beyond this aspiration however, there is no meaningful analysis of the anticipated financial performance of its proposed hospital. This is a glaring omission given that a significant impetus for spending millions of public dollars on a new hospital is to improve JHS’s overall financial position. The KSA analysis referenced above determined that changes to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System rule would result in the JW campus losing hundreds of millions of dollars and never reaching “break even,” absent an inpatient hospital on the campus for “hospital based” billing and reimbursement. Though a financial benefit to the system, the increased reimbursement JHS would receive by having an inpatient hospital on the JW campus would be a financial burden on the healthcare delivery system since it would cost more for the same patient to receive the same outpatient services in a hospital- based facility. Reports by KSA also state that a strategic purpose of JW is to attract patients that would otherwise go to nearby facilities like PGH and Hialeah, and to capture tertiary or higher complexity cases which would then be sent to JMH. JW’s witnesses and healthcare planning experts fully expect this to happen. In 2015, and again in 2017, JHS conducted a “Community Health Needs Assessment,” which is required by law to be performed by public safety net hospitals. The assessments were conducted by gathering responses to various questions from a wide array of community leaders and stakeholders, including the CEOs of JHS’s hospitals, about the healthcare needs of the community. The final Community Health Needs Assessment documents are lengthy and cover a variety of health-related topics, but most notable for this case is that: (1) nowhere in either the 2015 or 2017 assessment is the development of a new hospital recommended; and (2) expansion into western Miami-Dade County scored by far the lowest on a list of priorities for JHS. In its application and at hearing, JW took the position that JW can enter the Doral area market without impacting existing providers to any meaningful extent. While JW acknowledges that its proposed hospital would impact the Tenet Hospitals, it argues that the impact is not significant. The evidence established that the financial impact to the Tenet Hospitals (calculated based upon lost contribution margin) would total roughly $3 million for lost inpatients, and $5.2 million including lost outpatients. While these losses will not put the Tenet Hospitals in financial peril, they are nonetheless significant and material. The Existing Healthcare Delivery System Miami-Dade County is home to 18 freestanding acute care hospitals, comprising a total of 7,585 licensed and approved acute care beds. With an average annual occupancy of 53.8% in calendar year 2017, there were, on average, approximately 3,500 unoccupied acute care beds in the county on any given day. While the countywide occupancy rate fluctuates from year to year, it has been on a downward trend in the past several years. As pointed out by several witnesses, the lack of a hospital in Doral is not itself an indication of need. In addition, population growth, and the demands of the population for inpatient hospital beds, cannot be considered in a vacuum. Sound healthcare planning requires an analysis of existing area hospitals, including the services they offer and their respective locations; how area residents travel to existing hospitals and any barriers to access; the utilization of existing hospitals and amount of capacity they have; and other factors which may be relevant in a given case. The population of Doral currently is only about 59,000 people. It is not as densely populated as many areas of Miami-Dade County, has a number of golf course communities, and is generally a more affluent area with a higher average household income than much of Miami-Dade County. As set forth in JW’s CON application, the better payer mix in Doral was a significant factor behind its decision to file its CON application. Although there is not a hospital within the Doral city limits, there are a number of healthcare providers in Doral and several hospitals nearby. PGH and Palm Springs Hospital are just north of Doral. KRMC is just south of Doral. Hialeah is northeast of Doral. CGH, Westchester General, and NCH are southeast of Doral. JMH and all of its facilities are east of Doral. And there are others within reasonable distance. KRMC is only six miles due south of the proposed DMC site, and PGH is just eight miles north of the DMC site. As to the JW site, PGH is 6.9 miles distant, CGH is 8.6 miles distant, and Hialeah is 7.4 miles distant. Residents of the Doral area have many choices in hospitals with a wide array of services, and they are accessing them. The parties to this case, as well as other existing hospitals, all have a share of the Doral area market. JW calls this “fragmentation” of the market and casts it in a negative light, but the evidence showed this to be a normal phenomenon in an urban area like Miami, with several hospitals in healthy competition with each other. Among the experts testifying at the hearing, it was undisputed that inpatient acute care hospital use rates are on the decline. There are different reasons for this, but it was uniformly recognized that decreasing use rates for inpatient services, and a shift toward outpatient services, are ongoing trends in the market. Recognizing the need for outpatient services in the Doral area, both JW and DMC (or, more accurately, their related entities) have proposed outpatient facilities and services to be located in Doral. Kendall Regional Medical Center KRMC is currently the dominant hospital provider in the Doral area. Regarding his motivation for filing the DMC application, Mr. Joseph readily admitted “it’s as much about protecting what I already currently provide, number one.” KRMC treats Medicaid and indigent patients. KRMC has never turned away a patient because it did not have a contract with a Medicaid-managed care company. The CEO agreed that there is no access problem for Medicaid or charity patients justifying a new hospital. It was argued that KRMC is crowded, and the DMC hospital would help “decompress” KRMC, but the evidence showed that KRMC has a number of licensed beds that are not being used for inpatients. In addition, its ED has never gone on diversion, and no patient has ever been turned away due to the lack of a bed. Moreover, the census at KRMC has been declining. It had 25,324 inpatient admissions in 2015, 24,649 admissions in 2016, and 23,301 in 2017. The most recent data available at the time of hearing reflected that KRMC has been running at a little less than 75% occupancy, before its planned bed additions. KRMC is between an eight to 10 minute drive from Doral, and currently has the largest market share within the applicants’ defined service areas. KRMC is readily available and accessible to the residents of Doral. KRMC currently has a $90 million dollar expansion project under way. It involves adding beds and two new floors to the West Tower--a new fifth floor which will add 24 ICU beds and 24 step-down beds, and a new sixth floor which will house the relocated pediatric unit and 12 new medical-surgical beds. KRMC is also adding a new nine-story, 765 parking space garage and other ancillary space. This expansion will reduce the occupancy rate of KRMC’s inpatient units, and in particular its ICUs. These bed additions, in conjunction with increasing emphasis on outpatient services and the resultant declining inpatient admissions, will alleviate any historical capacity constraints KRMC may have had. There are also a number of ways KRMC could be further expanded in the future if needed. The West Tower is designed so it could accommodate a seventh floor, and the East Tower is also designed so that an additional floor could also be added to it. In addition, KRMC recently completed construction of a new OR area that is built on pillars. The new construction includes a third floor of shelled-in space that could house an additional 12 acute care beds. Moreover, this new OR tower was designed to go up an additional two to three floors beyond the existing shelled-in third floor. It is clear that KRMC has implemented reasonable strategies for addressing any bed capacity issues it may have experienced in the past. Decompression of KRMC is not a reason to approve DMC. Palmetto General Hospital Evidence regarding PGH was provided by its CEO Ana Mederos. Ms. Mederos is a registered nurse and has lived in Miami-Dade County for many years. She has a master of business education from Nova University and has worked in several different hospitals in the county. Specifically, she was the chief operating officer (COO) at Cedars Medical Center, the CEO at North Shore Medical Center, the CEO at Hialeah Hospital, and has been the CEO at PGH since August of 2006. Ms. Mederos is one of the few witnesses that actually lives in Doral. She travels in and out of the area on a daily basis. Her average commute is only about 15 minutes, and she has multiple convenient options in and out of Doral. PGH is located just off the Palmetto Expressway at 68th Street. It opened in the early 1970s and has 368 licensed beds, including 52 ICU beds. The hospital employs about 1,800 people and has over 600 physicians on its medical staff. PGH’s occupancy has declined from 79.8% in 2015 to 64% in 2016, and even further to 56.7% in 2017. There are many reasons for this decline, including pressure from managed care organizations, the continued increase in the use of outpatient procedures, improvements in technology, and increased competition in the Miami-Dade County market. Ms. Mederos expects that inpatient demand will continue to decline into the foreseeable future. PGH recently activated 31 observation beds to help improve throughput and better accommodate the increasing number of observation patients. PGH offers high-quality care and uses various metrics and indicators to measure and monitor what is going on in the hospital. The hospital has also been recognized with numerous awards. Through its parent, Tenet, PGH has contracts with just about every insurance and managed care company that serves the community. The hospital treats Medicaid and indigent patients. PGH’s Medicaid rate of $3,580 per patient is significantly lower than the rate paid to JMH. PGH has an office dedicated to helping patients get qualified for Medicaid or other financial resources, which not only helps the hospital get paid for its services, it also assists patients and families to make sure that they have benefits on an ongoing basis. Roughly 9-10% of PGH’s patients annually are completely unfunded. PGH only transfers patients if there is a need for a service not provided at the hospital, or upon the patient’s request. PGH does not transfer patients just because they cannot pay. PGH pays physicians to take calls in the ED which also obligates those physicians to provide care to patients that are seen at the hospital. PGH is a for-profit hospital that pays income taxes and property taxes, and does not receive any taxpayer subsidies like those received by JHS. Ms. Mederos reviewed the applications of JW and DMC, and articulated a number of reasons why, in her opinion, neither application should be approved. She sees no delays in providing care to anyone in the area, as there are hospitals serving Doral in every direction. There are a multitude of FSEDs available and additional FSEDs are being built in Doral by both applicants. There is another FSED being built close to PGH by Mount Sinai Medical Center. NCH has also opened an FSED that has negatively affected the volume of pediatric patients seen at PGH. There are also multiple urgent care centers. It was Ms. Mederos’ firm belief that persons living in Doral have reasonable geographic access to both inpatient and outpatient medical services. Ms. Mederos’ testimony in this regard is credited. There are no programs or services being proposed by either applicant that are not already available in the area. Ms. Mederos also noted that there is currently no problem with access to OB services in the area. However, she has a particular concern in that both applicants propose to offer OB services, but neither is proposing to offer NICU services. The evidence showed that most all of the hospitals that provide OB services to the Doral area offer at least Level II and some Level III NICU services. Thus, in terms of OB care, both proposed hospitals would be a step below what has developed as the standard of care for OB patients in the county. Ms. Mederos acknowledged that PGH does not have a huge market share in the zip codes that the applicants are proposing to serve, but that does not mean that the impact from either would not be real and significant. If a hospital is built by either applicant, it will need physicians, with some specialists in short supply. There are tremendous shortages in certain medical fields, such as orthopedics and neurology. In addition, there will be additional competition for nurses and other staff, which will increase the cost of healthcare. The loss of $1.3 to $2 million in contribution margin, as projected by Tenet’s healthcare planner, is a negative impact on PGH as hospital margins become thinner, and those numbers do not include costs like those needed to recruit and retain staff. PGH is again experiencing a nursing shortage, and losing nurses, incurring the higher cost for contract labor, paying overtime, and essentially not having the staff to provide the required services is a serious potential adverse impact from either proposed new hospital. JHS also tends to provide more lucrative benefits than PGH, and a nearby JW hospital is a threat in that regard. As a final note, Ms. Mederos stated that her conviction that there is no need for either proposed hospital in Doral is even more resolute than when she testified in the Batch One Case. With continued declines in admissions, length of stay and patient days, the development of more services for the residents of Doral, the shortages of doctors and nurses, the ever increasing role of managed care that depresses the demand for inpatient hospital services and other factors, she persuasively explained why no new hospitals are needed in the Doral area. Coral Gables Hospital (CGH) Maria Cristina Jimenez testified on behalf of CGH, where she has worked in a variety of different capacities since 1985. She was promoted to CEO in March 2017. She has lived in Miami her entire life. Ms. Jimenez has been involved in initiatives to make her hospital more efficient. She is supportive of efforts to reduce inpatient hospitalizations and length of stay, as this is what is best for patients. Overall, the hospital length of stay is dropping, which adds to the decreasing demand for inpatient services. CGH is accredited by the Joint Commission, has received multiple awards, and provides high-quality care to its patients. It also has contracts with a broad array of managed care companies as do the other Tenet hospitals. CGH treats Medicaid patients, and its total Medicaid rate is less than $3,500 per inpatient. The hospital has a program similar to PGH to help patients get qualified for Medicaid and other resources. CGH also provides services to indigent patients, and self-pay/charity is about 6% of the hospital’s total admissions. The hospital does not transfer patients just because they are indigent. Physicians are compensated to provide care in the emergency room and are expected to continue with that care if the patients are admitted to the hospital, even if they do not have financial resources. CGH also pays income and property taxes, but does not receive any taxpayer support. CGH generally serves the Little Havana, Flagami, Miami, and Coral Gables communities, and its service area overlaps with those of the applicants. In order to better serve its patients and to help it compete in the highly competitive Miami-Dade County marketplace, CGH is developing a freestanding ED at the corner of Bird Road and Southwest 87th Avenue, which is scheduled to open in January 2020. This will provide another resource for patients in the proposed service areas. Ms. Jimenez had reviewed the CON applications at issue in this case. She does not believe that either hospital should be approved because it will drain resources from CGH, not only from a financial standpoint, but also physician and nurse staffing. CGH experiences physician shortages. Urologists are in short supply, as are gastrointestinal physicians that perform certain procedures. Hematology, oncology, and endocrinology are also specialty areas with shortages. The addition of another hospital will exacerbate those shortages at CGH. While CGH does not have a large market share in the proposed PSA of either applicant, anticipated impact from approval of either is real and substantial. A contribution margin loss of $1.2 to $2.2 million per year, as projected by Tenet’s healthcare planner, would be significant. The drain on resources, including staff and physicians, is also of significant concern. Hialeah Hospital Dr. Jorge Perez testified on behalf of Hialeah. Dr. Perez is a pathologist and medical director of laboratory at the hospital. More significantly, Dr. Perez has been on the hospital’s staff since 2001 and has served in multiple leadership roles, including chair of the Performance Improvement Council, chief of staff; and since 2015, chair of the Hialeah Hospital Governing Board. Hialeah offers obstetrics services and a Level II NICU with 12 beds. Approximately 1,400 babies a year are born there. Hialeah’s occupancy has been essentially flat for the past three years, at below 40%, and it clearly has ample excess capacity. On an average day, over 200 of Hialeah’s beds are unoccupied. Like other hospitals in the county, Hialeah has a number of competitors. The growth of managed care has affected the demand for inpatient beds and services at Hialeah. Hialeah treats Medicaid and indigent patients. Approximately 15% of Hialeah’s admissions are unfunded. As with its sister Tenet hospitals, Hialeah is a for- profit hospital that pays taxes and does not receive tax dollars for providing care to the indigent. Dr. Perez succinctly and persuasively identified a variety of reasons why no new hospital is needed in Doral. First and foremost, there is plenty of capacity at the existing hospitals in the area, including Hialeah. Second, both inpatient admissions and length of stay continue trending downward. Care continues to shift toward outpatient services, thereby reducing the demand for inpatient care. According to Dr. Perez, if a new hospital is approved in Doral it will bring with it adverse impacts on existing hospitals, including Hialeah. A new hospital in Doral will attract patients, some of which would have otherwise gone to Hialeah. Moreover, Doral has more insured patients, meaning the patients that would be lost would be good payors. There would also be a significant risk of loss of staff to a new hospital. Dr. Perez’s testimony in this regard is credible. Statutory and Rule Review Criteria In 2008, the Florida Legislature streamlined the review criteria applicable for evaluating new hospital applications. Mem’l Healthcare Grp. v. AHCA, Case No. 12- 0429CON, RO at 32 (Fla. DOAH Dec. 7, 2012). The criteria specifically eliminated included quality of care, availability of resources, financial feasibility, and the costs and methods of proposed construction. Lee Mem’l Health System v. AHCA, Case No. 13-2508CON, RO at 135 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 28, 2014). The remaining criteria applicable to new hospital projects are set forth at section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes. Section 408.035(1)(a): The need for the healthcare facilities and health services being proposed. Generally, CON applicants are responsible for demonstrating need for new acute care hospitals, typically in the context of a numeric need methodology adopted by AHCA. However, AHCA has not promulgated a numeric need methodology to calculate need for new hospital facilities. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e) provides that if no agency need methodology exists, the applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology, which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory and rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict, or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Both applicants propose to build small community hospitals providing basic acute care and OB services in the Doral area of western Miami-Dade County. Both applicants point to the increasing population and the lack of an acute care hospital in Doral as evidence of need for a hospital. The DMC application focuses largely on geographic access concerns, while the JW application is premised upon six arguments as to why JHS contends its proposed JW hospital should be approved. The lack of a hospital in Doral is not itself an indication of need.3/ In addition, population growth, and the demands of the population for inpatient hospital beds, cannot be considered in a vacuum. Sound healthcare planning requires an analysis of existing area hospitals, including the services they offer and their respective locations; how area residents travel to existing hospitals, and any barriers to access; the utilization of existing hospitals and amount of capacity they have; and other factors which may be relevant in a given case. Doral is in the west/northwest part of Miami-Dade County, in between the Miami International Airport (to the east) and the Everglades (to the west). It is surrounded by major roadways, with US Highway 27/Okeechobee Road running diagonally to the north, US Highway 836/Dolphin Expressway running along its southern edge, US Highway 826/Palmetto Expressway running north-south to the east, and the Florida Turnpike running north- south along the western edge of Doral. To the west of the Turnpike is the Everglades, where there is minimal population and very limited development possible in the future. The City of Doral itself has an area of about 15 square miles, and is only two or three times the size of the Miami International Airport, which sits just east of Doral. Much of Doral is commercial and industrial, with the largest concentration of residential areas being in the northwest part of the city. While there is unquestionably residential growth in Doral, the population of Doral is currently only about 59,000 people. Doral is not as densely populated as many areas of Miami-Dade County, has a number of golf course communities, and is generally a more affluent area with a higher average household income than much of Miami-Dade County. JW proposes to locate its hospital on the eastern side of Doral, just west of Miami International Airport, while the DMC site is on the western side of Doral, just east of the Everglades. JW’s site is located in an industrial area with few residents, while the DMC site is located in an area where future growth is likely to be limited. Both sites have downsides for development of a hospital, with both applicants spending considerable time at hearing pointing out the flaws of each other’s chosen location. Both applicants define their service areas to include the City of Doral, but also areas outside of Doral. Notably, the entire DMC service area is contained within KRMC’s existing service area, with the exception of one small area. While the population of Doral itself is only 59,000 people, there are more concentrated populations in areas outside of Doral (except to the west). However, the people in these areas are closer to existing hospitals like PGH, Hialeah, KRMC, and others. For the population inside Doral, there are several major roadways in and out of Doral, and area residents can access several existing hospitals with plenty of capacity within a 20-minute drive time, many closer than that. It was undisputed that inpatient acute care hospital use rates continue to decline. There are different reasons for this, but it was uniformly recognized that decreasing inpatient use rates, and a shift toward outpatient services, are ongoing trends in the market. These trends existed at the time of the Batch One Case. As observed by Tenet’s healthcare planner at hearing: “The occupancy is lower today than it was two years ago, the use rates are lower, and the actual utilization is lower.” Both applicants failed to establish a compelling case of need. While there is growth in the Doral area, it remains a relatively small population, and there was no evidence of community needs being unmet. Sound healthcare planning, and the statutory criteria, require consideration of existing hospitals, their availability, accessibility, and extent of utilization. These considerations weigh heavily against approval of either CON application, even more so than in the prior case. Section 408.035(1)(b): The availability, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing healthcare facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant; and Section 408.035(1)(e): The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to healthcare for residents of the service district. As stated above, there are several existing hospitals in close proximity to Doral. Thus, the question is whether they are accessible and have capacity to serve the needs of patients from the Doral area. The evidence overwhelmingly answers these questions in the affirmative. Geographic access was a focal point of the DMC application, which argued that there are various barriers to access in and around Doral, such as a canal that runs parallel to US Highway 27/Okeechobee Road, train tracks and a rail yard, industrial plants, and the airport. While the presence of these things is undeniable, as is the fact that there is traffic in Miami, based upon the evidence presented, they do not present the barriers that DMC alleges. Rather, the evidence was undisputed that numerous hospitals are accessible within 20 minutes of the proposed hospital sites, and some within 10 to 15 minutes. All of Doral is within 30 minutes of multiple hospitals. These are reasonable travel times and are not indicative of a geographic access problem, regardless of any alleged “barriers.” In addition, existing hospitals clearly have the capacity to serve the Doral community, and they are doing so. Without question, there is excess capacity in the Miami-Dade County market. With approximately 7,500 hospital beds in the county running at an average occupancy just over 50%, there are around 3,500 beds available at any given time. Focusing on the hospitals closest to Doral (those accessible within 20 minutes), there are hundreds of beds that are available and accessible from the proposed service areas of the applicants. KRMC is particularly noteworthy because of its proximity to, and market share in, the Doral area. The most recent utilization and occupancy data for KRMC indicate that it has, on average, 100 vacant beds. This is more than the entire 80-bed hospital proposed in the DMC application (for a service area that is already served and subsumed by KRMC). Moreover, KRMC is expanding, and will soon have even more capacity at its location less than a 10-minute drive from the DMC site. From a programmatic standpoint, neither applicant is proposing any programs or services that are not already available at numerous existing hospitals, and, in fact, both would offer fewer programs and services than other area hospitals. As such, patients in need of tertiary or specialized services will still have to travel to other hospitals like PGH, KRMC, or JMH. Alternatively, if they present to a small hospital in Doral in need of specialized services, they will then have to be transferred to an appropriate hospital that can treat them. The same would be true for babies born at either DMC or JW in need of a NICU. Similarly, there are bypass protocols for EMS to take cardiac, stroke, and trauma patients to the closest hospital equipped to treat them, even if it means bypassing other hospitals not so equipped, like JW and DMC. Less acute patients can be transported to the closest ED. And since both applicants are building FSEDs in Doral, there will be ample access to emergency services for residents of Doral. This criterion does not weigh in favor of approval of either hospital. To the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly established that existing hospitals are available and accessible to Doral area residents. Section 408.035(1)(e), (g) and (i): The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to healthcare, the extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness, and the applicant’s past and proposed provision of healthcare services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. It goes without saying that any new hospital is going to enhance access to the people closest to its location; but as explained above, there is no evidence of an access problem, or any pressing need for enhanced access to acute care hospital services. Rather, the evidence showed that Doral area residents are within very reasonable travel times to existing hospitals, most of which have far more extensive programs and services than either applicant is proposing to offer. Indeed, the proposed DMC service area is contained within KRMC’s existing service area, and KRMC is only 10 minutes from the DMC site. Neither applicant would enhance access to tertiary or specialized services, and patients in need of those services will still have to travel to other hospitals, or worse, be transferred after presenting to a Doral hospital with more limited programs and services. Although it was not shown to be an issue, access to emergency services is going to be enhanced by the FSEDs being built by both applicants. Thus, to the extent that a new hospital would enhance access, it would be only for non-emergent patients in need of basic, non-tertiary level care. Existing hospitals are available and easily accessible to these patients. In addition, healthy competition exists between several existing providers serving the Doral area market. That healthy competition would be substantially eroded by approval of the DMC application, as HCA would likely capture a dominant share of the market. While approval of the JW application might not create a dominant market share for one provider, it would certainly not promote cost-effectiveness given the fact that it costs the system more for the same patient to receive services at a JHS hospital than other facilities. Indeed, approval of JW’s application would mean that the JW campus will have the more expensive hospital-based billing rates. Florida Medicaid diagnosis related group (DRG) payment comparisons among hospitals are relevant because both DMC and JW propose that at least 22% of their patients will be Medicaid patients. Data from the 2017-18 DRG calculator provided by the Medicaid program office was used to compare JHS to the three Tenet hospitals, KRMC, and Aventura Hospital, another EFD hospital in Miami-Dade County. The data shows that JHS receives the highest Medicaid rate enhancement per discharge for the same Medicaid patients ($2,820.06) among these six hospitals in the county. KRMC receives a modest enhancement of $147.27. Comparison of Medicaid Managed Care Reimbursement over the period of fiscal years 2014-2016 show that JHS receives substantially more Medicaid reimbursement per adjusted patient day than any of the hospitals in this proceeding, with the other hospitals receiving between one-third and one-half of JHS reimbursement. In contrast, among all of these hospitals, KRMC had the lowest rate for each of the three years covered by the data, which means KRMC (and by extension DMC) would cost the Medicaid program substantially less money for care of Medicaid patients. Under the new prospective payment system instituted by the State of Florida for Medicaid reimbursement of acute care hospital providers, for service between July 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019, JHS is the beneficiary of an automatic rate enhancement of more than $8 million. In contrast, KRMC’s rate enhancement is only between $16,000 and $17,000. Thus, it will cost the Medicaid program substantially more to treat a patient using the same services at JW than at DMC. Furthermore, rather than enhance the financial viability of the JHS system, the evidence indicates that the JW proposal will be a financial drain on the JHS system. Finally, JHS’s past and proposed provision of care to Medicaid and indigent patients is noteworthy, but not a reason to approve its proposed hospital. JW is proposing this hospital to penetrate a more affluent market, not an indigent or underserved area, and it proposes to provide Medicaid and indigent care at a level that is consistent with the existing hospitals. JHS also receives the highest Low Income Pool (LIP) payments per charity care of any system in the state, and is one of only a handful of hospital systems that made money after receipt of the LIP payments. HCA-affiliated hospitals, by comparison, incur the second greatest cost in the state for charity care taking LIP payments into consideration. Analysis of standardized net revenues per adjusted admission (NRAA) among Miami-Dade County acute care hospitals, a group of 16 hospitals, shows JHS to be either the second or the third highest hospital in terms of NRAA. KRMC, in contrast, part of the EFD/HCA hospitals, is about 3% below the average of the 16 hospitals for NRAA. DMC’s analysis of standardized NRAA using data from 2014, 2015, and 2016, among acute care hospitals receiving local government tax revenues, shows JHS receives more net revenue than any of the other hospitals in this grouping. Using data from FY 2014 to FY 2016, DMC compared hospital costs among the four existing providers that are parties to this proceeding and JMH as a representative of JHS. Standardizing for case mix, fiscal year end, and location, an analysis of costs per adjusted admission shows that the hospitals other than JMH have an average cost of between a half and a third of JMH’s average cost. The same type of analysis of costs among a peer group of eight statutory teaching hospitals shows JHS’s costs to be the highest. It should also be noted that if JW were to fail or experience significant losses from operations, the taxpayers of Miami-Dade County will be at risk. In contrast, if DMC were to fail financially, EFD/HCA will shoulder the losses. When the two applications are evaluated in the context of the above criteria, the greater weight of the evidence does not mitigate in favor of approval of either. However, should AHCA decide to approve one of the applicants in its final order, preference should be given to DMC because of its lower costs per admission for all categories of payors, and in particular, the lower cost to the Florida Medicaid Program. In addition, the risk of financial failure would fall upon EFD/HCA, rather than the taxpayers of Miami-Dade County. Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e): Need considerations. Many of the considerations enumerated in rule 59C- 1.008(2)(e) overlap with the statutory criteria, but there are certain notable trends and market conditions that warrant mention. Specifically, while the population of Doral is growing, it remains relatively small, and does not itself justify a new hospital. And while there are some more densely populated areas outside of the city of Doral, they are much closer to existing hospitals having robust services and excess capacity. Doral is a more affluent area, and there was no evidence of any financial or cultural access issues supporting approval of either CON application. The availability, utilization, and quality of existing hospitals are clearly not issues, as there are several existing hospitals with plenty of capacity accessible to Doral area residents. In terms of medical treatment trends, it was undisputed that use rates for inpatient hospital services continue trending downward, and that trend is expected to continue. Concomitantly, there is a marked shift toward outpatient services in Miami-Dade County and elsewhere. Finally, both applicants are proposing to provide OB services without a NICU, which is below the standard in the market. While not required for the provision of obstetrics, NICU backup is clearly the most desirable and best practice. For the foregoing reasons, the considerations in rule 59C-1.008(2)(e) do not weigh in favor of approval of either hospital.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Healthcare Administration enter a final order denying East Florida-DMC, Inc.’s CON Application No. 10432 and denying The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County, Florida, d/b/a Jackson Hospital West’s CON Application No. 10433. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2019.
The Issue BAMI and VENICE filed competing applications for a certificate of need to construct a 100-bed acute care hospital in Englewood, Florida. The sole issue is which application should be granted, and which should be denied.
Findings Of Fact DHRS is the state agency empowered to review, issue, deny, and revoke certificates of need for health care projects. 381.494(8), Fla. Stat. (1981). In January, 1982, VENICE and BAMI separately applied to DHRS for a certificate of need to construct a 100-bed acute care hospital in Englewood, Florida. When the applications were filed, Florida law required the appropriate health systems agency to initially review applications for certificates of need. On March 10, 1982, the Project Review Committee of the South Central Florida Health Systems Council, Inc.--the appropriate health systems agency--considered the competing applications, then voted to approve the proposal submitted by VENICE, and deny the proposals submitted by BAMI and a third applicant (not involved in this proceeding). On March 27, 1982, the Board of Directors of the South Central Florida Health Systems Council, Inc. disagreed with the Project Review Committee's recommendation and voted to recommend (to DHRS) approval of the BAMI proposal and disapproval of the VENICE proposal. DHRS then independently reviewed the two competing applications. On April 30, 1982, it issued a (free-form) certificate of need to BAMI to construct a 75,000 square foot, 100-bed acute care hospital in Englewood. Conversely, it denied VENICE's application, asserting: (1) that the interest and depreciation expense per projected patient day for the first two years of operation of the BAMI proposal was less than that projected for the VENICE proposal; (2) that the estimated labor and materials cost per square foot for the BAMI proposal was lower than the amount estimated for the VENICE proposal; (3) and that the provision for 30 semiprivate rooms in the BAMI proposal offered patients an alternative unavailable in the all-private room hospital proposed by VENICE. VENICE thereafter requested a formal hearing to contest DHRS's action, which request resulted in this proceeding. Bami BAMI seeks a certificate of need to construct a new 100-bed acute care hospital in Englewood, Florida, to be known as Englewood Community Hospital. BAMI proposes to relocate and merge its existing Englewood Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center into the proposed Englewood Community Hospital. The service area for the BAMI proposal includes the following communities in Sarasota, Charlotte, and Lee counties: Englewood, North Port, Warm Mineral Springs, El Jobean, Grove City, Rotunda West, Placida, Cape Haze, and Boca Grande. The proposed hospital contains 92 medical/surgical beds and 8 intensive care unit (ICU) beds. The 92 medical/surgical beds contain a mix of 32 private be and 60 semiprivate beds. The hospital will provide ambulatory surgical services, diagnostic and special procedures, radiology services, nuclear medicine, ultrasonography, cardio-pulmonary, emergency room, and clinical laboratory services. The following services would be shared with its affiliate, Fawcett memorial Hospital in Port St. Charlotte, Florida: business office, medical records, data processing, materials management, personnel, education, public relations, administration, dietary, bio-medical engineering, laboratory, sterile processing, vascular laboratory, and occupational therapy. The proposed hospital will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of BAMI, and will have its own board of directors, board of trustees, and medical staff. BAMI is an experienced health care provider. Its principals have been in the health care business since 1964, and have built and operated 25 health care facilities in the mid-western United States. BAMI owns and operates several health care facilities in Florida: the 400-bed Fort Myers Community Hospital in Fort Myers, Florida; the 254-bed Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte, Florida; the 120-bed Kissimmee Memorial Hospital in Kissimmee, Florida; the Englewood Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center in Englewood, Florida; the Ambulatory Surgical Center in Tampa, Florida; and the Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center in Bonita Springs, Florida. BAMI also owns two smaller hospitals, one in Georgia and the other in Alabama. It is experienced in building and opening new hospitals, having built both the Fort Myers Community Hospital and the Kissimmee Memorial Hospital. It also expanded Fawcett Memorial Hospital from 96 beds to 254 beds. BAMI has financial assets of approximately $63,842,400 and a net worth exceeding $13.5 million. Venice VENICE seeks a certificate of need to construct a 100-bed satellite acute care hospital in Englewood, to be known as the Englewood-North Port Hospital. The service area for this proposed hospital consists of Englewood, North Port, Rotunda West, Placida, Warm Mineral Springs, Boca Grande, and Cape Haze. VENICE's proposed hospital contains 96 medical/surgical beds and four ICU beds. No semiprivate rooms will be available. All of the 96 medical/surgical beds will be placed in private rooms. The proposed satellite hospital will share the following services with VENICE's existing 300-bed "mother" hospital in Venice, Florida: specialized laboratory services, physical therapy, nuclear medicine, pulmonary functions, and specialized radiology services. For specialized and more sophisticated services, patients will be transported from the Englewood hospital to the larger hospital in Venice. The following support services will also be shared with the "mother" hospital: purchasing, bulk storage, laundry, dietary management, data processing, financial management, personnel recruitment, and educational services. In order to share these services, the existing Venice Hospital will be required to operate a transportation system. For many years, VENICE has owned and operated Venice Hospital, a fully licensed and accredited 300-bed general acute care hospital at 540 The Rialto, Venice, Florida. Venice neither owns nor operates any other hospital, although it has applied for a certificate of need to construct a 50-bed psychiatric hospital. The present management of Venice Hospital is inexperienced in the construction and opening of new hospitals. II. COSTS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION Construction costs for the competing BAMI and VENICE proposals are broken down into categories and depicted in the following table: COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTION COSTS CATEGORY BAMI VENICE Total Project Cost $13,355,000 $18,170,000 Total Project Per Bed Cost 135,500 181,700 Total Direct Construction Equipment Cost for and Fixed 11,670,190 13,874,516 Gross Square Feet 75,327 75,000 Construction Costs 155 173 Per Square Foot Number of Stories One Two Expansion Potential 100 additional 200 additional EQUIPMENT Movable 3,500,000 2,272,444 Bami Construction of the BAMI hospital can begin by September 1, 1983, and be completed by December 31, 1984. The new hospital can be opened by January 1, 1985. The BAMI hospital will be a one-story building, a design which is efficient for a hospital of this size. It will consist of a steel structure with curtain walls. The building is functional and economical, and can be expanded horizontally to 200 beds with minimum disruption to existing services and staff. The design of this hospital is similar to the 120-bed Kissimmee Memorial Hospital built by BAMI in 1979. BAMI's cost estimates are based on the actual costs of constructing the Kissimmee Memorial Hospital. BAMI proposes to construct the hospital by using an affiliate, F & E Community Developers of Florida, Inc. The use of an in-house contractor will allow BAMI to build the hospital in a short time period, at less cost and with higher quality. BAMI's proposal contains both active and passive energy conservation elements. The passive elements include overhangs, shaded glass, and movable windows. Active elements include the selection of quality equipment and a computerized control system for the electric reheat heating/ventilation/air conditioning ("HVAC") system. The architectural and construction plans for BAMI's proposed hospital are virtually complete. Schematic drawings were submitted and approved by DHRS in August, 1981. Preliminary plans have also been approved by DHRS. DHRS approval entailed a review of architectural, electrical, and mechanical preliminary drawings. Venice If the VENICE proposal is approved, construction could begin between April and July, 1984. The hospital could open for occupancy on January 1, 1986, a year later than BAMI's proposal. VENICE's architectural and construction plans are at an early stage, consisting only of a program summary and block design. Architectural, electrical, and mechanical preliminary drawings have not yet been submitted to DHRS and approved. The construction cost estimates submitted by VENICE are less reliable than those submitted by BAMI, since they were derived from less developed plans and were based on assumptions presented by persons who did not testify at hearing. VENICE's proposed hospital consists of a reinforced concrete structure with a modular precast concrete exterior. Although it will consist of two stories, the building will be stressed for the subsequent addition of two stories. When and if it is expanded to four stories, it would be a 300-bed hospital. The planned vertical expansion increases the initial cost of the building by approximately ten percent. Because of the extensive sharing of medical and support services between the proposed satellite hospital and the "mother" hospital in Venice, the ancillary medical and support facilities of the satellite have been down-sized. The VENICE proposal will also require horizontal expansion in the future. Areas such as radiology, laboratory, and emergency rooms will require immediate expansion as beds are added to the facility. It has not been shown at what point, in the planned expansion, VENICE's proposed hospital would become a free-standing hospital--when it would no longer be required to rely on its "mother" hospital in Venice. VENICE proposes an energy efficient facility. The multiple-story design minimizes site use and roof coverage. The relatively narrow wings provide for optimum use of daylight. VENICE contends that its HVAC system is more cost effective than the system proposed by BAMI. This contention is not substantiated by convincing evidence. The VENICE witness who testified on this question was an architect, not a mechanical engineer. He was unfamiliar with the computerized energy control system proposed by BAMI and used assumptions made by others who did not testify at the hearing. Bami III. HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT BAMI's proposed movable hospital equipment will cost approximately $3,500,000. Included are three radiology rooms: one general radiographic room, one standard R and F room, and one R and F room with angiographic capability. Also included are 8 ICU beds, four operating "rooms--two major and two minor-- nuclear medicine, and ultrasound capability. Venice The equipment cost for the VENICE proposal is $2,272,444. Included are 3 operating rooms, one with cystographic capability; four ICU beds and two radiology rooms--one R and F, and one general radiographic. More sophisticated diagnostic procedures, such as nuclear medicine and specialized radiology, will be provided at the "mother" hospital in Venice, not at the proposed Englewood satellite. To utilize these procedures, patients will be transported from Englewood to Venice. VENICE acknowledges that its proposed hospital will utilize less sophisticated diagnostic equipment than BAMI's. VENICE's equipment cost would have to be increased approximately $700,000 if it were to provide eight ICU beds and specialized radiology and nuclear-medicine to match BAMI's proposal. The equipment cost differential indicates the different levels of care proposed by the two hospitals. The VENICE proposal requires the development of a transportation "shuttle" system between the "mother" hospital in Venice and the satellite in Englewood. The system would consist of two trucks in addition to vans or ambulances. The plans for this essential transportation system are, however, not fully developed. The need for van or ambulance transportation between the two facilities has not been fully considered. Further, the transportation plan estimates a 25-minute one-way driving time between Englewood and Venice year- round. During the busy winter months, it is likely that the driving time will increase. Although VENICE proposes to lease the necessary trucks, neither the leasing costs nor associated costs have been fully taken into account. IV. FUNDS FOR OPERATING AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES Bami BAMI will finance the $13,555,000 required to open its proposed hospital with bond proceeds, an equipment lease, and an equity contribution. It will obtain $7,905,000 from taxable bonds with a maturity of 25 years, and an interest rate of 12.5 percent. There will be a 2-year holiday on principal payments. BAMI will finance the $3,500,000 equipment cost pursuant to a lease agreement with Financial and Insurance Services, Inc., with an eight-year term and an interest rate of 15 percent. BAMI will make an equity contribution of $2,150,000. This will be in the nature of a contribution of capital from a parent corporation to a subsidiary corporation. As of September 30, 1982, BAMI had a net worth exceeding $13,500,000. BAMI will provide up to $1,000,000 in operating capital to cover initial start-up costs of the proposed hospital. In addition, BAMI has obtained a $5,000,000 line of credit which will be available to cover any potential cash shortages occurring during the start-up phase of the hospital. Venice VENICE will obtain the $18,170,000 required for its proposal from tax- free bond financing and an equity contribution. The bonds, which will have a maturity of 30 years and an interest rate of 10.52 percent, will be an obligation of the Venice Hospital. A debt service reserve fund of $1,900,750 will be required in order for the bonds to obtain an "A" rating. In unrelated applications, VENICE has proposed a major renovation of its existing hospital and the construction of a new free-standing 50-bed psychiatric hospital. These projects, if undertaken, will require additional equity contributions of $1,221,000 and additional bond financing in the amount of $10,370,000. To obtain the bond financing, VENICE will be required to maintain a one-to-one historical debt coverage ratio. VENICE has not convincingly established that it will be able to carry out all three projects and still maintain the required one-to-one debt coverage ratio. VENICE proposes to locate its proposed hospital on 15 acres of land costing $135,000. But the land sales contract provides only for the sale of 250 acres at a cost of $2,250,000. (The present owners wish to sell the entire 250- acre parcel and not lesser amounts.) The source of the $2,250,000 needed to acquire the property has not been identified. The bond proceeds could not be used. To purchase the 250 acres and fund the equity for its three proposed health care projects, VENICE will require $4,311,000. The source of these funds has not been identified. VENICE contends that one possible source would be Board Designated Funds. However, VENICE's audited financial statements for the period ending September 30, 1982, suggest otherwise. PROPOSED SITES Bami BAMI, through a subsidiary, has contracted to purchase approximately 12 acres as a site for its proposed Englewood hospital. The 12-acre site is part of a 60-acre parcel of land that is zoned OPI, a zoning classification which will permit the construction of a hospital. The 12-acre site is located on Morningside Drive, an access road to Pine Street. Although Morningside Drive is a dirt road, it will be paved. Under the contract, the current owner will pay all paving costs in excess of $65,000. The initial $65,000 in paving costs will be borne by BAMI and has been included in BAMI's estimated construction costs. Pine Street, a major north- south transportation artery in the Englewood area, is currently being resurfaced in both Sarasota and Charlotte counties. A second access to Pine Street has been acquired by the current owner. A watermain is available at the BAMI site. The current owner of the property will construct a sewage treatment plant and provide sewer service to the proposed hospital at prevailing rates. The sewage treatment plant will be located on a 7.5-acre portion of the 48 contiguous acres retained by the current owner. The BAMI site is located in an A-11 flood zone with an elevation of ten feet. Fill dirt will be used to raise it to an acceptable elevation of twelve feet. A current owner of the BAMI site envisions the entire 60 acres as an Englewood medical center. If necessary he will allow BAMI to purchase an additional 12 acres contiguous to the site. BAMI has not yet, however, obtained a legally enforceable right to purchase additional property adjoining its 12- acre site. Although the 12-ace site will permit the planned 100-bed future expansion, the site would be crowded with little space remaining for future improvements. Venice The VENICE site is an undesignated 15-acre portion of a 250-acre parcel of land located off State Road 777, also known as South River Road. It is uncertain whether the hospital will have one or two access roads to State Road 777. A watermain is available at the VENICE site. Sewage treatment will be provided by a nearby privately owned sewage treatment plant until the hospital, eventually, constructs its own. The zoning classification of the VENICE site will not permit construction of a hospital. Before the hospital could be built, Sarasota County would be required to rezone the property to OPI. Use of the property for a hospital is also inconsistent with Sarasota County's comprehensive land use plan, adopted October 31, 1981. Such a rezoning process would take a minimum of three or four months, and perhaps longer. Approximately 100 individual steps are involved. Hearings would be held by the Sarasota Planning Commission and the Sarasota County Commission. VENICE has not yet filed an application to rezone either the 15 acres or the entire 250-acre parcel. Neither has it shown that it is likely to succeed in having the property rezoned to a classification permitting hospital use. Bami VI. EFFICIENT AND ALTERNATIVE USES OF HEALTH CARE RESOURCES As part of its application, BAMI proposes to merge its existing Englewood Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center into its proposed Englewood hospital. If the BAMI application is denied and VENICE's granted, BAMI will continue to operate the Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center. As a result, the Emergency Clinic and VENICE's Englewood hospital would be providing duplicative emergency services. The costs resulting from this duplication would be approximately $894,800 in 1985; $975,300 in 1986; and $1,063,100 in 1987. For cost effectiveness, BAMI's proposed hospital will share some ancillary and support services with Fawcett Memorial Hospital in nearby Port Charlotte. Fawcett Memorial will also provide tertiary level services, such as renal dialysis and CAT scans to patients of the proposed Englewood hospital. BAMI operates a multi-hospital system, with subsidiaries which provide ancillary and specialized support services. These services include physical therapy, inhalation therapy, cardiopulmonary function, speech therapy, data processing, and collection services. Corporate level expertise in accounting, property management, pharmacy management, personnel, and marketing, is also available. The multi-hospital system allows BAMI to obtain favorable purchasing contracts and capital for future expansion. Venice Venice Hospital, the only hospital in south Sarasota County, has a high rate of occupancy. Although presently a 300-bed facility, it has an ultimate capacity of 400 beds. It recently applied for a certificate of need to add 24 ICU/PCU beds and additional beds, beyond that, are needed. It has a shelled-in fourth floor that will accommodate an additional 45-bed nursing unit. Completing the fourth floor at Venice Hospital would be a more cost-effective alternative way to add beds than constructing a new hospital in Englewood. As already mentioned, the "mother" hospital in Venice will share numerous ancillary and support services with the proposed satellite hospital in Englewood. VENICE proposes to share, among other things, its present laboratory with the proposed Englewood satellite. As a result, the laboratory in the satellite hospital has been reduced to a minimal size. It has not been convincingly established that the Venice Hospital laboratory, even if expanded as proposed, can process the additional laboratory work-load arising from an Englewood satellite. The laboratory at the existing Venice Hospital presently operates 24-hours per day, seven days a week. Even if its application to expand its laboratory is granted, the total area of the laboratory would be less than the accepted space guidelines required for a 324-bed hospital. VII. AVAILABILITY, APPROPRIATENESS, AND ACCESSIBILITY OF PROPOSED HEALTH CARE SERVICES Scope of Services Although both proposed hospitals would share services with affiliated hospitals, BAMI proposes more of an autonomous, full-service and free-standing hospital than that proposed by VENICE. BAMI will equip its hospital with a more complete and sophisticated range of diagnostic services and, unlike VENICE, has not down-sized its ancillary and support services. For the VENICE proposal to become a free-standing facility comparable to BAMI's, the space devoted to ancillary medical services and support services would have to be expanded by 30 percent and 50 percent, respectively. The costs of such an expansion have not been determined. Economic Access Both parties will enter Medicaid contracts covering their proposed hospitals. BAMI projects that .1 percent of its patients will be Medicaid; VENICE projects .2 percent. BAMI hospitals treat all emergency patients, regardless of ability to pay. Third party payment is accepted. On elective admissions, self-pay patients are requested to make reasonable deposits and sign promissory notes. In specific instances, patients can be admitted without making financial arrangements in advance. Patients are not referred to other hospitals because of inability to pay. If an indigent is defined as "one who cannot pay," Fawcett Memorial Hospital provided between $600,000 and $700,000 in indigent care during 1982. This figure represents approximately 3.9 percent of gross revenue. Similarly, Venice Hospital treats emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. Promissory notes are obtained from self-pay patients if necessary. The credit policies of Venice Hospital are similar to BAMI's. Venice Hospital had a bad debt or charity to gross receipts ratio of between 2.5 percent and 3.0 percent in 1982. Venice Hospital also has a Hill-Burton requirement to provide indigent care in the amount of approximately $125,000 per year. This requirement stems from a federal grant awarded in 1970. Access to Osteopathic Physicians BAMI's proposed hospital will have an open medical staff, including licensed medical doctors and osteopathic physicians. BAMI has a practice of allowing osteopathic physicians on its medical staff. For several years, osteopathic physicians have been included on the staff of all BAMI hospitals. Fort Myers Community Hospital, a BAMI hospital, is one of two hospitals in the Fort Myers area with osteopathic physicians on its staff. Kissimmee Memorial Hospital, also owned by BAMI, has the only two osteopathic physicians in Kissimmee on its staff. Fawcett Memorial Hospital has the only osteopathic physician in Port Charlotte on its staff. In contrast, VENICE has not added osteopathic physicians to its staff with similar enthusiasm. It granted staff privileges to its first osteopathic physician six to nine months prior to hearing. Two months before the hearing, staff privileges were granted to a second. Venice Hospital has, however, changed its bylaws to comply with the law prohibiting discrimination against osteopathic physicians. Geographic Access The geographic locations of the sites for the two proposed hospitals, as described above, provide equal access to the service area. The BAMI site is closest to the existing population concentrations of the Englewood area, while the VENICE site is closer to Interstate 75. Both sites will require the paving of an access road to major traffic arteries. No significant advantage in access is afforded to either. VIII. COMPETITION The existing Venice Hospital currently serves the hospital needs of approximately 64 percent of the people in the greater Englewood area. These patients comprise approximately 26.8 percent of Venice Hospital's total patient days. BAMI's existing Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte currently serves between ten and twelve percent of the hospital needs of the people in the greater Englewood area. These patients account for approximately 11.3 percent of Fawcett Memorial's total patient load. In addition, BAMI's Englewood Emergency Clinic and Primary Care Center has treated over 20,000 patients since it opened in February, 1980. The existing Venice Hospital holds a dominant market share in the greater Englewood area. It is only twelve miles north of Englewood and is the only hospital in south Sarasota County. The closest competitor in Sarasota County is Sarasota Memorial Hospital, approximately 20 miles north of the Venice Hospital. Venice Hospital has been in operation for approximately 30 years. In contrast, Fawcett Memorial Hospital is approximately 21 miles east of Englewood. In the mid-1970s, it was converted from a nursing home to a 96-bed hospital, and in 1976, it was expanded to 254 beds. Approval of BAMI's proposal will enhance competition among hospitals serving the greater Englewood area. The competition will not, however, adversely affect Venice Hospital's long-term viability. The construction of either hospital in the Englewood area will change existing hospital utilization and physician referral patterns. New referral patterns will form and an increasingly autonomous group of physicians will develop. Local physicians will utilize the Englewood hospital, whether it is owned by BAMI or VENICE. Bami IX. PROJECTED COSTS OF PROVIDING HEALTH CARE SERVICES BAMI forecasts an occupancy rate of 60 percent at its proposed Englewood hospital in 1985; 75 percent in 1986; and 80 percent in 1987, with an average length of stay of 8.5 days. These figures are credible in view of the population growth in the Englewood area, the undisputed need for a new hospital, and the elderly population. To project total cost and gross revenue per patient day, various calculations are made. BAMI's employee salary expenses are based on its experience at nearby Fawcett Memorial Hospital, adjusted by an inflation factor. Non-salary expenses are derived from its experience at Kissimmee Memorial Hospital, a hospital of similar size with a utilization rate similar to that projected for the Englewood hospital. Depreciation of plant and equipment is calculated using the straight-line method. Revenue projections are derived using the American Hospital Association's Monitrend median inpatient revenue, inflated at 9 percent per year. An indigent/bad debt deduction of four percent of total patient revenue is used. These assumptions provide a credible basis from which total cost and gross revenue per patient day can be calculated. Using these assumptions, total costs per patient day is forecast to be $482.00 in 1975; $479.60 in 1986, and $510.32 in 1987. Gross revenue per patient day is forecast to be $552.00 in 1985; $601.68 in 1986; and $655.83 in 1987. These forecasts are credible and accepted as reasonably reliable. Venice VENICE's primary contention is that its proposed hospital, although costing more to build, will--in the long run--result in lower costs to patients and increased savings to the community. This contention was not substantiated by convincing evidence. In forecasting its costs and revenues, VENICE projected an occupancy rate of 65 percent in 1986; 80 percent in 1987; and 80 percent in 1988. The 1986 projection is unreasonably high; it envisions a 70.4 percent utilization rate during the opening month. VENICE's projected salary expenses are derived from its current experience at Venice Hospital, adjusted for inflation. Although this figure is reliable, the projected non-salary expense per patient day is not. The nonsalary expense is not based on Venice Hospital's most recent 1982 expenses, and is not adjusted by the requisite inflation factor. The depreciation schedule and assumptions used by VENICE in forecasting its revenues and costs are also questionable. Discrepancies went unexplained. The testimony of Deborah Kolb, Ph.D., an expert in health care financial and need analysis, is considered more credible. She concluded that VENICE understated 1986 depreciation expense for its proposed hospital by approximately $300,000, an error which would have increased its projected patient costs per day by $13.70. VENICE also projects room charges at its proposed hospital which are significantly lower than those projected for its "mother" hospital in Venice. This difference in room charges was not adequately explained or justified. Although VENICE's controller attributed the difference to cost savings resulting from the satellite hospital concept, these savings were not meaningfully itemized or identified in VENICE's revenue and cost projections. VENICE also failed to identify, and reflect in its projections, increased costs resulting from use of its satellite concept. For example, in 1986, 532 Englewood patient are projected as requiring sophisticated nuclear medicine tests at the "mother" hospital in Venice; 141 Englewood patient are projected as requiring special radiology tests at Venice Hospital. When asked who would absorb the costs of transporting patients between the satellite hospital in Englewood and the "mother" hospital in Venice, VENICE's controller responded that Venice Hospital would. However, those costs have not been quantified. Moreover Venice Hospital does not currently pay for ambulance transportation of its patients and does not have vans which transport patients on 24-mile round trips. This amounts to a significant and additional cost of operation, which has not been fully considered in the financial forecasts. Moreover, VENICE utilized cost per patient day based on Venice Hospital's 1981 costs rather than the higher 1982 costs. (Revenue per patient day increased 23.8 percent, in 1982.) In addition, projected revenues at VENICE's proposed Englewood satellite were not adjusted downward to take into account the less-sophisticated medical services which would be provided. As a result, VENICE's projected revenues per patient day are questionable and lack credibility. Venice Hospital received funds from three philanthropic organizations: Venice Hospital Blood Bank, Venice Hospital Auxiliary Volunteers, and Venice Health Facilities Foundation. Without the infusion of these funds, charges to Venice Hospital's patients would be higher. Venice Hospital's own fund raising literature states that patient charges, alone, do not cover the full costs of providing medical services. These community-raised funds, then, pay part of the costs of providing medical care. But in calculating cost savings to the community from its proposed Englewood hospital, VENICE has not identified or taken into account these additional funds raised from the community. VENICE's comparison of its projected patient charges with those of BAMI's is, accorded little weight. The two proposed hospitals are significantly different, one providing more extensive and sophisticated medical care than the other. This difference was not adequately taken into account in the financial comparison. Additional costs to Venice Hospital resulting from the Englewood satellite hospital were not fully considered. Comparisons based on historical charges by Venice Hospital and Fawcett Memorial Hospital are also misleading since these hospitals are different in size and occupancy rate--and the proposed Englewood hospital will duplicate neither. Moreover, Venice Hospital historical room rates used for the comparison were selectively chosen. VENICE also relies on projected HVAC life cycle savings, which, as already mentioned, were not convincingly established. Finally, the costs of acquiring VENICE's site-- necessitating a 250-acre purchase--were not fully reflected in the comparison. X QUALITY OF CARE The parties stipulated that both proposals will provide high quality medical care. The only question is whether bed-configuration will affect the quality of care provided. BAMI proposes a mix of 32 private and 60 semiprivate medical/surgical beds, with an additional 8 ICU beds. In contrast, VENICE proposes 96 private medical/surgical beds and 4 ICU beds. BAMI's mix of private and semiprivate rooms will allow consumers a choice and is preferable to VENICE's all private-room proposal. Private and semiprivate rooms confer various benefits. BAMI's proposed 32 private rooms will be adequate to serve those patients requiring private rooms while, at the same time, affording patients a choice between private and semiprivate. The VENICE proposal will not allow such a choice. It has not been shown, however, that bed configuration will affect the quality of medical care rendered patients. XI. COMPARISON: BAMI'S PROPOSED HOSPITAL IS PREFERABLE TO VENICE'S Both proposed hospitals would provide necessary and quality medical care to people in the Englewood area. On balance, however, BAMI's proposal is preferable. BAMI's free-standing hospital will provide more complete and sophisticated medical care, with less need to transport patients between "mother" and satellite hospitals. VENICE's satellite hospital will require extensive transporting of patients, food, linens, equipment, lab samples, and medications between the "mother" hospital in Venice and the satellite hospital in Englewood. BAMI, a multi-hospital system, is more experienced in constructing and operating new hospitals. The BAMI proposal will cost approximately $2,000,000 less to build, yet be of comparable quality and equipped with more sophisticated diagnostic equipment. While VENICE's construction plans are preliminary, BAMI's are detailed and virtually complete. VENICE's site requires rezoning, BAMI's does not. If BAMI's application is approved, its hospital could be opened by January 1, 1985,a year earlier than VENICE's. BAMI is financially able to begin construction immediately while VENICE--because of other projects simultaneously undertaken--may not be. Apart from zoning, both hospital sites are equally acceptable, although BAMI's 12-acre site is minimally sufficient for the anticipated future expansion to 200 beds. BAMI's financial ability to purchase is assured, while VENICE's is not. BAMI's proposal would avoid a duplication of emergency medical services in Englewood, while VENICE's would cause it. For patients preferring osteopathic physicians, BAMI's hospital would, most likely, be preferable. For patients preferring semiprivate rooms, BAMI's proposal would be preferable. Competition between hospitals serving the Englewood area would be enhanced with the BAMI proposal and decreased with VENICE's. Although VENICE argued that the costs to its patients would, over the long run, be less than BAMI's, this proposition was not convincingly proved.
Findings Of Fact By letter dated December 16, 1977, the Division of State Planning forwarded Petitioner's request for a hearing on an application for a Binding Letter of Interpretation submitted by North Florida Regional Hospital, Respondent. Respondent sought a determination that a proposed addition to North Florida Regional Hospital was not a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) pursuant to Section 380.06(4)(a), Florida Statutes. Thereafter Respondent filed a request with the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for a determination that a certificate of need was not required for the proposed addition to the hospital. Petitioner thereupon requested a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes for a factual determination whether or not the preliminary plans for the proposed addition had been filed by Respondent prior to July 1, 1973, so as to exempt Respondent from the requirement of obtaining a certificate of need. This was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the designation of a hearing officer to conduct the hearing, assigned Docket Number 78-054, and referred to the undersigned for hearing. Petitioner moved that these two cases be consolidated for hearing on the grounds that the parties and issues of fact for the two cases are the same. A prehearing conference was held on January 6, 1978, at which all pending motions were considered, and the issues to be contested at the forthcoming hearings were resolved. After full discussion by the parties, oral stipulations were entered into. These stipulations were written down by the Hearing Officer, read back to and accepted by the parties, and thereafter incorporated in the Order entered January 9, 1978. Prior to the motion hearing on July 28, 1978, no party questioned the accuracy or validity of these stipulations. On January 9, 1978, the results of the January 6, 1978 prehearing conference were memorialized in an Order stating that all parties agreed that only two basic issues were involved in this case. One was a factual determination relating to the status of Respondent's application to HRS (Docket 78-054) respecting a certificate of need and the other a legal issue regarding the interpretation of Rule 22F-2.04, Florida Administrative Code. The parties agreed that the factual issues regarding the certificate of need was a threshold question which needed to be resolved before the instant case was decided and, therefore, that case should proceed first. At this prehearing conference the parties stipulated that: If no certificate of need is required pursuant to Section 381.494, F.S. for the 150 bed addition proposed for North Florida General Hospital, and that, if in Rule 22F-2.04 Florida Administrative Code the words "whose application for a certificate of need under Section 381.494, Florida Statutes," refers only to the application under consideration and not to other applications by Respondent for a certificate of need, then the application is not a Development of Regional Impact and the Division of State Planning should issue the binding letter of interpretation re- quested by Respondent. The Hearing Officer submit a Recommended Order to Division of State Planning construing Rule 22F-2.04, Florida Administrative Code and make recommendations regarding the issuance of a binding letter of interpretation. The parties will submit briefs by January 13, 1978 on the interpretation of Rule 22F-2.04, Florida Administrative Rule to Hearing Officer for his consideration in preparing his Recommended Order. By Order entered January 19, 1978 Petitioner's Motion for Consolidation of Dockets 77-2223 and 78-054 was denied and the entering of a Recommended Order in Docket 77-2223 was stayed pending completion of the hearing in Docket 78-054. The hearing in Docket No. 78-054 was held on March 31, 1978 and the Recommended Order was filed April 13, 1978. On July 11, 1978 HRS entered its Final Order in Docket Number 78-054 sustaining the ultimate findings of the Hearing Officer that Respondent had filed preliminary plans for the proposed addition prior to July 1, 1973 and did not now require a certificate of need for the proposed addition to the hospital.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that Respondent, North Florida Regional Hospital, be issued a Binding Letter of Interpretation that its proposed three-floor addition to the hospital is not a Development of Regional Impact. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of September, 1978. K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Andrews, Esq. and Philip A. Delaney 1133 N.W. 23rd Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601 Robert M. Rhodes, Esq. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Peter Skoro, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Post Office Drawer "CC" Gainesville, FL 32602 Jon Moyle, Esq. and Daniel H. Jones, Esq. Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, FL 33402 C. Lawrence Keesey, Esq. Staff Attorney Division of State Planning 335 Carlton Building Mailing address: 530 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, FL 32304 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the certificate of need (CON) applications filed by New Port Richey Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Community Hospital of New Port Richey (Community Hospital) (CON No. 9539), and Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc., d/b/a North Bay Hospital (North Bay) (CON No. 9538), each seeking to replace and relocate their respective general acute care hospital, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule criteria.
Findings Of Fact The Parties AHCA AHCA is the single state agency responsible for the administration of the CON program in Florida pursuant to Chapter 408, Florida Statutes (2000). The agency separately reviewed and preliminarily approved both applications. Community Hospital Community Hospital is a 300,000 square feet, accredited hospital with 345 licensed acute care beds and 56 licensed adult psychiatric beds, located in southern New Port Richey, Florida, within Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital is seeking to construct a replacement facility approximately five miles to the southeast within a rapidly developing suburb known as "Trinity." Community Hospital currently provides a wide array of comprehensive inpatient and outpatient services and is the only provider of obstetrical and adult psychiatric services in Sub-District 5-1. It is the largest provider of emergency services in Pasco County with approximately 35,000 visits annually. It is also the largest provider of Medicaid and indigent patient days in Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital was originally built in 1969 and is an aging facility. Although it has been renovated over time, the hospital is in poor condition. Community Hospital's average daily census is below 50 percent. North Bay North Bay is a 122-bed facility containing 102 licensed acute care beds and 20 licensed comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds, located approximately one mile north of Community Hospital in Sub-District 5-1. It serves a large elderly population and does not provide pediatric or obstetrical care. North Bay is also an aging facility and proposes to construct a replacement facility in the Trinity area. Notably, however, North Bay has spent approximately 12 million dollars over the past three years for physical improvements and is in reasonable physical condition. Helen Ellis Helen Ellis is an accredited hospital with 150 licensed acute care beds and 18 licensed skilled nursing unit beds. It is located in northern Pinellas County, approximately eight miles south of Community Hospital and nine miles south of North Bay. Helen Ellis provides a full array of acute care services including obstetrics and cardiac catheterization. Its daily census average has fluctuated over the years but is approximately 45 percent. Mease Mease operates two acute care hospitals in Pinellas County including Mease Dunedin Hospital, located approximately 18 to 20 miles south of the applicants and Mease Countryside Hospital, located approximately 16 to 18 miles south of Community and North Bay. Each hospital operates 189 licensed beds. The Mease hospitals are located in the adjacent acute care sub-district but compete with the applicants. The Health Planning District AHCA's Health Planning District 5 consists of Pinellas and Pasco Counties. U.S. Highway 41 runs north and south through the District and splits Pasco County into Sub- District 5-1 and Sub-District 5-2. Sub-District 5-1, where Community Hospital and North Bay are located, extends from U.S. 41 west to the Gulf Coast. Sub-District 5-2 extends from U.S. 41 to the eastern edge of Pasco County. Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in Florida and steadily grows at 5.52 percent per year. On the other hand, its neighbor to the north, Pasco County, has been experiencing over 15 percent annual growth in population. The evidence demonstrates that the area known as Trinity, located four to five miles southeast of New Port Richey, is largely responsible for the growth. With its large, single- owner land tracts, Trinity has become the area's fuel for growth, while New Port Richey, the older coastal anchor which houses the applicants' facilities, remains static. In addition to the available land in Trinity, roadway development in the southwest section of Pasco County is further fueling growth. For example, the Suncoast Highway, a major highway, was recently extended north from Hillsborough County through Sub-District 5-1, west of U.S. 41. It intersects with several large east-west thoroughfares including State Road 54, providing easy highway access to the Tampa area. The General Proposals Community Hospital's Proposal Community Hospital's CON application proposes to replace its existing, 401-bed hospital with a 376-bed state- of-the-art facility and relocate it approximately five miles to the southeast in the Trinity area. Community Hospital intends to construct a large medical office adjacent to its new facility and provide all of its current services including obstetrical care. It does not intend to change its primary service area. North Bay's Proposal North Bay's CON application proposes to replace its existing hospital with a 122-bed state-of-the-art facility and also plans to relocate it approximately eight miles to the southeast in the Trinity area of southwestern Pasco County. North Bay intends to provide the same array of services it currently offers its patients and will not provide pediatric and obstetrical care in the proposed facility. The proposed relocation site is adjacent to the Trinity Outpatient Center which is owned by North Bay's parent company, Morton Plant. The Outpatient Center offers a full range of diagnostic imaging services including nuclear medicine, cardiac nuclear stress testing, bone density scanning, CAT scanning, mammography, ultrasound, as well as many others. It also offers general and specialty ambulatory surgical services including urology; ear, nose and throat; ophthalmology; gastroenterology; endoscopy; and pain management. Approximately 14 physician offices are currently located at the Trinity Outpatient Center. The Condition of Community Hospital Facility Community Hospital's core facilities were constructed between 1969 and 1971. Additions to the hospital were made in 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1992, and 1999. With an area of approximately 294,000 square feet and 401 licensed beds, or 733 square feet per bed, Community Hospital's gross area-to-bed ratio is approximately half of current hospital planning standards of 1,600 square feet per bed. With the exception of the "E" wing which was completed in 1999, all of the clinical and support departments are undersized. Medical-Surgical Beds And Intensive Care Units Community Hospital's "D" wing, constructed in 1975, is made up of two general medical-surgical unit floors which are grossly undersized. Each floor operates 47 general medical-surgical beds, 24 of which are in three-bed wards and 23 in semi-private rooms. None of the patient rooms in the "D" wing have showers or tubs so the patients bathe in a single facility located at the center of the wing on each floor. Community Hospital's "A" wing, added in 1973, is situated at the west end of the second floor and is also undersized. It too has a combination of semi-private rooms and three-bed wards without showers or tubs. Community Hospital's "F" wing, added in 1979, includes a medical-surgical unit on the second and third floor, each with semi-private and private rooms. The second floor unit is centrally located between a 56-bed adult psychiatric unit and the Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU) which creates security and privacy issues. The third floor unit is adjacent to the Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU) which must be accessed through the medical-surgical unit. Neither intensive care unit (ICU) possesses an isolation area. Although the three-bed wards are generally restricted to in-season use, and not always full, they pose significant privacy, security, safety, and health concerns. They fail to meet minimum space requirements and are a serious health risk. The evidence demonstrates that reconfiguring the wards would be extremely costly and impractical due to code compliance issues. The wards hinder the hospital's acute care utilization, and impair its ability to effectively compete with other hospitals. Surgical Department and Recovery Community Hospital's surgical department is separated into two locations including the main surgical suite on the second floor and the Endoscopy/Pain Management unit located on the first floor of "C" wing. Consequently, the department cannot share support staff and space such as preparation and recovery. The main surgical suite, adjacent recovery room, and central sterile processing are 25 years old. This unit's operating rooms, cystoscopy rooms, storage areas, work- stations, central sterile, and recovery rooms are undersized and antiquated. The 12-bay Recovery Room has no patient toilet and is lacking storage. The soiled utility room is deficient. In addition, the patient bays are extremely narrow and separated by curtains. There is no direct connection to the sterile corridor, and staff must break the sterile field to transport patients from surgery to recovery. Moreover, surgery outpatients must pass through a major public lobby going to and returning from surgery. The Emergency Department Community Hospital's existing emergency department was constructed in 1992 and is the largest provider of hospital emergency services in Pasco County, handling approximately 35,000 visits per year. The hospital is also designated a "Baker Act" receiving facility under Chapter 394, Florida Statutes, and utilizes two secure examination rooms for emergent psychiatric patients. At less than 8,000 total square feet, the emergency department is severely undersized to meet the needs of its patients. The emergency department is currently undergoing renovation which will connect the triage area to the main emergency department. The renovation will not enlarge the entrance, waiting area, storage, nursing station, nor add privacy to the patient care areas in the emergency department. The renovation will not increase the total size of the emergency department, but in fact, the department's total bed availability will decrease by five beds. Similar to other departments, a more meaningful renovation cannot occur within the emergency department without triggering costly building code compliance measures. In addition to its space limitations, the emergency department is awkwardly located. In 1992, the emergency department was relocated to the front of the hospital and is completely separated from the diagnostic imaging department which remained in the original 1971 building. Consequently, emergency patients are routinely transported across the hospital for imaging and CT scans. Issues Relating to Replacement of Community Hospital Although physically possible, renovating and expanding Community Hospital's existing facility is unreasonable. First, it is cost prohibitive. Any significant renovation to the 1971, 1975, 1977, and 1979 structures would require asbestos abatement prior to construction, at an estimated cost of $1,000,000. In addition, as previously noted, the hospital will be saddled with the major expense of complying with all current building code requirements in the 40-year-old facility. Merely installing showers in patient rooms would immediately trigger a host of expensive, albeit necessary, code requirements involving access, wiring, square footage, fireproofing columns and beams, as well as floor/ceiling and roof/ceiling assemblies. Concurrent with the significant demolition and construction costs, the hospital will experience the incalculable expense and loss of revenue related to closing major portions, if not all, of the hospital. Second, renovation and expansion to the existing facility is an unreasonable option due to its physical restrictions. The 12'4" height of the hospital's first floor limits its ability to accommodate HVAC ductwork large enough to meet current ventilation requirements. In addition, there is inadequate space to expand any department within the confines of the existing hospital without cannibalizing adjacent areas, and vertical expansion is not an option. Community Hospital's application includes a lengthy Facility Condition Assessment which factually details the architectural, mechanical, and electrical deficiencies of the hospital's existing physical plant. The assessment is accurate and reasonable. Community Hospital's Proposed Replacement Community Hospital proposes to construct a six- story, 320 licensed beds, acute care replacement facility. The hospital will consist of 548,995 gross square feet and include a 56-bed adult psychiatric unit connected by a hallway to the first floor of the main hospital building. The proposal also includes the construction of an adjacent medical office building to centralize the outpatient offices and staff physicians. The evidence establishes that the deficiencies inherent in Community Hospital's existing hospital will be cured by its replacement hospital. All patients will be provided large private rooms. The emergency department will double in size, and contain private examination rooms. All building code requirements will be met or exceeded. Patients and staff will have separate elevators from the public. In addition, the surgical department will have large operating rooms, and adequate storage. The MICU and SICU will be adjacent to each other on the second floor to avoid unnecessary traffic within the hospital. Surgical patients will be transported to the ICU via a private elevator dedicated to that purpose. Medical-surgical patient rooms will be efficiently located on the third through sixth floors, in "double-T" configuration. Community Hospital's Existing and Proposed Sites Community Hospital is currently located on a 23-acre site inside the southern boundary of New Port Richey. Single- family homes and offices occupy the two-lane residential streets that surround the site on all sides. The hospital buildings are situated on the northern half of the site, with the main parking lot located to the south, in front of the main entrance to the hospital. Marine Parkway cuts through the southern half of the site from the west, and enters the main parking lot. A private medical mall sits immediately to the west of the main parking lot and a one-acre storm-water retention pond sits to the west of the mall. A private medical office building occupies the south end of the main parking lot and a four-acre drainage easement is located in the southwest corner of the site. Community Hospital's administration has actively analyzed its existing site, aging facility, and adjacent areas. It has commissioned studies by civil engineers, health care consultants, and architects. The collective evidence demonstrates that, although on-site relocation is potentially an option, on balance, it is not a reasonable option. Replacing Community Hospital on its existing site is not practical for several reasons. First, the hospital will experience significant disruption and may be required to completely close down for a period of time. Second, the site's southwestern large four-acre parcel is necessary for storm-water retention and is unavailable for expansion. Third, a reliable cost differential is unknown given Community Hospital's inability to successfully negotiate with the city and owners of the adjacent medical office complexes to acquire additional parcels. Fourth, acquiring other adjacent properties is not a viable option since they consist of individually owned residential lots. In addition to the site's physical restrictions, the site is hindered by its location. The hospital is situated in a neighborhood between small streets and a local school. From the north and south, motorists utilize either U.S. 19, a congested corridor that accommodates approximately 50,000 vehicles per day, or Grand and Madison Streets, two-lane streets within a school zone. From the east and west, motorists utilize similar two-lane neighborhood streets including Marine Parkway, which often floods in heavy rains. Community Hospital's proposed site, on the other hand, is a 53-acre tract positioned five miles from its current facility, at the intersection of two major thoroughfares in southwestern Pasco County. The proposed site offers ample space for all facilities, parking, outpatient care, and future expansion. In addition, Community Hospital's proposed site provides reasonable access to all patients within its existing primary service area made up of zip codes 34652, 34653, 34668, 34655, 34690, and 34691. For example, the average drive times from the population centers of each zip code to the existing site of the hospital and the proposed site are as follows: Zip code Difference Existing site Proposed site 34652 3 minutes 14 minutes 11 minutes 34653 8 minutes 11 minutes 3 minutes 34668 15 minutes 21 minutes 6 minutes 34655 11 minutes 4 minutes -7 minutes 34690 11 minutes 13 minutes 2 minutes 34691 11 minutes 17 minutes 6 minutes While the average drive time from the population centroids of zip codes 34653, 34668, 34690, and 34691 to the proposed site slightly increases, it decreases from the Trinity area, where population growth has been most significant in southwestern Pasco County. In addition, a motorist's average drive time from Community Hospital's existing location to its proposed site is only 10 to 11 minutes, and patients utilizing public transportation will be able to access the new hospital via a bus stop located adjacent to the proposed site. The Condition of North Bay Facility North Bay Hospital is also an aging facility. Its original structure and portions of its physical plant are approximately 30 years old. Portions of its major mechanical systems will soon require replacement including its boilers, air handlers, and chillers. In addition, the hospital is undersized and awkwardly configured. Despite its shortcomings, however, North Bay is generally in good condition. The hospital has been consistently renovated and updated over time and is aesthetically pleasing. Moreover, its second and third floors were added in 1986, are in good shape, and structurally capable of vertical expansion. Medical Surgical Beds and ICU Units By-in-large, North Bay is comprised of undersized, semi-private rooms containing toilet and shower facilities. The hospital does not have any three-bed wards. North Bay's first floor houses all ancillary and support services including lab, radiology, pharmacy, surgery, pre-op, post-anesthesia recovery, central sterile processing and supply, kitchen and cafeteria, housekeeping and administration, as well as the mechanical, electrical, and facilities maintenance and engineering. The first floor also contains a 20-bed CMR unit and a 15-bed acute care unit. North Bay's second and third floors are mostly comprised of semi-private rooms and supporting nursing stations. Although the rooms and stations are not ideally sized, they are in relatively good shape. North Bay utilizes a single ICU with ten critical care beds. The ICU rooms and nursing stations are also undersized. A four-bed ICU ward and former nursery are routinely used to serve overflow patients. Surgery Department and Recovery North Bay utilizes a single pre-operative surgical room for all of its surgery patients. The room accommodates up to five patient beds, but has limited space for storage and pre-operative procedures. Its operating rooms are sufficiently sized. While carts and large equipment are routinely stored in hallways throughout the surgical suite, North Bay has converted the former obstetrics recovery room to surgical storage and has made efficient use of other available space. North Bay operates a small six-bed Post Anesthesia Care Unit. Nurses routinely prepare patient medications in the unit which is often crowded with staff and patients. The Emergency Department North Bay has recently expanded its emergency department. The evidence demonstrates that this department is sufficient and meets current and future expected patient volumes. Replacement Issues Relating to North Bay While it is clear that areas of North Bay's physical plant are aging, the facility is in relatively good condition. It is apparent that North Bay must soon replace significant equipment, including cast-iron sewer pipes, plumbing, boilers, and chillers which will cause some interruption to hospital operations. However, North Bay's four-page written assessment of the facility and its argument citing the need for total replacement is, on balance, not persuasive. North Bay's Proposed Replacement North Bay proposes to construct a new, state-of-the- art, hospital approximately eight miles southeast of its existing facility and intends to offer the identical array of services the hospital currently provides. North Bay's Existing and Proposed Sites North Bay's existing hospital is located on an eight-acre site with limited storm-water drainage capacity. Consequently, much of its parking area is covered by deep, porous, gravel instead of asphalt. North Bay's existing site is generally surrounded by residential properties. While the city has committed, in writing, it willingness to assist both applicants with on-site expansion, it is unknown whether North Bay can acquire additional adjacent property. North Bay's proposed site is located at the intersection of Trinity Oaks Boulevard and Mitchell Boulevard, south of Community Hospital's proposed site, and is quite spacious. It contains sufficient land for the facilities, parking, and future growth, and has all necessary infrastructure in place, including utility systems, storm- water structures, and roadways. Currently however, there is no public transportation service available to North Bay's proposed site. Projected Utilization by Applicants The evidence presented at hearing indicates that, statewide, replacement hospitals often increase a provider's acute care bed utilization. For example, Bartow Memorial Hospital, Heart of Florida Regional Medical Center, Lake City Medical Center, Florida Hospital Heartland Medical Center, South Lake Hospital, and Florida Hospital-Fish Memorial each experienced significant increases in utilization following the opening of their new hospital. The applicants in this case each project an increase in utilization following the construction of their new facility. Specifically, Community Hospital's application projects 82,685 total hospital patient days (64,427 acute care patient days) in year one (2006) of the operation of its proposed replacement facility, and 86,201 total hospital patient days (67,648 acute care patient days) in year two (2007). Using projected 2006 and 2007 population estimates, applying 2002 acute care hospital use rates which are below 50 percent, and keeping Community Hospital's acute care market share constant at its 2002 level, it is reasonably estimated that Community Hospital's existing hospital will experience 52,623 acute care patient days in 2006, and 53,451 acute care patient days in 2007. Consequently, Community Hospital's proposed facility must attain 11,804 additional acute care patient days in 2006, and 14,197 more acute care patient days in 2007, in order to achieve its projected acute care utilization. Although Community Hospital lost eight percent of the acute care market in its service area between 1995 and 2002, two-thirds of that loss was due to residents of Sub- District 5-1 acquiring services in another area. While Community Hospital experienced 78,444 acute care patient days in 1995, it projects only 64,427 acute care patient days in year one. Given the new facility and population factors, it is reasonable that the hospital will recapture half of its lost acute care market share and achieve its projections. With respect to its psychiatric unit, Community Hospital projects 16,615 adult psychiatric inpatient days in year one (2006) and 17,069 adult inpatient days in year two (2007) of the proposed replacement hospital. The evidence indicates that these projections are reasonable. Similarly, North Bay's acute care utilization rate has been consistently below 50 percent. Since 1999, the hospital has experienced declining utilization. In its application, North Bay states that it achieved total actual acute care patient days of 21,925 in 2000 and 19,824 in 2001 and the evidence at hearing indicates that North Bay experienced 17,693 total acute care patient days in 2002. North Bay projects 25,909 acute care patient days in the first year of operation of its proposed replacement hospital, and 27,334 acute care patient days in the second year of operation. Despite each applicant's current facility utilization rate, Community Hospital must increase its current acute care patient days by 20 percent to reach its projected utilization, and North Bay must increase its patient days by at least 50 percent. Given the population trends, service mix and existing competition, the evidence demonstrates that it is not possible for both applicants to simultaneously achieve their projections. In fact, it is strongly noted that the applicants' own projections are predicated upon only one applicant being approved and cannot be supported with the approval of two facilities. Local Health Plan Preferences In its local health plan for District 5, the Suncoast Health Council, Inc., adopted acute care preferences in October, 2000. The replacement of an existing hospital is not specifically addressed by any of the preferences. However, certain acute care preferences and specialty care preferences are applicable. The first applicable preference provides that preference "shall be given to an applicant who proposes to locate a new facility in an area that will improve access for Medicaid and indigent patients." It is clear that the majority of Medicaid and indigent patients live closer to the existing hospitals. However, Community Hospital proposes to move 5.5 miles from its current location, whereas North Bay proposes to move eight miles from its current location. While the short distances alone are less than significant, North Bay's proposed location is further removed from New Port Richey, is not located on a major highway or bus-route, and would therefore be less accessible to the medically indigent residents. Community Hospital's proposed site will be accessible using public transportation. Furthermore, Community Hospital has consistently provided excellent service to the medically indigent and its proposal would better serve that population. In 2000, Community Hospital provided 7.4 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients and 0.8 percent of its total patient days to charity patients. Community Hospital provided the highest percentage and greatest number of Medicaid patient days in Sub-District 5-1. By comparison, North Bay provided 5.8 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients and 0.9 percent of its total patient days to charity patients. In 2002, North Bay's Medicaid patients days declined to 3.56 percent. Finally, given the closeness and available bed space of the existing providers and the increasing population in the Trinity area, access will be improved by Community Hospital's relocation. The second local health plan preference provides that "[i]n cases where an applicant is a corporation with previously awarded certificates of need, preference shall be given to those which follow through in a timely manner to construct and operate the additional facilities or beds and do not use them for later negotiations with other organizations seeking to enter or expand the number of beds they own or control." Both applicants meet this preference. The third local health plan preference recognizes "Certificate of Need applications that provide AHCA with documentation that they provide, or propose to provide, the largest percentage of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals in the sub-district." Community Hospital provides the largest percentage of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals in Sub-District 5-1, and therefore meets this preference. The fourth local health plan preference applies to "Certificate of Need applications that demonstrate intent to serve HIV/AIDS infected persons." Both applicants accept and treat HIV/AIDS infected persons, and would continue to do so in their proposed replacement hospitals. The fifth local health plan preference recognizes "Certificate of Need applications that commit to provide a full array of acute care services including medical-surgical, intensive care, pediatric, and obstetrical services within the sub-district for which they are applying." Community Hospital qualifies since it will continue to provide its current services, including obstetrical care and psychiatric care, in its proposed replacement hospital. North Bay discontinued its pediatric and obstetrical programs in 2001, does not intend to provide them in its proposed replacement hospital, and will not provide psychiatric care. Agency Rule Preferences Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.038(6) provides an applicable preference to a facility proposing "new acute care services and capital expenditures" that has "a documented history of providing services to medically indigent patients or a commitment to do so." As the largest Medicaid provider in Sub-District 5-1, Community Hospital meets this preference better than does North Bay. North Bay's history demonstrates a declining rate of service to the medically indigent. Statutory Review Criteria Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes: The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed in relation to the applicable district health plan District 5 includes Pasco and Pinellas County. Pasco County is rapidly developing, whereas Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in Florida. Given the population trends, service mix, and utilization rates of the existing providers, on balance, there is a need for a replacement hospital in the Trinity area. Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes: The availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant Community Hospital and North Bay are both located in Sub-District 5-1. Each proposes to relocate to an area of southwestern Pasco County which is experiencing explosive population growth. The other general acute care hospital located in Sub-District 5-1 is Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point, which is located further north, in the Hudson area of western Pasco County. The only other acute care hospitals in Pasco County are East Pasco Medical Center, in Zephyrhills, and Pasco Community Hospital, in Dade City. Those hospitals are located in Sub-District 5-2, east Pasco County, far from the area proposed to be served by either Community Hospital or North Bay. District 5 includes Pinellas County as well as Pasco County. Helen Ellis and Mease are existing hospital providers located in Pinellas County. Helen Ellis has 168 licensed beds, consisting of 150 acute care beds and an 18-bed skilled nursing unit, and is located 7.9 miles from Community Hospital's existing location and 10.8 miles from Community Hospital's proposed location. Access to Helen Ellis for patients originating from southwestern Pasco County requires those patients to travel congested U.S. 19 south to Tarpon Springs. As a result, the average drive time from Community Hospital's existing and proposed site to Helen Ellis is approximately 22 minutes. Helen Ellis is not a reasonable alternative to Community Hospital's proposal. The applicants' proposals are specifically designed for the current and future health care needs of southwestern Pasco County. Given its financial history, it is unknown whether Helen Ellis will be financially capable of providing the necessary care to the residents of southwestern Pasco. Mease Countryside Hospital has 189 licensed acute care beds. It is located 16.0 miles from Community Hospital's existing location and 13.8 miles from Community Hospital's proposed location. The average drive time to Mease Countryside is 32 minutes from Community Hospital's existing site and 24 minutes from its proposed site. In addition, Mease Countryside Hospital has experienced extremely high utilization over the past several years, in excess of 90 percent for calendar years 2000 and 2001. Utilization at Mease Countryside Hospital has remained over 80 percent despite the addition of 45 acute care beds in April 2002. Given the growth and demand, it is unknown whether Mease can accommodate the residents in southwest Pasco County. Mease Dunedin Hospital has 189 licensed beds, consisting of 149 acute care beds, a 30-bed skilled nursing unit, five Level 2 neonatal intensive care beds, and five Level 3 neonatal intensive care beds. Its former 15-bed adult psychiatric unit has been converted into acute care beds. It is transferring its entire obstetrics program at Mease Dunedin Hospital to Mease Countryside Hospital. Mease Dunedin Hospital is located approximately 18 to 20 miles from the applicants' existing and proposed locations with an average drive time of 35-38 minutes. With their remote location, and the exceedingly high utilization at Mease Countryside Hospital, neither of the two Mease hospitals is a viable alternative to the applicants' proposals. In addition, the construction of a replacement hospital would positively impact economic development and further attract medical professionals to Sub-District 5-1. On balance, given the proximity, utilization, service array, and accessibility of the existing providers, including the applicants, the relocation of Community Hospital will enhance access to health care to the residents. Section 408.035(3), Florida Statutes: The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care As stipulated, both applicants provide excellent quality of care. However, Community Hospital's proposal will better enhance its ability to provide quality care. Community is currently undersized, non-compliant with today's standards, and located on a site that does not allow for reasonable expansion. Its emergency department is inadequate for patient volume, and the configuration of the first floor leads to inefficiencies in the diagnosis and treatment of emergency patients. Again, most inpatients are placed in semi-private rooms and three-bed wards, with no showers or tubs, little privacy, and an increased risk of infection. The hospital's waiting areas for families of patients are antiquated and undersized, its nursing stations are small and cramped and the operating rooms and storage facilities are undersized. Community Hospital's deficiencies will be effectively eliminated by its proposed replacement hospital. As a result, patients will experience qualitatively better care by the staff who serve them. Conversely, North Bay is in better physical condition and not in need of replacement. It has more reasonable options to expand or relocate its facility on site. Quality of care at North Bay will not be markedly enhanced by the construction of a new hospital. Sections 408.035(4)and(5), Florida Statutes, have been stipulated as not applicable in this case. Section 408.035(6), Florida Statutes: The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds available for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation The parties stipulated that both Community Hospital and North Bay have available health personnel and management personnel for project accomplishment and operation. In addition, the evidence proves that both applicants have sufficient funds for capital and operating expenditures. Community Hospital proposes to rely on its parent company to finance the project. Keith Giger, Vice-President of Finance for HCA, Inc., Community Hospital's parent organization, provided credible deposition testimony that HCA, Inc., will finance 100 percent of the total project cost by an inter-company loan at eight percent interest. Moreover, it is noted that the amount to be financed is actually $20 million less than the $196,849,328 stated in the CON Application, since Community Hospital previously purchased the proposed site in June 2003 with existing funds and does not need to finance the land acquisition. Community Hospital has sufficient working capital for operating expenditures of the proposed replacement hospital. North Bay, on the other hand, proposes to acquire financing from BayCare Obligated Group which includes Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc.; Mease; and several other hospital entities. Its proposal, while feasible, is less certain since member hospitals must approve the indebtedness, thereby providing Mease with the ability to derail North Bay's proposed bond financing. Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes: The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district The evidence proves that either proposal will enhance geographical access to the growing population in the service district. However, with its provision of obstetrical services, Community Hospital is better suited to address the needs of the younger community. With respect to financial access, both proposed relocation sites are slightly farther away from the higher elderly and indigent population centers. Since the evidence demonstrates that it is unreasonable to relocate both facilities away from the down-town area, Community Hospital's proposal, on balance, provides better access to poor patients. First, public transportation will be available to Community Hospital's site. Second, Community Hospital has an excellent record of providing care to the poor and indigent and has accepted the agency's condition to provide ten percent of its total annual patient days to Medicaid recipients To the contrary, North Bay's site will not be accessible by public transportation. In addition, North Bay has a less impressive record of providing care to the poor and indigent. Although AHCA conditioned North Bay's approval upon it providing 9.7 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid and charity patients, instead of the 9.7 percent of gross annual revenue proposed in its application, North Bay has consistently provided Medicaid and charity patients less than seven percent of its total annual patient days. Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes: The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal Immediate financial feasibility refers to the availability of funds to capitalize and operate the proposal. See Memorial Healthcare Group, Ltd. d/b/a Memorial Hospital Jacksonville vs. AHCA et al., Case No. 02-0447 et seq. Community Hospital has acquired reliable financing for the project and has sufficiently demonstrated that its project is immediately financially feasible. North Bay's short-term financial proposal is less secure. As noted, North Bay intends to acquire financing from BayCare Obligated Group. As a member of the group, Mease, the parent company of two hospitals that oppose North Bay's application, must approve the plan. Long-term financial feasibility is the ability of the project to reach a break-even point within a reasonable period of time and at a reasonable achievable point in the future. Big Bend Hospice, Inc. vs. AHCA and Covenant Hospice, Inc., Case No. 02-0455. Although CON pro forma financial schedules typically show profitability within two to three years of operation, it is not a requirement. In fact, in some circumstances, such as the case of a replacement hospital, it may be unrealistic for the proposal to project profitability before the third or fourth year of operation. In this case, Community Hospital's utilization projections, gross and net revenues, and expense figures are reasonable. The evidence reliably demonstrates that its replacement hospital will be profitable by the fourth year of operation. The hospital's financial projections are further supported by credible evidence, including the fact that the hospital experienced financial improvement in 2002 despite its poor physical condition, declining utilization, and lost market share to providers outside of its district. In addition, the development and population trends in the Trinity area support the need for a replacement hospital in the area. Also, Community Hospital has benefited from increases in its Medicaid per diem and renegotiated managed care contracts. North Bay's long-term financial feasibility of its proposal is less certain. In calendar year 2001, North Bay incurred an operating loss of $306,000. In calendar year 2002, it incurred a loss of $1,160,000. In its CON application, however, North Bay projects operating income of $1,538,827 in 2007, yet omitted the ongoing expenses of interest ($1,600,000) and depreciation ($3,000,000) from its existing facility that North Bay intends to continue operating. Since North Bay's proposal does not project beyond year two, it is less certain whether it is financially feasible in the third or fourth year. In addition to the interest and depreciation issues, North Bay's utilization projections are less reasonable than Community Hospital's proposal. While possible, North Bay will have a difficult task achieving its projected 55 percent increase in acute care patient days in its second year of operation given its declining utilization, loss of obstetric/pediatric services and termination of two exclusive managed care contracts. Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes: The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness Both applicants have substantial unused capacity. However, Community Hospital's existing facility is at a distinct competitive disadvantage in the market place. In fact, from 1994 to 1998, Community Hospital's overall market share in its service area declined from 40.3 percent to 35.3 percent. During that same period, Helen Ellis' overall market share in Community Hospital's service area increased from 7.2 percent to 9.2 percent. From 1995 to the 12-month period ending June 30, 2002, Community Hospital's acute care market share in its service area declined from 34.0 percent to 25.9 percent. During that same period, Helen Ellis' acute care market share in Community Hospital's service area increased from 11.7 percent to 12.0 percent. In addition, acute care average occupancy rates at Mease Dunedin Hospital increased each year from 1999 through 2002. Acute care average occupancy at Mease Countryside Hospital exceeded 90 percent in 2000 and 2001, and was approximately 85 percent for the period ending June 30, 2002. Some of the loss in Community Hospital's market share is due to an out-migration of patients from its service area to hospitals in northern Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. Market share in Community's service area by out-of- market providers increased from 33 percent in 1995 to 40 percent in 2002. Community Hospital's outdated hospital has hampered its ability to compete for patients in its service area. Mease is increasing its efforts to attract patients and currently completing a $92 million expansion of Mease Countryside Hospital. The project includes the development of 1,134 parking spaces on 30 acres of raw land north of the Mease Countryside Hospital campus and the addition of two floors to the hospital. It also involves the relocation of 51 acute care beds, the obstetrics program and the Neonatal Intensive Care Units from Mease Dunedin Hosptial to Mease Countryside Hospital. Mease is also seeking to more than double the size of the Countryside emergency department to handle its 62,000 emergency visits. With the transfer of licensed beds from Mease Dunedin Hospital to Mease Countryside Hospital, Mease will also convert formerly semi-private patient rooms to private rooms at Mease Dunedin Hospital. The approval of Community Hospital's relocated facility will enable it to better compete with the hospitals in the area and promote quality and cost- effectiveness. North Bay, on the other hand, is not operating at a distinct disadvantage, yet is still experiencing declining utilization. North Bay is the only community-owned, not-for- profit provider in western Pasco County and is a valuable asset to the city. Section 408.035(10), Florida Statutes: The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods or energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction The parties stipulated that the project costs in both applications are reasonable to construct the replacement hospitals. Community Hospital's proposed construction cost per square foot is $175, and slightly less than North Bay's $178 proposal. The costs and methods of proposed construction for each proposal is reasonable. Given Community Hospital's severe site and facility problems, the evidence demonstrates that there is no reasonable, less costly, or more effective methods of construction available for its proposed replacement hospital. Additional "band-aide" approaches are not financially reasonable and will not enable Community Hospital to effectively compete. The facility is currently licensed for 401 beds, operates approximately 311 beds and is still undersized. The proposed replacement hospital will meet the standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-3.081, and will meet current building codes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Guidelines for Design and Construction of Hospitals and Health Care Facilities, developed by the American Institute of Architects. The opponents' argue that Community Hospital will not utilize the 320 acute care beds proposed in its CON application, and therefore, a smaller facility is a less- costly alternative. In addition, Helen Ellis' architectural expert witness provided schematic design alternatives for Community Hospital to be expanded and replaced on-site, without providing a detailed and credible cost accounting of the alternatives. Given the evidence and the law, their arguments are not persuasive. While North Bay's replacement cost figures are reasonable, given the aforementioned reasons, including the fact that the facility is in reasonably good condition and can expand vertically, on balance, it is unreasonable for North Bay to construct a replacement facility in the Trinity area. Section 408.035(11), Florida Statutes: The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent Community Hospital has consistently provided the most health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent in Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital agreed to provide at least ten percent of its patient days to Medicaid recipients. Similarly, North Bay agreed to provide 9.7 percent of its total annual patient days to Medicaid and charity patients combined. North Bay, by contrast, provided only 3.56 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients in 2002, and would have to significantly reverse a declining trend in its Medicaid provision to comply with the imposed condition. Community Hospital better satisfies the criterion. Section 408.035(12) has been stipulated as not applicable in this case. Adverse Impact on Existing Providers Historical figures demonstrate that hospital market shares are not static, but fluctuate with competition. No hospital is entitled to a specific or historic market share free from competition. While the applicants are located in health planning Sub-District 5-1 and Helen Ellis and the two Mease hospitals are located in health planning Sub-District 5- 2, they compete for business. None of the opponents is a disproportionate share, safety net, Medicaid provider. As a result, AHCA gives less consideration to any potential adverse financial impact upon them resulting from the approval of either application as a low priority. The opponents, however, argue that the approval of either replacement hospital would severely affect each of them. While the precise distance from the existing facilities to the relocation sites is relevant, it is clear that neither applicants' proposed site is unreasonably close to any of the existing providers. In fact, Community Hospital intends to locate its replacement facility three miles farther away from Helen Ellis and 1.5 miles farther away from Mease Dunedin Hospital. While Helen Ellis' primary service area is seemingly fluid, as noted by its chief operating officer's hearing and deposition testimony, and the Mease hospitals are located 15 to 20 miles south, they overlap parts of the applicants' primary service areas. Accordingly, each applicant concedes that the proposed increase in their patient volume would be derived from the growing population as well as existing providers. Although it is clear that the existing providers may be more affected by the approval of Community Hosptial's proposal, the exact degree to which they will be adversely impacted by either applicant is unknown. All parties agree, however, that the existing providers will experience less adverse affects by the approval of only one applicant, as opposed to two. Furthermore, Mease concedes that its hospitals will continue to aggressively compete and will remain profitable. In fact, Mease's adverse impact analysis does not show any credible reduction in loss of acute care admissions at Mease Countryside Hospital or Mease Dunedin Hospital until 2010. Even then, the reliable evidence demonstrates that the impact is negligible. Helen Ellis, on the other hand, will likely experience a greater loss of patient volume. To achieve its utilization projections, Community Hospital will aggressively compete for and increase market share in Pinellas County zip code 34689, which borders Pasco County. While that increase does not facially prove that Helen Ellis will be materially affected by Community Hospital's replacement hospital, Helen Ellis will confront targeted competition. To minimize the potential adverse affect, Helen Ellis will aggressively compete to expand its market share in the Pinellas County zip codes south of 34689, which is experiencing population growth. In addition, Helen Ellis is targeting broader service markets, and has filed an application to establish an open- heart surgery program. While Helen Ellis will experience greater competition and financial loss, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it will experience material financial adverse impact as a result of Community Hospital's proposed relocation. In fact, Helen Ellis' impact analysis is less than reliable. In its contribution-margin analysis, Helen Ellis utilized its actual hospital financial data as filed with AHCA for the fiscal year October 1, 2001, to September 30, 2002. The analysis included total inpatient and total outpatient service revenues found in the filed financial data, including ambulatory services and ancillary services, yet it did not include the expenses incurred in generating ambulatory or ancillary services revenue. As a result, the overstated net revenue per patient day was applied to its speculative lost number of patient days which resulted in an inflated loss of net patient service revenue. Moreover, the evidence indicates that Helen Ellis' analysis incorrectly included operational revenue and excluded expenses related to its 18-bed skilled nursing unit since neither applicant intends to operate a skilled nursing unit. While including the skilled nursing unit revenues, the analysis failed to include the sub-acute inpatient days that produced those revenues, and thereby over inflated the projected total lost net patient service revenue by over one million dollars.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Community Hospital's CON Application No. 9539, to establish a 376-bed replacement hospital in Pasco County, Sub- District 5-1, be granted; and North Bay's CON Application No. 9538, to establish a 122-bed replacement hospital in Pasco County, Sub-District 5- 1, be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Hauser, Esquire R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Metz, Hauser & Husband, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505 Post Office Box 10909 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Richard M. Ellis, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Richard J. Saliba, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Station 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Karen A. Putnal, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Darrell White, Esquire William B. Wiley, Esquire McFarlain & Cassedy, P.A. 305 South Gadsden Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether the application of Petitioner Naples Community Hospital, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to add a total of 35 beds to Naples Community Hospital and North Collier Community Hospital should be approved based on peak seasonal demand for acute care beds in the relevant subdistrict.
Findings Of Fact Naples Community Hospital, Inc., ("NCH") holds the license for and operates Naples Community Hospital ("Naples"), a 331 bed not-for-profit acute care hospital, and North Collier Community Hospital ("North Collier"), a 50 bed acute care hospital. NCH also operates a 22 bed comprehensive rehabilitation facility and a 23 bed psychiatric facility. NCH is owned by Community Health Care, Inc., "(CHC"). Both Naples and North Collier are located within Agency for Health Care Administration ("ACHA") district 8 and are the only hospitals within subdistrict 2 of the district. Naples is located in central Collier County. North Collier is (as the name implies) located in northern Collier County approximately 2-3 miles from the county line. NCH's primary service area is Collier County from which approximately 85-90 percent of its patients come, with a secondary service area extending north into Lee County. Neither Naples nor North Collier are teaching hospitals as defined by Section 407.002(27), Florida Statutes (1991). NCH is not proposing a joint venture in this CON application. NCH has a record of providing health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. NCH proposes to provide health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Neither Naples nor North Collier are currently designated by the Office of Medicaid as disproportionate share providers. NCH has the funds for capital and initial operating expenditures for the project. NCH has sufficient financial resources to construct and equip the proposed project. The costs and methods of the proposed construction are reasonable. The Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the state agency charged with responsibility for administering the Certificate of Need program. Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center ("Southwest") is a 400 bed for-profit acute care hospital located in Fort Myers, Lee County. Lee County is adjacent to and north of Collier County. Southwest is owned by Columbia Hospital Corporation ("Columbia"), which also owns Gulf Coast Hospital in Fort Myers, and two additional hospitals in AHCA District 8. Southwest's primary service area is Lee County. Although Southwest asserts that it would be negatively impacted by the addition of acute care beds at NCH, the greater weight of the credible evidence fails to support the assertion. The primary market services areas of NCH and Southwest are essentially distinct. However, the facilities are located in such proximity as to indicate that secondary service areas overlap and that, at least during peak winter season periods, approval of the NCH application could potentially impact Southwest's operations. Southwest has standing to participate in this proceeding. Southwest offered evidence to establish that it would be substantially affected by approval of the NCH application. The NCH length-of-stay identified in the Southwest documents is inaccurate and under-reports actual length-of-stay statistics. The documentation also includes demographic information from a zip code (33912) which contributes an insignificant portion of NCH patients, and relies on only two years of data in support of the assertion that utilization in the NCH service area is declining. Southwest's chief operating officer testified that he considers Gulf Coast Hospital, another Columbia-owned facility, to offer more competition to Southwest that does NCH. Further, a physician must have admitting privileges at a hospital before she can admit patients to the facility. Of the physicians holding admitting privileges at Southwest, only two, both cardiologists, also have admitting privileges at NCH. Contrary to Southwest, NCH does not have an open heart surgery program. Accordingly, at least as to physician-admitted patients, approval of the NCH application would likely have little impact. On August 26, 1991, NCH submitted to AHCA a letter of intent indicating that NCH would file a Certificate of Need ("CON") application in the September 26, 1991 batching cycle for the addition of 35 acute care beds to the Naples and North Collier facilities. The letter of intent did not specify how the additional beds would be divided between the two facilities. The determination of the number of beds for which NCH would apply was solely based on the fact that the applicant had 35 observation beds which could be readily converted to acute care beds. The observation beds NCH proposes to convert are equipped identically to the acute care beds at NCH and are currently staffed. The costs involved in such conversion are minimal and relatively insignificant. Included with the letter of intent was a certified corporate resolution which states that on July 24, 1991, the NCH Board of Trustees authorized the filing of an application for the additional beds, authorized NCH to incur related expenses, stated that NCH would accomplish the proposed project within time and budget allowances set forth in the application, and that NCH would license and operate the facility. By certification executed August 7, 1991, the NCH secretary certified that the resolution was enacted at the July 24, 1991 board meeting and that the resolution did not contravene the NCH articles of incorporation or bylaws. Article X, Sections 10.1 and 10.1.3 of the NCH bylaws provides that no CON application shall be legally effective without the written approval of CHC. On September 26, 1991, NCH filed an application for CON No. 6797 proposing to add 31 acute care beds to Naples and 4 acute care beds to North Collier. The CON application included a copy of the NCH board resolution and certification which had been previously submitted with the letter of intent as well as the appropriate filing fee. NCH published appropriate public notice of the application's filing. As of the date of the CON application's filing, CHC had not issued written approval of the CON application prior to the action of the NCH Board of Directors and the filing of the letter of intent or the application. On October 2, 1992, four days prior to the administrative hearing in this case, the board of CHC ratified the actions of NCH as to the application for CON at issue in this case. The CHC board has previously ratified actions of the NCH in such fashion. There is uncontroverted testimony that the CHC board was aware of the NCH application and that no reservation was expressed by any CHC board member regarding the CON application. Although NCH's filing of the CON application without appropriate authorization from its parent company appears to be in violation of the NCH bylaws, such does not violate the rules of the AHCA. There is no evidence that the AHCA requested written authorization from the CHC board. After review of the application, the AHCA identified certain deficiencies in the application and notified NCH, which apparently rectified the deficiencies. The AHCA deemed the application complete on November 8, 1991. As required by statute, NCH included a list of capital projects as part of the CON application. The list of capital projects attached to the application was incomplete. The capital projects list failed to identify approximate expenditures of $370,000 to construct a patio enclosure, $750,000 to install an interim sprinkler system, $110,000 to construct emergency room triage space, and $125,000 to complete electrical system renovations. At hearing, witnesses for NCH attempted to clarify the omissions from the capital projects list. The witnesses claimed that such omitted projects were actually included within projects which were identified on the list. When identifying the listed projects within which the omitted projects were supposedly included, the witnesses testified inconsistently. For example, one witness testified that the patio project was included in the emergency room expansion project listed in the application. Another witness claimed that the patio enclosure was included in an equipment purchase category. Based on the testimony, it is more likely that the patio enclosure was neither a part of an emergency room expansion nor equipment purchase, but was a separate construction project which was omitted from the CON application. Similarly inconsistent explanations were offered for the other projects which were omitted from the capital projects list. The testimony was not credible. The capital projects omitted from the list do not affect the ability of NCH to implement the CON sought in this proceeding. The parties stipulated to the fact the NCH has sufficient financial resources to construct and equip the proposed project. As part of the CON application, NCH was required to submit a pro forma income statement for the time period during which the bed additions would take place. The application failed to include a pro forma statement for the appropriate time period. Based on the stipulation of the parties that the costs and methods of the proposed construction are reasonable, and that NCH has adequate resources to fund the project, the failure to include the relevant pro forma is immaterial. Pursuant to applicable methodology, the AHCA calculates numeric acute care bed need projections for each subdistrict's specific planning period. Accordingly, the AHCA calculated the need for additional acute care beds in district 8, subdistrict 2 for the July, 1996 planning horizon. The results of the calculation are published by the agency. The unchallenged, published fixed need pool for the planning horizon at issue in this proceeding indicated that there was no numeric need for additional acute care beds in district 8, subdistrict 2, Collier County, Florida, pursuant to the numeric need methodology under Rule 59C-1.038 Florida Administrative Code. The CON application filed by NCH is based on the peak seasonal demand experienced by hospitals in the area during the winter months, due to part-time residents. NCH asserts that the utilization of acute care beds during the winter months (January through April) results in occupancy levels in excess of 75 percent and justifies the addition of acute care beds, notwithstanding the numerical need determination. Approval of the CON application is not justified by the facts in this case. The AHCA's acute care bed need methodology accounts for high seasonal demand in certain subdistricts in a manner which provides that facilities have bed space adequate to accommodate peak demand. The calculation which requires that the average annual occupancy level exceed 75 percent reflects AHCA consideration of occupancy levels which rise and fall with seasonal population shifts. The applicant has not challenged the methodology employed by the AHCA in projecting need. Peak seasonal acute care bed demand may justify approval of a CON application seeking additional beds if the lack of available beds poses a credible threat of potentially negative impact on patient outcomes. The peak seasonal demand experienced by NCH has not adversely affected patient care and there is insufficient evidence to establish that, at this time, such peak demand poses a credible threat of potential negative impact on patient outcomes in the foreseeable future. There is no dispute regarding the existing quality of care at Naples, North Collier, Southwest or any other acute care hospital in district 8. The parties stipulated that NCH has the ability to provide quality of care and a record of providing quality of care. In this case, the applicant is seeking to convert existing beds from a classification of "observation" to "acute care". The observation beds NCH proposes to convert are equipped identically to the acute care beds at NCH. Approval of the CON application would result in no net increase in the number of licensed beds. NCH offered anecdotal evidence suggesting that delays in transferring patients from the Naples emergency room to acute care beds (a "logjam") was caused by peak seasonal occupancy rates. There was no evidence offered as to the situation at the North Collier emergency room. The anecdotal evidence is insufficient to establish that "logjams" (if they occur at all) are related to an inadequate number of beds identified as "acute care" at NCH facilities. There are other factors which can result in delays in moving patients from emergency rooms to acute care beds, including facility discharge patterns, delays in obtaining medical test results and staffing practices. NCH asserted at hearing that physicians who refer patients to NCH facilities will not refer such patients to other facilities. The evidence fails to establish that such physician practice is reasonable or provides justification for approval of CON applications under "not normal" circumstances and further fails to establish that conditions at NCH are such as to result in physicians attempting to locate other facilities in which to admit patients. The rule governing approval of acute care beds provides that, prior to such approval, the annual occupancy rate for acute care beds in the subdistrict or for the specific provider, must exceed 75 percent. This requirement has not been met. Applicable statutes require that, in considering applications for CON's, the AHCA consider accessibility of existing providers. The AHCA- established standard provides that acute care bed accessibility requirements are met when at least 90 percent of the residents in an urban subdistrict are within a 30 minute automobile trip to such facilities. At least 90 percent of Naples residents are presently within a 30 minute travel time to NCH acute care beds. The number of acute care beds in the subdistrict substantially exceed the demand for such beds. Additional beds would result in inefficient utilization of existing beds, would further increase the current oversupply of beds, would delay the time at which need for additional beds may be determined and, as such, would prevent competing facilities from applying for and receiving approval for such beds. The financial feasibility projections set forth in the CON application rely on assumptions as to need and utilization projections which are not supported by the greater weight of the evidence and are not credited. Accordingly, the evidence fails to establish that the addition of 35 acute care beds to NCH facilities is financially feasible in the long term or that the income projections set forth in the CON application are reasonable. As to projections related to staffing requirements and costs, the beds are existing and are currently staffed on a daily, shift-by-shift basis, based on patient census and acuity of illness. There is reason to believe that the staffing patterns will remain fairly constant and accordingly the projections, based on historical data, are reasonable. Generally stated, where there is no numeric or "not normal" need for the proposed addition of 35 acute care beds in the relevant subdistrict, it could be predicted that the addition of acute care beds would exacerbate the oversupply of available beds and could cause a slight reduction in the occupancy levels experienced by other providers. In this case, the market service areas are sufficiently distinct as to suggest that such would not necessarily be the result. However, based on the lack of need justifying approval of the CON application under any existing circumstances, it is unnecessary to address in detail the impact on existing providers. The state and district health plans identify a number of preferences which should be considered in determining whether a CON application should be approved. The plans suggest that such preferences are to be considered when competing CON applications are reviewed. In this case there is no competing application and the applicability of the preferences is unclear. However, in any event, application of the preferences to this proposal fail to support approval of the application.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered DENYING the application of Naples Community Hospital, Inc., for Certificate of Need 6797. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of March, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-1510 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3-4, 6-8, 16-20, 29-36, 38, 41, 44, 47, 49-61, 80, 88, 95-96, 100, 104, 108, 117-119, 122-125, 127, 134-138. Rejected as unnecessary. 15. Rejected as irrelevant. Peak seasonal demand is accounted for by the numeric need determination methodology. There is no credible evidence which supports a calculation of three years of four month winter occupancy to reach a 12 month average occupancy rate. 21-27, 37, 42-43, 62-64, 66, 97, 99, 101-103, 105-107, 109, 120-121, 126. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 28. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence and contrary to the stipulation filed by the parties. Rejected as not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence which fails to establish that the transfer of patients from emergency room to acute care beds is delayed due to numerical availability of beds. Rejected as not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence which fails to establish that the alleged lack of acute care beds is based on insufficient number of total beds as opposed to other factors which affect bed availability. Rejected as immaterial and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence Rejected as immaterial and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which fails to establish reasonableness of considering only a four month period under "not normal" circumstances where the period and the peak seasonal demand are included within the averages utilized to project bed need. 86. Rejected as cumulative. 114. Rejected as unsupported hearsay. Respondent/Intervenor The Respondent and Intervenor filed a joint proposed recommended order. The proposed order's findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 6, 45, 51, 53, 59-67, 69-70, 94-113. Rejected as unnecessary. 16. Rejected as to use of term "false", conclusion of law. 58. Rejected as not clearly supported by credible evidence. 71-93, 114-124. Rejected as cumulative. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez, & Cole Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Edward G. Labrador, Esquire Thomas Cooper, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 John D.C. Newton, II, Esquire Aurell, Radey, Hinkle, Thomas & Beranek Monroe Park Tower, Suite 1000 101 North Monroe Street Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Background On July 31, 1987, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) published in the Florida Administrative Weekly an announcement of the fixed need pools for the subject batching cycle, which pertained to the planning horizon of July, 1992. According to the notice, the fixed need pool, which was calculated pursuant to Rules 10-5.008(6) and 10-5.011(m), (n), (o), and (q), Florida Administrative Code, was adjusted according to the occupancy rate thresholds as prescribed by said rules. The net adjusted need for short-term psychiatric beds in District 7 was zero. By letter to HRS dated August 12, 1987, the North Brevard County Hospital District, doing business as Jess Parrish Memorial Hospital (Jess Parrish), provided notice of its intent to apply for a certificate of need to convert 16 beds from medical/surgical to psychiatric. By Application for Certificate of Need dated September 14, 1987, Jess Parrish requested that HRS grant a certificate of need for the conversion of 16 medical/surgical beds to 16 adult short-term psychiatric beds at a cost of $46,100. Jess Parrish is a tax-exempt organization whose board of directors have been authorized by law to levy ad valorem taxes in a special tax district in north Brevard County for the support of the hospital. The main hospital is located at 951 North Washington Avenue in Titusville, which is in north Brevard County. Brevard County is located in HRS District 7. By letter to Jess Parrish dated October 5, 1987, HRS requested additional information. By response dated November 9, 1987, Jess Parrish supplied the requested responses to omissions. By letter dated November 18, 1987, Jess Parrish provided additional information desired by HRS. By letter dated December 22, 1987, Wuesthoff Hospital (Wuesthoff) informed HRS that it objected to the above-described application because of absence of need. The letter states that Wuesthoff maintained an occupancy rate of 74% during the past year in its 25 short-term psychiatric beds. Wuesthoff is located in Rockledge, which is in central Brevard County. By letter and State Agency Action Report dated January 25, 1988, HRS informed Jess Parrish of its intent to issue the requested certificate of need for the conversion of the 16 beds. By Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed February 23, 1988, Wuesthoff challenged the intent to award the certificate of need to Jess Parrish and requested a formal hearing. The Application and Approval Process The application for the certificate of need states that Jess Parrish has a total of 210 beds, consisting of 172 medical/surgical beds, 10 obstetric beds, 20 pediatric beds, and 8 intensive care unit beds. The application contains all elements required by law, including a resolution authorizing the application and financial statements. The application and omissions response state that Jess Parrish admitted about 100 psychiatric patients in fiscal year ending 1987. The omissions response adds that Jess Parrish would offer the following programs for its short-term psychiatric patients: continual evaluation, screening, and admissions; individual, family, and group therapy; occupational, recreational, and vocational therapy; psychological and psychiatric testing and evaluation; day hospital and day clinic; family and friends education and support groups; and specialized treatment programs for geriatric psychiatric patients. The omissions response reports that the only facility with adult short-term psychiatric beds within 45 minutes of Jess Parrish is Wuesthoff. The omissions response states that Wuesthoff had experienced the following occupancy rates in its adult short-term psychiatric program: 1984--59%; 1985--66%; 1986-- 7l%; and first three quarters of 1987--71%. The omissions response acknowledges that Jess Parrish and Circles of Care, Inc. (Circles of Care) had jointly prepared the application and that Jess Parrish "plans to employ by contract, Circles of Care, Inc. to operate and manage our unit" if the application is approved. The omissions response includes a letter to HRS dated November 10, 1987, from James B. Whitaker, as president of Circles of Care. The letter describes the 12-year relationship between the two parties, which began when Circles of Care leased its first 12 beds from Jess Parrish between 1974 and 1980. Mr. Whitaker states that the two parties thus "work[ed] out a management agreement; for the new sixteen bed unit that Jess Parrish has requested." In the State Agency Action Report, HRS notes that the project does not conform with Policy 4 of the applicable District 7 Local Health Plan. This policy provides that additional short-term inpatient psychiatric beds may be approved when the average annual occupancy rate for all existing facilities in the planning area equals or exceeds the following rates: adult--75% and adolescents/children--70%. HRS reports a similar discrepancy as to the occupancy standard in the State Health Plan, which incorporates at Objective 1.2 the same 70%/75% standards. HRS states in the State Agency Action Report that the 1986 occupancy rates for short-term psychiatric beds, which averaged 69.98% in Brevard County, were 87% at Circles of Care, 70.6% at Wuesthoff, and 14% at a new facility, C. P. C.--Palm Bay. In addition, for the first six months of 1987, the report states that the occupancy rates, which averaged 63.5% in Brevard County, were 76% at Circles of Care, 71.5% at Wuesthoff, and 43% at C. P. C.--Palm Bay. In calculating numeric need under the rule, HRS concludes that there was a net need for a total of 547 beds in the district, consisting of 312 in specialty hospitals and 235 in general hospitals. Addressing the provision of the District 7 Local Health Plan focusing upon need at the county level, HRS finds that there was a net need for a total of 38 beds. Recognizing the "sub- standard utilization" of existing short-term psychiatric beds, HRS states that the application was justified "mainly because of the enhanced access to services that the project would provide." All of the other criteria were fully satisfied with one irrelevant exception, and the State Agency Action Report concludes: Although the district and county utilization of short-term psychiatric beds falls below the 70% [sic) adult standard, this project merits a Certificate of Need because there exists numeric need in the service area and because the project affords greater access and availability to psychiatric services for underserved groups. Need District and State Health Plans Part 3 of the 1985 District 7 Local Health Plan, published by The Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Inc., sets forth policies and priorities for inpatient psychiatric services. Policy 1 establishes each of the four counties of District 7 as a subdistrict for purposes of planning inpatient psychiatric services. Policy 3 of the 1985 District 7 Local Health Plan provides a specific methodology to allocate beds when the numeric need rule methodology indicates a need for inpatient psychiatric beds. A minimum of .15 beds per 1000 projected population should be allocated to hospitals holding a general license. A total of .20 beds per 1000 projected population may be located in specialty hospitals or hospitals holding a general license. The population projections are for five years into the future. Policy 4 of the 1985 District 7 Local Health Plan provides that additional short-term inpatient psychiatric beds may be approved when the average annual occupancy rates for all existing facilities in the planning area equal or exceed 75% for adult facilities and 70% for adolescents/children facilities. The policy concludes: Additional beds should not be added to the health system' until the existing facilities are operating at acceptable levels of occupancy. Good utilization of existing facilities prior to adding beds aids in cost containment by preventing unnecessary duplication. The 1988 District 7 Local Health Plan, although inapplicable to the subject proceeding, refers to the pending application of Jess Parrish. The plan states: [T]he residents of District 7 appear to be well-served by the existing providers with only a few exceptions. First, residents of north Brevard County (Titusville area) currently have no access to any certified, short-term, inpatient psych services in less than 22 miles. In many driving situations this distance takes longer than 30-45 minutes to traverse. . . . If [the CON that has been tentatively approved] is sustained through litigation and the unit is finally opened availability of these 16 beds should ameliorate, to a large degree, the potential geographic access problems for north Brevard adult/geriatric patients at least. Objective 1.1 of the 1985-1987 State Health Plan states that the ratio of short-term inpatient hospital psychiatric beds to population should not exceed .35 beds to 1000 population. Objective 1.2 states that, through 1987, additional short-term psychiatric beds should not normally be approved unless the service districts has an average annual occupancy of 75% for existing and approved adult beds and 70% for existing and approved adolescents/children beds. Numeric Need Pursuant to HRS Rules Net Need Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4., Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the HRS numeric need methodology. The rule provides that the projected number of beds shall be determined by applying the ratio of .35 beds to 1000 population to the projected population in five years, as estimated by the Executive Office of the Governor. The relevant projected population for District 7 is 1,564,098 persons. Applying the ratio, the gross number of beds needed in District 7 is 547. The total number of existing and approved short-term psychiatric beds in District 7 in 1987 was 410. There is therefore a net need for 137 short-term psychiatric beds in District 7. The relevant projected population for Brevard County is 441,593 persons. Applying the ratio, the gross number of beds needed in Brevard County is 155. The total number of existing and approved short-term psychiatric beds in Brevard County in 1987 was 117. There is therefore a net need for 38 short- term psychiatric beds in Brevard County. A minimum of .15 beds per 1000 population should be located in hospitals holding a general license, and .20 beds per 1000 population may be located in specialty hospitals or hospitals holding a general license. The calculations disclose that, for District 7, there is a net need of 73 beds in the former category and 65 beds in the latter category. As to Brevard County, the respective numbers are 41 and 4. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.d., Florida Administrative Code, provides that new facilities for adults must be able to project a 70% occupancy rate for the first year and 80% occupancy rate for the third year. Jess Parrish projects that its short-term psychiatric program will experience a utilization rate of 66% at the end of the first complete year of operation and 82% at the end of the third complete year of operation. These projections are reasonable and substantially conform with the requirements of the rule. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.e., Florida Administrative Code, provides that no additional short-term inpatient beds shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for the preceding 12 months in a "service district" is at least 75% for all existing adult short-term inpatient psychiatric beds and at least 70% for all adolescents/children short-term inpatient psychiatric beds. HRS considered the 70%/75% occupancy standards in making the July, 1987, announcement of a zero fixed need pool for short-term psychiatric beds in Brevard County. The determination of zero fixed need was a reflection that, although numeric need existed, the occupancy standards had not been satisfied. The incorporation of the occupancy standard into the July, 1987, fixed need calculation represented a deviation from nonrule policy deferring computation of the occupancy levels until the application-review process. The prior announcement of a fixed need pool on February 27, 1987, stated that a number of beds were needed even though the occupancy situation in District 7 was about the same. Subsequent announcements likewise deferred consideration of the occupancy standard. HRS has explicated its nonrule policy of excluding occupancy standards from the calculation of numeric need when publishing fixed need pools. Unlike the relatively simple task of determining the relevant population projection and multiplying it by the proper ratio, application of the occupancy standards, especially at the time in question, required numerous determinations and calculations. By attempting to incorporate the occupancy standards into the calculations upon which the fixed need pool were based, HRS increased the potential for error, which occurred in this case, rather than increased the reliability of the information. Although adequate reason exists for revising the July, 1987, published fixed need pool, Rule 10-5.008(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, prohibits revisions to a fixed need pool based upon a change in need methodologies, population estimates, bed inventories, or other factors leading to a different projection of need, if retroactively applied. However, the revision of the July, 1987, fixed need pool does not represent a change in need methodologies, population estimates, bed inventories, or other factors leading to a different projection of need, if retroactively applied. The revision to the fixed need pool, which did not represent a change in need methodology or underlying facts, was a result of three legitimate considerations. First, HRS revised the fixed need pool to implement its policy decision to limit the fixed need pool to the numeric need calculation and reserve the calculations of occupancy standards to the application-review process. This consideration does not involve a change in the methodology of determining numeric need or applying occupancy standards. Second, HRS revised the fixed need pool to correct earlier, erroneous calculations. This consideration does not involve a change in the underlying facts, but merely in the computations based upon the same facts. Third, HRS revised the fixed need pool to reflect developing policy in the application of the occupancy standards. HRS decided to apply the more liberal 70% occupancy standard to facilities serving both adults and adolescents/children, exclude from the determination of occupancy levels any facilities serving only age cohorts not served by the applicant, and restrict the 75% occupancy standard to facilities serving adults only. HRS made these changes, which it felt would not harm existing providers, in recognition of the failure of data provided by health-care suppliers to distinguish between adult and adolescents/children admissions and patient days. These considerations approximate a change in methodology, but the revision resulting from such considerations does not violate the rule because HRS already has shown that consideration of the occupancy standards should not take place until after publication of the fixed need pool. In the present case, two facilities in District 7 serve only adolescents/children. These facilities are C. P. C.-- Palm Bay and Laurel Oaks, which is in Orange County. Eliminating their occupancy rates, the district occupancy rate in the year ending June 30, 1987, was 71.9%. Removing the occupancy rate of C. P. C.--Palm Bay from Brevard County, the county occupancy rate during the same period was over 75%. Under the revised policies, Brevard County had a net need of 38 short- term psychiatric beds, applicable occupancy standards in the county and district were satisfied, and the July, 1987, publication of a fixed need pool of zero did not preclude the finding of need under other than "not normal" circumstances. Accessibility Financial Accessibility The primary service area of Jess Parrish is north Brevard County. A higher percentage of the population of this area lives below the poverty level than does the population of any other sub-region of Brevard County. According to the 1980 Census data, the applicable percentages of area residents living below the poverty level were 12.7% in north Brevard County, 10% in central Brevard County, 8.4% in south Brevard County, and 9.6% in Brevard County overall. Partly as a reflection of the different sub-regions and partly as a reflection of the commitment of Jess Parrish to provide access to underserved populations, Jess Parrish provides considerably more services to Medicaid patients than does either of the other major general hospitals in central and south Brevard County. In 1987, 11.5% of the admissions and 8.9% of the patient days at Jess Parrish were Medicaid. The respective numbers are 7% and 6% for Wuesthoff and 5.8% and 3.9% for Holmes Regional Medical Center, which is in Melbourne. A key component of financial accessibility is the effect of the proposed program on Circles of Care. About 55% of the patients of Circles of Care are indigent. Another 17% of its patients earn between the minimum wage and $15,000 annually. Circles of Care has participated in all phases of the application process on behalf of Jess Parrish. The approval of the new program would not have an adverse effect on Circles of Care. To the contrary, the new program at Jess Parrish would provide Circles of Care with more treatment options, especially with respect to indigent patients, whose need for short-term psychiatric services has proven at times difficult to meet. These options are especially valuable at a time when there is no net need in Brevard County for any more short-term psychiatric beds in specialty hospitals, such as Circles of Care. The 52 psychiatric beds licensed to Circles of Care are in two different units contained within a single hospital facility located in Melbourne, which is in south Brevard County. Sheridan Oaks is a 24-bed, private unit, which cannot accept many Baker Act patients without adversely affecting the other patients and the psychiatrists who refer private-pay patients to this unit. The other unit is a public Baker Act receiving facility with 28 beds, for which Circles of Care receives state funds. Unlike Sheridan Oaks, the public receiving facility employs the psychiatrists who work there. About 85-90% of all Baker Act patients in Brevard County come through this public receiving facility, whose occupancy rate was 98% in the year ending June 30, 1987. In addition to these units, Circles of Care operates a mental health outpatient clinic in Titusville, an outpatient/inpatient treatment center in the Rockledge/Cocoa area, numerous social clubs throughout Brevard County for the chronic mentally ill, and numerous public education and awareness programs concerning the treatability of mental illness. Another limitation of being a specialty hospital is that Circles of Care does not qualify for Medicaid reimbursement. Jess Parrish, as a general hospital, qualifies for such reimbursement and projects in its application that 39% of its patient days will be Medicaid and 9% of its patient days will be indigent. Geographic Access Jess Parrish is located at the north end of Brevard County, which runs about 80 miles north-south. Wuesthoff is about 25 miles south of Jess Parrish, and Titusville is about 40 miles north of Melbourne. Intercity north-south traffic uses Interstate 95, which is west of the above-described cities, and U.S. Route 1, which runs through the center of each of these cities. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)5.g., Florida Administrative Code, provides that short-term inpatient psychiatric services should be located within a maximum travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions for at least 90% of the population of the service area. This criterion is presently met without the addition of short-term psychiatric beds at Jess Parrish. This factor is outweighed, however, by another factor in this case. Jess Parrish projects about half of its patients will be indigent or Medicaid, and north Brevard County has a disproportionate share of the county's impoverished residents. Average travel conditions for these persons require public transportation, which, in north Brevard County, is limited to Greyhound/Trailways and local taxi companies. Exclusive of time waiting for the bus and traveling to and from the bus stations, the time for the 25-mile trip between Titusville and Rockledge, of which there are three or four trips daily (excluding off-hour trips), ranges from 25-35 minutes. There is evidence in the record that mentally ill bus passengers do not always make it to their intended destinations by way of intercity buses. The use of available public transportation is therefore problematic, but in any event adds considerable time to the travel time to Wuesthoff for those individuals who do not own a motor vehicle. Effect on Wuesthoff The effect of the conversion of medical/surgical beds to short-term psychiatric beds will have no material effect on Wuesthoff, even though it did reduce the number of short-term psychiatric beds from 30 to 25 in 1986. The occupancy rate for Wuesthoff's short-term psychiatric unit in 1987 was 70.6%. The prime service areas of Wuesthoff and Jess Parrish as to psychiatric admissions do not substantially overlap. Although Jess Parrish may be expected to draw more patients from Wuesthoff's prime service area following commencement of the new operation, many of Jess Parrish's patients will be from the indigent and Medicaid payor classes for which the competition is not intense. The addition of a 16-bed short-term psychiatric unit at Jess Parrish will not materially influence the availability of qualified personnel for Wuesthoff. It appears that Jess Parrish will be able to staff the relatively small 16-bed unit without employing significant numbers of professional employees of Wuesthoff. Some of the relatively few patients whom Wuesthoff can be expected to lose to Jess Parrish involve referrals from Titusville-area physicians, psychiatrists, and psychologists, who will place their patients in the closer facility once it is opened. The negative impact upon Wuesthoff is outweighed in these cases by gains for the patients in continuity of care and community support. Financial Feasibility The short-term financial feasibility is good. Jess Parrish has available to it sufficient funds to undertake the relatively modest capital outlay in constructing the facility, which will consist of about 8000 square feet on an existing floor of the hospital. The long-term financial feasibility is generally good. The financial projections are based on reasonable assumptions, which are largely derived from the actual experience of Circles of Care. The projections accurately estimate revenue sources and expenses. Jess Parrish reasonably projects an adequate supply of patients from a combination of sources, including Circles of Care, existing patients whose diagnoses include psychiatric components, and numerous health-care professionals in north Brevard County. The financial projections contemplate a material contribution by Circles of Care, but project no compensating expenditures. However, this deficiency is largely offset by the likelihood that the financial participation of Circles of Care will be restricted to a share of any excess of revenues over expenses of the new project, possibly excluding reimbursement of fairly minor expenses. If that is the case, the effect of any management agreement would be only to reduce the excess of revenues over expenses enjoyed by Jess Parrish from the operation of the short-term psychiatric unit. The management agreement would not expose Jess Parrish to losses that would not have otherwise existed but for the agreement to make payments to Circles of Care. Under these circumstances, the omission of the information, although material, does not seriously cast into doubt the long-term financial feasibility of the project. Quality of Care The quality of hospital care offered by Jess Parrish is excellent. The quality of the various psychiatric services offered by Circles of Care is also excellent. Both facilities are accredited by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals. The issue in this case involves the quality of care to be expected in the 16-bed short-term psychiatric unit for which Jess Parrish seeks a certificate of need. Circles of Care and Jess Parrish have agreed that Circles of Care will be responsible for recruiting most of the personnel for the new program and will employ the program's medical director, who will be responsible for treatment decisions. In addition, Circles of Care will advise Jess Parrish as to the adoption of policy, which will remain ultimately the responsibility of Jess Parrish. Jess Parrish will employ the head nurse and all other full-time professional staff working in the unit. The tentativeness of the arrangement between Circles of Care and Jess Parrish is partly explained by the desire of both parties to avoid the time and expense of negotiating an agreement in every detail prior to obtaining final approval of the certificate of need. In addition, both organizations were devoting substantial time to the subject litigation, for which Circles of Care was paying a portion of the expenses. In the final analysis, the failure to work out the agreement, although not a positive feature of the application, is not a serious problem for two reasons. First, Circles of Care and Jess Parrish have a long history of mutual cooperation. The relationship began when Jess Parrish leased Circles of Care 16 hospital beds for psychiatric use. Although the arrangement ended several years ago when Circles of Care constructed its Melbourne facility, the two organizations have since cooperated in several less intensive ways. Second, although Circles of Care has superior expertise in the area of mental health, Jess Parrish qualifies by itself to operate the proposed facility. Circles of Care has already provided much of the necessary technical information required for the preparation of budgets and pro formas. Recruiting would probably take somewhat longer without Circles of Care, but the modest construction budget obviously does not involve significant debt service, so that the delay would not be costly. Perhaps the most significant loss from a quality-of-care perspective would be the medical director, whose expertise will be critical. Again, this would be largely a problem of delay only, as Jess Parrish would have to find a replacement, although it appears likely that the director may be Dr. David Greenblum, who is already a member of the active medical staff at Jess Parrish. Given the quality of care provided by Jess Parrish in the past, there is no basis for any concern that, in the unlikely event that the parties fail to negotiate an agreement, Jess Parrish would jeopardize its reputation as a quality 200-bed general hospital in order to commence prematurely a 16-bed short- term psychiatric unit. Other Factors The record does not demonstrate that there are less costly, more efficient, or more appropriate alternatives to the inpatient services proposed in the subject application. There are no crisis stabilization units or short-term residential treatment programs available in Brevard County. The proposed project will have a measurable impact only upon Circles of Care, whose existing inpatient facilities will be enhanced, and Wuesthoff, whose existing inpatient facilities will not be materially affected. In general, these existing services are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. On the other hand, the beds that Jess Parrish seeks to convert are underutilized in their present designation. The medical/surgical beds at Jess Parrish have been utilized at a rate of less than 60% over the past three years. There are no feasible alternatives to renovation of the existing facilities. The costs and methods of proposed construction are reasonable and appropriate. The approval of the application will foster healthy competition in the area of short-term psychiatric services and promote quality assurance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order granting the application of Jess Parrish for a certificate of need to convert 16 medical/surgical beds to 16 short-term adult psychiatric beds. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1220 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Jess Parrish 1-6 Adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8 Rejected as irrelevant. 9-10 Adopted or adopted in substance. 11 Rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. 12-13 Adopted or adopted in substance. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted to the extent of the finding in the Recommended Order that there likely will be an agreement between Circles of Care and Jess Parrish. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence that such an agreement exists already. Also rejected as unnecessary insofar as the application can stand on its own without the participation of Circles of Care. 15a Adopted or adopted in substance. 15b-15c Rejected as irrelevant. 15d-15g Adopted in substance, although certain proposed facts rejected as subordinate. However, the first sentence of Paragraph 15f is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 15h Rejected as recitation of testimony. 16-18 Adopted or adopted in substance except that all but the last sentence of Paragraph 18g. is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and legal argument. 19 First sentence adopted. 19 (remainder) -22. Rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence. Generally adopted, although most of the facts are rejected as subordinate in the overall finding and cumulative. Adopted except that sixth sentence is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and the seventh sentence is rejected as subordinate. Adopted in substance. First sentence adopted. Remainder rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. 28a Rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 28b-28d Adopted or adopted in substance. and 31 Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary. 32-50 Adopted or adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of HRS 1-11 Adopted or adopted in substance. & 14 Rejected as irrelevant. & 15-16 Adopted. 17 Rejected as unnecessary. 18-74 See rulings on Paragraphs 16-50 in preceding section. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Wuesthoff 1-3 Adopted or adopted in substance. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and legal argument. 6-10 & 12 Adopted or adopted in substance. 11 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as recitation of testimony and cumulative. Rejected as cumulative except that second sentence is adopted. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Rejected as cumulative, subordinate, and legal argument. Rejected as cumulative except that second sentence is adopted. First clause rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Remainder rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as cumulative and subordinate. 20-23 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative. 27-28 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 29 Rejected as legal argument. 30-32 Rejected as irrelevant. 33-41 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and subordinate. 42 and 51 Rejected as recitation of evidence. 43-45 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 46 Rejected as legal argument. 47-50 and 52-54 Rejected as subordinate. 55 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 56-59 Rejected as irrelevant. 60-66 Rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. 67-69 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 70-73 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and subordinate. 74-78 Adopted. 79 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 80-82 Adopted. 83-85 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 86 Rejected as subordinate and against the greater weight of the evidence. 87-91 Adopted or adopted in substance. 92 Rejected as against the greater weight of he evidence. 93-94 Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. 97-98 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as subordinate. 101-102 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as partly cumulative and partly legal argument. Rejected as against the greater weight of the 105 evidence Rejected and irrelevant. as against the greater weight of the 106-108 evidence. Rejected as subordinate. 109 110-113 Rejected evidence. Rejected as against the greater weight of as subordinate. the 114-117 118-120 Rejected evidence. Rejected as against the greater weight of as irrelevant and subordinate. the 121-122 Rejected as subordinate. 123 124-125 First sentence adopted in substance. Remainder rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. 126-129 Rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of evidence. the COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Cleveland W. David Watkins Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 John Rodriguez 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William B. Wiley Darrell White McFarlain, Sternstein, Wiley & Cassedy, P.A. Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Stephen M. Presnell MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 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 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Applicant, LMHS The applicant, LMHS, is a public, not-for-profit health care system, created in 1968 by special act of the Legislature. A ten-member publicly elected board of directors is responsible for overseeing LMHS on behalf of the citizens of Lee County. LMHS does not have taxing power. LMHS is the dominant provider of hospital services in Lee County. LMHS operates four hospital facilities under three separate hospital licenses. The four hospital campuses are dispersed throughout Lee County: borrowing the sub-county area descriptors adopted by LMHS’s health planning expert, LMHS operates one hospital in northwest Lee County, one hospital in central Lee County, and two hospitals in south Lee County.1/ At present, the four hospital campuses are licensed to operate a total of 1,423 hospital beds. The only non-LMHS hospital in Lee County is 88-bed Lehigh Regional Medical Center (Lehigh Regional) in northeast Lee County, owned and operated by a for-profit hospital corporation, Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA). LMHS has a best-practice strategy of increasing and concentrating clinical specialties at each of its existing hospitals. The LMHS board has already approved which specialty service lines will be the focus at each of its four hospitals. Although there is still some duplication of specialty areas, LMHS has tried to move more to clinical specialization concentrated at a specific hospital to lower costs, better utilize resources, and also to concentrate talent and repetitions, leading to improved clinical outcomes. Currently licensed to operate 415 hospital beds, Lee Memorial Hospital (Lee Memorial) is located in downtown Fort Myers in central Lee County. The hospital was initially founded in 1916 and established at its current location in the 1930s. In the 1960s, a five-story clinical tower was constructed on the campus, to which three more stories were added in the 1970s. The original 1930s building was demolished and its site became surface parking. Today, Lee Memorial provides a full array of acute care services, plus clinical specialties in such areas as orthopedics, neurology, oncology, and infectious diseases. Lee Memorial’s licensed bed complement includes 15 adult inpatient psychiatric beds (not in operation), and 60 beds for comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR), a tertiary health service.2/ Lee Memorial is a designated stroke center, meaning it is a destination to which EMS providers generally seek to transport stroke patients, bypassing any closer hospital that lacks stroke center designation. Lee Memorial operates the only verified level II adult trauma center in the seven-county region designated AHCA district 8. Lee Memorial also is home to a new residency program for medical school graduates. At its peak, Lee Memorial operated as many as 600 licensed beds at the single downtown Fort Myers location. In 1990, when hospital beds were still regulated under the CON program, Lee Memorial transferred its right to operate 220 beds to establish a new hospital facility to the south, HealthPark Medical Center (HealthPark). One reason to shift some of its regulated hospital beds to the south was because of the growing population in the southern half of Lee County. Another reason was to ensure a paying patient population by moving beds away from Lee Memorial to a more affluent area. That way, LMHS would have better system balance, and be better able to bear the financial burden of caring for disproportionately high numbers of Medicaid and charity care patients at the downtown safety-net hospital. That was a reasonable and appropriate objective. HealthPark, located in south Lee County ZIP code 33908, to the south and a little to the west of Lee Memorial, now operates 368 licensed beds--320 general acute care and 48 neonatal intensive care beds. HealthPark’s specialty programs and services include cardiac care, open heart surgery, and urology. HealthPark is a designated STEMI3/ (heart attack) center, a destination to which EMS providers generally seek to transport heart attack patients, bypassing any closer hospital lacking STEMI center designation. HealthPark also concentrates in specialty women’s and children’s services, offering obstetrics, neonatal intensive care, perinatal intensive care, and pediatrics. HealthPark is a state-designated children’s cancer center. HealthPark’s open heart surgery, neonatal and perinatal intensive care, and pediatric oncology services are all tertiary health services. In 1996, LMHS acquired its third hospital, Cape Coral Medical Center (Cape Coral), from another entity.4/ The acquisition of Cape Coral was another step in furtherance of the strategy to improve LMHS’s overall payer mix by establishing hospitals in affluent areas. Cape Coral is located in northwest Lee County, and is licensed to operate 291 general acute care beds. Cape Coral’s specialty concentrations include obstetrics, orthopedics, gastroenterology, urology, and stroke treatment. Cape Coral recently achieved primary stroke center designation, making it an appropriate destination for EMS transport of stroke patients, according to Lee County EMS transport guidelines. The newest LMHS hospital, built in 2007-2008 and opened in 2009, is Gulf Coast Medical Center (Gulf Coast) in south Lee County ZIP code 33912.5/ With 349 licensed beds, Gulf Coast offers tertiary services including kidney transplantation and open heart surgery, and specialty services including obstetrics, stroke treatment, surgical oncology, and neurology. Gulf Coast is both a designated primary stroke center and a STEMI center. NCH NCH is a not-for-profit system operating two hospital facilities with a combined 715 licensed beds in Collier County, directly to the south of Lee County. Naples Community Hospital (Naples Community) is in downtown Naples. NCH North Naples Hospital Campus (North Naples) is located in the northernmost part of Collier County, near the Collier-Lee County line.6/ The Petitioner in this case is NCH doing business as North Naples. North Naples is licensed to operate 262 acute care beds. It provides an array of acute care hospital services, specialty services including obstetrics and pediatrics, and tertiary health services including neonatal intensive care and CMR. AHCA AHCA is the state health planning agency charged with administering the CON program pursuant to the Health Facility and Services Development Act, sections 408.031-408.0455, Florida Statutes (2013).7/ AHCA is responsible for the coordinated planning of health care services in the state. To carry out its responsibilities for health planning and CON determinations, AHCA maintains a comprehensive health care database, with information that health care facilities are required to submit, such as utilization data. See § 408.033(3), Fla. Stat. AHCA conducts its health planning and CON review based on “health planning service district[s]” defined by statute. See § 408.032(5), Fla. Stat. Relevant in this case is district 8, which includes Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Lee, Glades, Hendry, and Collier Counties. Additionally, by rule, AHCA has adopted acute care sub-districts, originally utilized in conjunction with an acute care bed need methodology codified as Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.038. The acute care bed need rule was repealed in 2005, following the deregulation of acute care beds from CON review. However, AHCA has maintained its acute care sub-district rule, in which Lee County is designated sub-district 8-5. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-2.100(3)(h)5. The Proposed Project LMHS proposes to establish a new 80-bed general hospital on the southeast corner of U.S. Highway 41 and Coconut Road in Bonita Springs (ZIP code 34135),8/ in south Lee County. The CON application described the hospital services to be offered at the proposed new hospital in only the most general fashion--medical- surgical services, emergency services, intensive care, and telemetry services. Also planned for the proposed hospital are outpatient care, community education, and chronic care management --all non-hospital, non-CON-regulated services. At hearing, LMHS did not elaborate on the planned hospital services for the proposed new facility. Instead, no firm decisions have been made by the health system regarding what types of services will be offered at the new hospital. The proposed site consists of three contiguous parcels, totaling approximately 31 acres. LMHS purchased a 21-acre parcel in 2004, with a view to building a hospital there someday. LMHS later added to its holdings when additional parcels became available. At present, the site’s development of regional impact (DRI) development order does not permit a hospital, but would allow the establishment of a freestanding emergency department. The proposed hospital site is adjacent to the Bonita Community Health Center (BCHC). Jointly owned by LMHS and NCH, BCHC is a substantial health care complex described by LMHS President James Nathan as a “hospital without walls.” This 100,000 square-foot complex includes an urgent care center, ambulatory surgery center, and physicians’ offices. A wide variety of outpatient health care services are provided within the BCHC complex, including radiology/diagnostic imaging, endoscopy, rehabilitation, pain management, and lab services. Although LMHS purchased the adjacent parcels with the intent of establishing a hospital there someday, representatives of LMHS expressed their doubt that “someday” has arrived; they have candidly admitted that this application may be premature. CON Application Filing LMHS did not intend to file a CON application when it did, in the first hospital-project review cycle of 2013. LMHS did not file a letter of intent (LOI) by the initial LOI deadline to signify its intent to file a CON application. However, LMHS’s only Lee County hospital competitor, HMA, filed an LOI on the deadline day. LMHS learned that the project planned by HMA was to replace Lehigh Regional with a new hospital, which would be relocated to south Lee County, a little to the north of the Estero/Bonita Springs area. LMHS was concerned that if the HMA application went forward and was approved, that project would block LMHS’s ability to pursue a hospital in Bonita Springs for many years to come. Therefore, in reaction to HMA’s LOI, LMHS filed a “grace period” LOI, authorized under AHCA’s rules, to submit a competing proposal for a new hospital in south Lee County. But for the HMA LOI, there would have been no grace period for a competing proposal, and LMHS would not have been able to apply when it did. Two weeks later, on the initial application filing deadline, LMHS submitted a “shell” application. LMHS proceeded to quickly prepare the bulk of its application to file five weeks later by the omissions response deadline of April 10, 2013. Shortly before the omissions response deadline, Mr. Nathan met with Jeffrey Gregg, who is in charge of the CON program as director of AHCA’s Florida Center for Health Information and Policy Analysis, and Elizabeth Dudek, AHCA Secretary, to discuss the LMHS application. Mr. Nathan told the AHCA representatives that LMHS was not really ready to file a CON application, but felt cornered and forced into it to respond to the HMA proposal. Mr. Nathan also discussed with AHCA representatives the plan to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial, but AHCA told Mr. Nathan not to make such a proposal. Since beds are no longer subject to CON regulation, hospitals are free to add or delicense beds as they deem appropriate, and therefore, an offer to delicense beds adds nothing to a CON proposal. LMHS’s CON application was timely filed on the omissions deadline. A major focus of the application was on why LMHS’s proposal was better than the expected competing HMA proposal. However, HMA did not follow through on its LOI by filing a competing CON application. The LMHS CON application met the technical content requirements for a general hospital CON application, including an assessment of need for the proposed project. LMHS highlighted the following themes to show need for its proposed new hospital: South Lee County “should have its own acute care hospital” because it is a fast-growing area with an older population; by 2018, the southern ZIP codes of Lee County will contain nearly a third of the county’s total population. The Estero/Bonita Springs community strongly supports the proposed new hospital. Approval of the proposed new hospital “will significantly reduce travel times for the service area’s residents and will thereby significantly improve access to acute care services,” as shown by estimated travel times to local hospitals for residents in the proposed primary service area and by Lee County EMS transport logs. LMHS will agree to a CON condition to delicense 80 beds at Lee Memorial, which are underutilized, so that there will be no net addition of acute care beds to the sub-district’s licensed bed complement. AHCA’s Preliminary Review and Denial AHCA conducted its preliminary review of the CON application in accordance with its standard procedures. As part of the preliminary review process for general hospital applications, the CON law now permits existing health care facilities whose established programs may be substantially affected by a proposed project to submit a detailed statement in opposition. Indeed, such a detailed statement is a condition precedent to the existing provider being allowed to participate as a party in any subsequent administrative proceedings conducted with respect to the CON application. See § 408.037(2), Fla. Stat. North Naples timely filed a detailed statement in opposition to LMHS’s proposed new hospital. LMHS timely filed a response to North Naples’ opposition submittal, pursuant to the same law. After considering the CON application, the North Naples opposition submittal, and the LMHS response, AHCA prepared its SAAR in accordance with its standard procedures. A first draft of the SAAR was prepared by the CON reviewer; the primary editor of the SAAR was AHCA CON unit manager James McLemore; and then a second edit was done by Mr. Gregg. Before the SAAR was finalized, Mr. Gregg met with the AHCA Secretary to discuss the proposed decision. The SAAR sets forth AHCA’s preliminary findings and preliminary decision to deny the LMHS application. Mr. Gregg testified at hearing as AHCA’s representative, as well as in his capacity as an expert in health planning and CON review. Through Mr. Gregg’s testimony, AHCA reaffirmed its position in opposition to the LMHS application, and Mr. Gregg offered his opinions to support that position. Statutory and Rule Review Criteria The framework for consideration of LMHS’s proposed project is dictated by the statutory and rule criteria that apply to general hospital CON applications. The applicable statutory review criteria, as amended in 2008 for general hospital CON applications, are as follows: The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed. The availability, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant. * * * (e) The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district. * * * (g) The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness. * * * (i) The applicant’s past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. § 408.035(1), Fla. Stat.; § 408.035(2), Fla. Stat. (identifying review criteria that apply to general hospital applications). AHCA has not promulgated a numeric need methodology to calculate need for new hospital facilities. In the absence of a numeric need methodology promulgated by AHCA for the project at issue, Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e) applies. This rule provides that the applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory and rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.030 also applies. This rule elaborates on “health care access criteria” to be considered in reviewing CON applications, with a focus on the needs of medically underserved groups such as low income persons. LMHS’s Needs Assessment LMHS set forth its assessment of need for the proposed new hospital, highlighting the population demographics of the area proposed to be served. Theme: South Lee County’s substantial population The main theme of LMHS’s need argument is that south Lee County “should have its own acute care hospital” because it is a fast-growing area with a substantial and older population. (LMHS Exh. 3, p. 37). LMHS asserts that south Lee County’s population is sufficient to demonstrate the need for a new hospital because “by 2018, the southern ZIP codes of Lee County will contain nearly a third of the county’s total population.” Id. LMHS identified eight ZIP codes--33908, 33912, 33913, 33928, 33931, 33967, 34134, and 34135--that constitute “south Lee County.” (LMHS Exh. 3, Table 4). Claritas population projections, reasonably relied on by the applicant, project that by 2018 these eight ZIP codes will have a total population of 200,492 persons, approximately 29 percent of the projected population of 687,795 for all of Lee County. The age 65-and-older population in south Lee County is projected to be 75,150, approximately 40 percent of the projected 65+ population of 185,655 for all of Lee County. A glaring flaw in LMHS’s primary need theme is that the eight-ZIP-code “south Lee County” identified by LMHS is not without its own hospital. That area already has two of the county’s five existing hospitals: Gulf Coast and HealthPark. In advancing its need argument, LMHS selectively uses different meanings of “south Lee County.” When describing the “south Lee County” that deserves a hospital of its own, LMHS means the local Estero/Bonita Springs community in and immediately surrounding the proposed hospital site in the southernmost part of south Lee County. However, when offering up a sufficient population to demonstrate need for a new hospital, “south Lee County” expands to encompass an area that appears to be half, if not more, of the entire county. The total population of the Estero/Bonita Springs community is 76,753, projected to grow to 83,517 by 2018--much more modest population numbers compared to those highlighted by the applicant for the expanded version of south Lee County. While the rate of growth for Estero/Bonita Springs is indeed fast compared to the state and county growth rates, this observation is misleading because the actual numbers are not large. LMHS also emphasizes the larger proportion of elderly in the Estero/Bonita Springs community, which is also expected to continue to grow at a fast clip. Although no specifics were offered, it is accepted as a generic proposition that elderly persons are more frequent consumers of acute care hospital services. By the same token, elderly persons who require hospitalization tend to be sicker, and to present greater risks of potential complications from comorbidities, than non-elderly patients. As a result, for example, as discussed below, Lee County EMS’s emergency transport guidelines steer certain elderly patients to hospitals with greater breadth of services than the very basic hospital planned by LMHS, “as a reasonable precaution.” Projections of a Well-Utilized Proposed Hospital Mr. Davidson, LMHS’s health planning consultant, was provided with the proposed hospital’s location and number of beds, and was asked to develop the need assessment and projections. No evidence was offered regarding who determined that the proposed hospital should have 80 beds, or how that determination was made. Mr. Davidson set about to define the proposed primary and secondary service areas, keeping in mind that section 408.037(2) now requires a general hospital CON application to specifically identify, by ZIP codes, the primary service area from which the proposed hospital is expected to receive 75 percent of its patients, and the secondary service area from which 25 percent of the hospital’s patients are expected. Mr. Davidson selected six ZIP codes for the primary service area. He included the three ZIP codes comprising the Estero/Bonita Springs community. He also included two ZIP codes that are closer to existing hospitals than to the proposed site, according to the drive-time information he compiled. In addition, he included one ZIP code in which there is already a hospital (Gulf Coast, in 33912). Mr. Davidson’s opinion that this was a reasonable, and not overly aggressive, primary service area was not persuasive;9/ the criticisms by the other expert health planning witnesses were more persuasive and are credited. Mr. Davidson selected six more ZIP codes for the secondary service area. These include: two south Lee County ZIP codes that are HealthPark’s home ZIP code (33908) and a ZIP code to the west of HealthPark (33931); three central Lee County ZIP codes to the north of HealthPark and Gulf Coast; and one Collier County ZIP code that is North Naples’ home ZIP code. Mr. Davidson’s opinion that this was a reasonable, and not overly aggressive, secondary service area was not persuasive; the criticisms by the other expert health planning witnesses were more persuasive and are credited. As noted above, the existing LMHS hospitals provide tertiary-level care and a number of specialty service lines and designations that have not been planned for the proposed new hospital. Conversely, there are no services proposed for the new hospital that are not already provided by the existing LMHS hospitals. In the absence of evidence that the proposed new hospital will offer services not available at closer hospitals, it is not reasonable to project that any appreciable numbers of patients will travel farther, and in some instances, bypass one or more larger existing hospitals with greater breadth of services, to obtain the same services at the substantially smaller proposed new hospital. As aptly observed by AHCA’s representative, Mr. Gregg, the evidence to justify such an ambitious service area for a small hospital providing basic services was lacking: So if we were to have been given more detail[:] here’s the way we’re going to fit this into our system, here’s -- you know, here’s why we can design this service area as big as we did, even though it would require a lot of people to drive right by HealthPark or right by Gulf Coast to go to this tiny basic hospital for some reason. I mean, there are fundamental basics about this that just make us scratch our head. (Tr. 1457). The next step after defining the service area was to develop utilization projections, based on historic utilization data for service area residents who obtained the types of services to be offered by the proposed hospital. In this case, the utilization projections suffer from a planning void. Mr. Nathan testified that no decisions have been made regarding what types of services, other than general medical- surgical services, will be provided at the proposed new hospital. In lieu of information regarding the service lines actually planned for the proposed hospital, Mr. Davidson used a subtractive process, eliminating “15 or so” service lines that the proposed hospital either “absolutely wasn’t going to provide,” or that, in his judgment, a small hospital of this type would not provide. The service lines he excluded were: open heart surgery; trauma; neonatal intensive care; inpatient psychiatric, rehabilitation, and substance abuse; and unnamed “others.” His objective was to “narrow the scope of available admissions down to those that a smaller hospital could reasonably aspire to care for.” (Tr. 671-672). That objective is different from identifying the types of services expected because they have been planned for this particular proposed hospital. The testimony of NCH’s health planner, as well as Mr. Gregg, was persuasive on the point that Mr. Davidson’s approach was over-inclusive. The historic data he used included a number of service lines that are not planned for the proposed hospital and, thus, should have been subtracted from the historic utilization base. These include clinical specialties that are the focus of other LMHS hospitals, such as infectious diseases, neurology, neurosurgery, orthopedics, and urology; cardiac care, such as cardiac catheterization and angioplasty that are not planned for the proposed hospital; emergency stroke cases that will be directed to designated stroke centers; pediatric cases that will be referred to HealthPark; and obstetrics, which is not contemplated for the proposed hospital according to the more credible evidence.10/ Mr. Davidson’s market share projections suffer from some of the same flaws as the service area projections: there is no credible evidence to support the assumption that the small proposed new hospital, which has planned to offer only the most basic hospital services, will garner substantial market shares in ZIP codes that are closer to larger existing hospitals providing a greater breadth of services. In addition, variations in market share projections by ZIP code raise questions that were not adequately explained.11/ Overall, the “high-level” theme offered by LMHS’s health planner--that it is unnecessary to know what types of services will be provided at the new hospital in order to reasonably project utilization and market share--was not persuasive. While it is possible that utilization of the proposed new hospital would be sufficient to suggest it is filling a need, LMHS did not offer credible evidence that that is so. Bed Need Methodology for Proposed Service Area Mr. Davidson projected bed need for the proposed service area based on the historic utilization by residents of the 12 ZIP codes in the service lines remaining after his subtractive process, described above. Other than using an over-inclusive base (as described above), Mr. Davidson followed a reasonable approach to determine the average daily census generated by the proposed service area residents, and then applying a 75 percent occupancy standard to convert the average daily census into the number of beds supported by that population. The results of this methodology show that utilization generated by residents of the six-ZIP code primary service area would support 163 hospital beds; and utilization generated by residents of the six-ZIP code secondary service area would support 225 beds in the secondary service area. The total gross bed need for the proposed service area adds up to 388 beds. However, the critical next step was missing: subtract from the gross number of needed beds the number of existing beds, to arrive at the net bed need (or surplus). In the primary service area, 163 beds are needed, but there are already 349 beds at Gulf Coast. Thus, in the primary service area, there is a surplus of 186 beds, according to the applicant’s methodology. In the secondary service area, 225 beds are needed, but there are already 320 acute care beds at HealthPark and 262 acute care beds at North Naples. Thus, in the secondary service area, there is a surplus of 357 beds, according to the applicant’s methodology. While it is true that Gulf Coast and HealthPark use some of their beds to provide some tertiary and specialty services that were subtracted out of this methodology, and all three hospitals presumably provide services to residents outside the proposed service area, Mr. Davidson made no attempt to measure these components. Instead, the LMHS bed need methodology ignores completely the fact that there is substantial existing bed capacity--931 acute care beds--within the proposed service area. Availability and Utilization of Existing Hospitals LMHS offered utilization data for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2012, for Lee County hospitals. Cape Coral’s average annual occupancy rate was 57.6 percent; HealthPark’s was 77.5 percent; Lee Memorial’s was 55.9 percent; Lehigh Regional’s was 44 percent; and Gulf Coast’s was 79.8 percent. Mr. Davidson acknowledged that a reasonable occupancy standard to plan for a small hospital the size of the proposed hospital is 75 percent. For a larger operational hospital, 80 percent is a good standard to use, indicating it is well-utilized. Judged by these standards, only HealthPark and Gulf Coast come near the standard for a well-utilized hospital. As noted in the CON application, these annual averages do not reflect the higher utilization during peak season. According to the application, HealthPark’s occupancy was 88.2 percent and Gulf Coast’s was 86.8 percent for the peak quarter of January-March 2012. LMHS did not present utilization information for North Naples, even though that hospital is closest to the proposed hospital site and is within the proposed service area targeted by the applicant. For the same 12-month period used for the LMHS hospitals, North Naples’ average annual occupancy rate was 50.97 percent and for the January-March 2012 “peak season” quarter, North Naples’ occupancy was 60.68 percent. At the final hearing, LMHS did not present more recent utilization data, choosing instead to rely on the older information in the application. Based on the record evidence, need is not demonstrated by reference to the availability and utilization of existing hospitals in the proposed service area or in the sub-district. Community Support LMHS argued that the strong support by the Estero/Bonita Springs community should be viewed as evidence of need for the proposed new hospital. As summarized in the SAAR, approximately 2,200 letters of support were submitted by local government entities and elected officials, community groups, and area residents, voicing their support for the proposed hospital. LMHS chose not to submit these voluminous support letters in the record. The AHCA reviewer noted in the SAAR that none of the support letters documented instances in which residents of the proposed service area needed acute care hospital services but were unable to obtain them, or suffered poor or undesirable health outcomes due to the current availability of hospital services. Two community members testified at the final hearing to repeat the theme of support by Estero/Bonita Springs community residents and groups. These witnesses offered anecdotal testimony about traffic congestion during season, population growth, and development activity they have seen or heard about. They acknowledged the role their community organization has played in advocating for a neighborhood hospital, including developing and disseminating form letters for persons to express their support. Consistent with the AHCA reviewer’s characterization of the support letters, neither witness attested to any experiences needing acute care hospital services that they were unable to obtain, or any experiences in which they had poor or undesirable outcomes due to the currently available hospital services. There was no such evidence offered by any witness at the final hearing. Mr. Gregg characterized the expression of community support by the Estero/Bonita Springs community as typical “for an upper income, kind of retiree-oriented community where, number one, people anticipate needing to use hospitals, and number two, people have more time on their hands to get involved with things like this.” (Tr. 1433). Mr. Gregg described an extreme example of community support for a prior new hospital CON application, in which AHCA received 21,000 letters of support delivered in two chartered buses that were filled with community residents who wanted to meet with AHCA representatives. Mr. Gregg identified the project as the proposed hospital for North Port, which was ultimately denied following an administrative hearing. In the North Port case, the Administrative Law Judge made this apt observation with regard to the probative value of the overwhelming community support offered there: “A community’s desire for a new hospital does not mean there is a ‘need’ for a new hospital. Under the CON program, the determination of need for a new hospital must be based upon sound health planning principles, not the desires of a particular local government or its citizens.” Manatee Memorial Hospital, L.P. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., et al., Case Nos. 04-2723CON, 04-3027CON, and 04- 3147CON (Fla. DOAH Dec. 15, 2005; Fla. AHCA April 11, 2006), RO at 26, ¶ 104, adopted in FO. That finding, which was adopted by AHCA in its final order, remains true today, and is adopted herein. Access The statutory review criteria consider access issues from two opposing perspectives: from the perspective of the proposed project, consideration is given to the extent to which the proposal will enhance access to health care services for the applicant’s service district; without the proposed project, consideration is given to the accessibility of existing providers of the health care services proposed by the applicant. Addressing this two-part access inquiry, LMHS contends that the proposed hospital would significantly reduce travel times and significantly enhance access to acute care services. Three kinds of access are routinely considered in CON cases: geographic access, in this case the drive times by individuals to hospitals; emergency access, i.e., the time it takes for emergency ground transport (ambulances) to deliver patients to hospitals; and economic access, i.e., the extent to which hospital services are provided to Medicaid and charity care patients. Geographic Access (drive times to hospitals) For nearly all residents of the applicable service district, district 8, the proposed new hospital was not shown to enhance access to health care at all. The same is true for nearly all residents of sub-district 8-5, Lee County. LMHS was substantially less ambitious in its effort to show access enhancement, limiting its focus on attempting to prove that access to acute care services would be enhanced for residents of the primary service area. LMHS did not attempt to prove that there would be any access enhancement to acute care services for residents of the six-ZIP code secondary service area. As set forth in the CON application, Mr. Davidson used online mapping software to estimate the drive time from each ZIP code in the primary service area to the four existing LMHS hospitals, the two NCH hospitals, and another hospital in north Collier County, Physicians Regional-Pine Ridge. The drive-time information offered by the applicant showed the following: the drive time from ZIP code 33912 was less to three different existing LMHS hospitals than to the proposed new hospital; the drive time from ZIP code 33913 was less to two different existing LMHS hospitals than to the proposed new hospital; and the drive time from ZIP code 33967 was less to one existing LMHS hospital than to the proposed hospital site. Thus, according to LMHS’s own information, drive times would not be reduced at all for three of the six ZIP codes in the primary service area. Not surprisingly, according to LMHS’s information, the three Estero/Bonita Springs ZIP codes are shown to have slightly shorter drive times to the proposed neighborhood hospital than to any existing hospital. However, the same information also suggests that those residents already enjoy very reasonable access of 20-minutes’ drive time or less to one or more existing hospitals: the drive time from ZIP code 33928 is between 14 and 20 minutes to three different existing hospitals; the drive time from ZIP code 34134 is between 18 and 20 minutes to two different existing hospitals; and the drive time from ZIP code 34135 is 19 minutes to one existing hospital. In terms of the extent of drive time enhancement, the LMHS information shows that drive time would be shortened from 14 minutes to seven minutes for ZIP code 33928; from 18 minutes to 12 minutes for ZIP code 34134; and from 19 minutes to 17 minutes for ZIP code 34135. There used to be an access standard codified in the (now-repealed) acute care bed need rule, providing that acute care services should be accessible within a 30-minute drive time under normal conditions to 90 percent of the service area’s population. Mr. Davidson’s opinion is that the former rule’s 30-minute drive time standard remains a reasonable access standard for acute care services. Here, LMHS’s drive time information shows very reasonable access now, meeting an even more rigorous drive-time standard of 20 minutes. The establishment of a new hospital facility will always enhance geographic access by shortening drive times for some residents. For example, if LMHS’s proposed hospital were established, another proposed hospital could demonstrate enhanced access by reducing drive times from seven minutes to four minutes for residents of Estero’s ZIP code 33928. But the question is not whether there is any enhanced access, no matter how insignificant. Instead, the appropriate consideration is the “extent” of enhanced access for residents of the service district or sub-district. Here, the only travel time information offered by LMHS shows nothing more than insignificant reductions of already reasonable travel times for residents of only three of six ZIP codes in the primary service area. The drive-time information offered in the application and at hearing was far from precise, but it was the only evidence offered by the applicant in an attempt to prove its claim that there would be a significant reduction in drive times for residents of the primary service area ZIP codes. No travel time expert or traffic engineer offered his or her expertise to the subject of geographic accessibility in this case. No evidence was presented regarding measured traffic conditions or planned roadway improvements. Anecdotal testimony regarding “congested” roads during “season” was general in nature and insufficient to prove that there is not reasonable access now to basic acute care hospital services for all residents of the proposed service area. The proposed new hospital is not needed to address a geographic access problem. Consideration of the extent of access enhancement does not weigh in favor of the proposed new hospital. Emergency Access LMHS also sought to establish that emergency access via EMS ambulance transport was becoming problematic during the season because of traffic congestion. In its CON application, LMHS offered Lee County EMS transport logs as evidence that ambulance transport times from the Estero/Bonita Springs community to an existing hospital were higher during season than in the off-season months. LMHS represented in its CON application that the voluminous Lee County EMS transport logs show average transport times of over 22 minutes from Bonita Springs to a hospital in March 2012 compared to 15 minutes for June 2012, and average transport times of just under 22 minutes from Estero to a hospital in March 2012 compared to over 17 minutes for June 2012. LMHS suggested that these times were not reasonable because these were all emergency transports at high speeds with flashing lights and sirens. LMHS did not prove the accuracy of this statement. The Lee County EMS ordinance limits the use of sirens and flashing lights to emergency transports, defined to mean transports of patients with life- or limb-threatening conditions. According to Lee County EMS Deputy Chief Panem, 90 to 95 percent of ambulance transports do not involve such conditions. Contrary to the conclusion that LMHS urges should be drawn from the EMS transport logs, the ambulance transport times summarized by LMHS in its application do not demonstrate unreasonable emergency access for residents of Estero/Bonita Springs. The logs do not demonstrate an emergency access problem for the local residents during the season, as contended by LMHS; nor did LMHS offer sufficient evidence to prove that the proposed new hospital would materially improve ambulance transport times. LMHS’s opinion that the ambulance logs show a seasonal emergency access problem for Estero/Bonita Springs residents cannot be credited unless the travel times on the logs reflect patient transports to the nearest hospital, such that establishing a new hospital in Bonita Springs would result in faster ambulance transports for Estero/Bonita Springs residents. Deputy Chief Panem testified that ambulance transport destination is dictated in the first instance by patient choice. In addition, for the “most serious calls,” the destination is dictated by emergency transport guidelines with a matrix identifying the most “appropriate” hospitals to direct patients. For example, as Deputy Chief Panem explained: In the case of a stroke or heart attack, we want them to go to a stroke facility or a heart attack facility[;] or trauma, we have a trauma center in Lee County as well . . . Lee Memorial Hospital downtown is a level II trauma center. (Tr. 378). The emergency transport matrix identifies the hospitals qualified to handle emergency heart attack, stroke, or trauma patients. In addition, the matrix identifies the “most appropriate facility” for emergency pediatrics, obstetrics, pediatric orthopedic emergencies, and other categories involving the “most serious calls.” Of comparable size to the proposed new hospital, 88-bed Lehigh Regional is not identified as an “appropriate facility” to transport patients with any of the serious conditions shown in the matrix. Similar to Lehigh Regional, the slightly smaller proposed new hospital is not expected to be identified as an appropriate facility destination for patients with any of the conditions designated in the Lee County EMS emergency transport matrix. The Lee County EMS transport guidelines clarify that all trauma alert patients “will be” transported to Lee Memorial as the Level II Trauma Center. In addition, the guidelines provide as follows: “Non-trauma alert patients with a high index of suspicion (elderly, etc.) should preferentially be transported to the Trauma Center as a reasonable precaution.” (emphasis added). For the elderly, then, a condition that would not normally be considered one of the most serious cases to be steered to the most appropriate hospital may be reclassified as such, as a reasonable precaution because the patient is elderly. The Lee County EMS transport logs do not reflect the reason for the chosen destination. The patients may have requested transport to distant facilities instead of to the nearest facilities. Patients with the most serious conditions may have accepted the advice of ambulance crews that they should be transported to the “most appropriate facility” with special resources to treat their serious conditions; or those patients may have been unable to express their choice due to the seriousness of their condition, in which case the patients would be taken to the most appropriate facility, bypassing closer facilities. Elderly patients may have been convinced to take the reasonable precaution to go to an appropriate facility even if their condition did not fall into the most serious categories. Since the transport times on the EMS logs do not necessarily reflect transport times to the closest hospital, it is not reasonable to conclude that the transport times would be shorter if there were an even closer hospital, particularly where the closer hospital is not likely to be designated as an appropriate destination in the transport guidelines matrix. The most serious cases, categorized in the EMS transport matrix, are the ones for which minutes matter. For those cases, a new hospital in Estero/Bonita Springs, which has not planned to be a STEMI receiving center, a stroke center, or a trauma center, is not going to enhance access to emergency care, even for the neighborhood residents. The evidence at hearing did not establish that ambulance transport times are excessive or cause an emergency access problem now.12/ In fact, Deputy Chief Panem did not offer the opinion, or offer any evidence to prove, that the drive time for ambulances transporting patients to area hospitals is unreasonable or contrary to any standard for reasonable emergency access. Instead, Lee County EMS recently opposed an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity by the Bonita Springs Fire District to provide emergency ground transportation to hospitals, because Lee County EMS believed then, and believes now, that it is providing efficient and effective emergency transport services to the Bonita Springs area residents. At hearing, LMHS tried a different approach by attempting to prove an emergency access problem during season, not because of the ambulance drive times, but because of delays at the emergency departments themselves after patients are transported there. The new focus at hearing was on EMS “offload” times, described as the time between ambulance arrival at the hospital and the time the ambulance crews hand over responsibility for a patient to the emergency department staff. According to Deputy Chief Panem, Lee County hospitals rarely go on “bypass,” a status that informs EMS providers not to transport patients to a hospital because additional emergency patients cannot be accommodated. No “bypass” evidence was offered, suggesting that “bypass” status is not a problem in Lee County and that Lee County emergency departments are available to EMS providers. Deputy Chief Panem also confirmed that North Naples does not go on bypass. The North Naples emergency department consistently has been available to receive patients transported by Lee County EMS ambulances, during seasonal and off- season months. Offload times are a function of a variety of factors. Reasons for delays in offloading patients can include inadequate capacity or functionality of the emergency department, or inadequate staffing in the emergency department such that there may be empty treatment bays, but the bays cannot be filled with patients because there is no staff to tend to the patients. Individual instances of offload delays can occur when emergency department personnel prioritize incoming cases, and less-emergent cases might have to wait while more-emergent cases are taken first, even if they arrived later. Offload times are also a function of “throughput” issues. Approximately 20 to 25 percent of emergency department patients require admission to the hospital, but there can be delays in the admission process, causing the patient to be held in a treatment bay that could otherwise be filled by the next emergency patient. There can be many reasons for throughput delays, including the lack of an available acute care bed, or inadequate staffing that prevents available acute care beds from being filled. No evidence was offered to prove the actual causes of any offload delays. Moreover, the evidence failed to establish that offload times were unreasonable or excessive. Deputy Chief Panem offered offload time data summaries that reflect very good performance by LMHS hospitals and by North Naples. Deputy Chief Panem understandably advocates the shortest possible offload time, so that Lee County EMS ambulances are back in service more quickly. Lee County EMS persuaded the LMHS emergency departments to agree to a goal for offload times of 30 minutes or less 90 percent of the time, and that is the goal he tracks. Both Lee Memorial and North Naples have consistently met or exceeded that goal in almost every month over the last five years, including during peak seasonal months. Cape Coral and Gulf Coast sometimes fall below the goal in peak seasonal months, but the evidence did not establish offload times that are excessive or unreasonable during peak months. HealthPark is the one LMHS hospital that appears to consistently fall below Lee County EMS’s offload time goal; in peak seasonal months, HealthPark’s offload times were less than 30 minutes in approximately 70 percent of the cases. No evidence was offered to prove the extent of offload delays at HealthPark for the other 30 percent of emergency cases, nor was evidence offered to prove the extent of offload delays at any other hospital. Deputy Chief Panem referred anecdotally to offload times that can sometimes reach as high as two to three hours during season, but he did not provide specifics. Without documentation of the extent and magnitude of offload delays, it is impossible to conclude that they are unreasonable or excessive. There is no persuasive evidence suggesting that this facet of emergency care would be helped by approval of the proposed new hospital, especially given the complicated array of possible reasons for each case in which there was a delayed offload.13/ Staffing/professional coverage issues likely would be exacerbated by approving another hospital venue for LMHS. Pure physical plant issues, such as emergency department capacity and acute care bed availability, might be helped to some degree, at least in theory, by a new hospital, but to a lesser degree than directly addressing any capacity issues at the existing hospitals. For example, HealthPark’s emergency department has served as a combined destination for a wide array of adult and pediatric emergencies. However, HealthPark is about to break ground on a new on-campus children’s hospital with its own dedicated emergency department. There will be substantially expanded capacity both within the new dedicated pediatric emergency department, and in the existing emergency department, where vacated space used for pediatric patients will be freed up for adults. Beyond the emergency departments themselves, there will be substantial additional acute care bed capacity, with space built to accommodate 160 dedicated pediatric beds in the new children’s hospital. The existing hospital will have the ability to add more than the 80 acute care beds proposed for the new hospital. This additional bed capacity could be in place within roughly the same timeframe projected for opening the proposed new hospital. To the extent additional capacity would improve emergency department performance, Cape Coral is completing an expansion project that increases its treatment bays from 24 to 42, and Lee Memorial is adding nine observation beds to its emergency department. No current expansion projects were identified for Gulf Coast, which just began operations in 2009, but LMHS has already invested in design and construction features to enable that facility to expand by an additional 252 beds. In Mr. Kistel’s words, Gulf Coast has a “tremendous platform for growth[.]” (Tr. 259). Mr. Gregg summarized AHCA’s perspective in considering the applicant’s arguments of geographic and emergency access enhancement, as follows: [I]n our view, this community is already well served by existing hospitals, either within the applicant’s system or from the competing Naples system, and we don’t think that the situation would be improved by adding another very small, extremely basic hospital. And to the extent that that would mislead people into thinking that it’s a full-service hospital that handles time-sensitive emergencies in the way that the larger hospitals do, that’s another concern. (Tr. 1425). * * * The fact that this hospital does not plan to offer those most time-sensitive services means that any – on the surface, as I said earlier, the possible improvement in emergency access offered by any new hospital is at least partially negated in this case because it has been proposed as such a basic hospital, when the more sophisticated services are located not far away. (Tr. 1431). Mr. Gregg’s opinion is reasonable and is credited. Economic Access The Estero/Bonita Springs community is a very affluent area, known for its golf courses and gated communities. As a result of the demographics of the proposed hospital’s projected service area, LMHS’s application offers to accept as a CON condition a commitment to provide 10 percent of the total annual patient days to a combination of Medicaid, charity, and self-pay patients. This commitment is less than the 2011-2012 experience for the primary service area, where patient days attributable to residents in these three payer classes was a combined 16.3 percent; and the commitment is less than the 2011- 2012 experience for the total proposed service area, where patient days in these three categories was a combined 14.4 percent. Nonetheless, LMHS’s experts reasonably explained that the commitment was established on the low side, taking into account the uncertainties of changes in the health care environment, to ensure that the commitment could be achieved. In contrast with the 10 percent commitment and the historic level of Medicaid/charity/self-pay patient days in the proposed service area, Lee Memorial historically has provided the highest combined level of Medicaid and charity patient days in district 8. According to LMHS’s financial expert, in 2012, Lee Memorial downtown and HealthPark, combined for reporting purposes under the same license, provided 31.5 percent of their patient days to Medicaid and charity patients--a percentage that would be even higher, it is safe to assume, if patient days in the “self- pay/other” payer category were added. At hearing, Mr. Gregg reasonably expressed concern with LMHS shifting its resources from the low-income downtown area where there is great need for economic access to a very affluent area where comparable levels of service to the medically needy would be impossible to achieve. Mr. Gregg acknowledged that AHCA has approved proposals in the past that help systems with safety-net hospitals achieve balance by moving some of the safety net’s resources to an affluent area. As previously noted, that sort of rationale was at play in the LMHS project to establish HealthPark, and again in the acquisitions of Cape Coral and Gulf Coast. However, LMHS now has three of its four hospitals thriving in relatively affluent areas. To move more LMHS resources from the downtown safety-net hospital to another affluent area would not be a move towards system balance, but rather, system imbalance, and would be contrary to the economic access CON review criteria in statute and rule. Missing Needs Assessment Factor: Medical Treatment Trends The consistent testimony of all witnesses with expertise to address this subject was that the trend in medical treatment continues to be in the direction of outpatient care in lieu of inpatient hospital care. The expected result will be that inpatient hospital usage will narrow to the most highly specialized services provided to patients with more serious conditions requiring more complex, specialized treatments. Mr. Gregg described this trend as follows: “[O]nly those services that are very expensive, operated by very extensive personnel” will be offered to inpatients in the future. (Tr. 1412). A basic acute care hospital without planned specialty or tertiary services is inconsistent with the type of hospital dictated by this medical treatment trend. Mr. Gregg reasonably opined that “the ability of a hospital system to sprinkle about small little satellite facilities is drawing to a close.” (Tr. 1413). Small hospitals will no longer be able to add specialized and tertiary services, because these will be concentrated in fewer hospitals. LMHS’s move to clinical specialization at its hospitals bears this out. Another trend expected to impact services within the timeframe at issue is the development of telemedicine as an alternative to inpatient hospital care. For patients who cannot be treated in an outpatient setting and released, an option will be for patients to recover at home in their own beds, with close monitoring options such as visual monitoring by video linking the patient with medical professionals, and use of devices to constantly measure and report vital signs monitored by a practitioner at a remote location. Telemedicine offers advantages over inpatient hospitalization with regard to infection control and patient comfort, as well as overall health care cost control by reducing the need for capital-intensive traditional bricks-and- mortar hospitals. A medical treatment trend being actively pursued by both LMHS and NCH is for better, more efficient management of inpatient care so as to reduce the average length of patient stays. A ten-year master planning process recently undertaken by LMHS included a goal to further reduce average lengths of stay by 0.65 days by 2021, and thereby reduce the number of hospital beds needed system-wide by 128 beds. LMHS did not address the subject of medical treatment trends as part of its needs assessment. The persuasive evidence demonstrated that medical treatment trends do not support the need for the proposed new facility; consideration of these trends weighs against approval. Competition; Market Conditions The proposed new hospital will not foster competition; it will diminish competition by expanding LMHS’s market dominance of acute care services in Lee County. AHCA voiced its reasonable concerns about Lee Memorial’s “unprecedented” market dominance of acute care services in a county as large as Lee, which recently ranked as the eighth most populous county in Florida. LMHS already provides a majority of hospital care being obtained by residents of the primary service area. LMHS will increase its market share if the proposed new hospital is approved. This increase will come both directly, via basic medical-surgical services provided to patients at the new hospital, and indirectly, via LMHS’s plan for the proposed new hospital to serve as a feeder system to direct patients to other LMHS hospitals for more specialized care.14/ The evidence did not establish that LMHS historically has used its market power as leverage to demand higher charges from private insurers. However, as LMHS’s financial expert acknowledged, the health care environment is undergoing changes, making the past less predictive of the future. The changing environment was cited as the reason for LMHS’s low commitment to Medicaid and charity care for the proposed project. There is evidence of LMHS’s market power in its high operating margin, more than six percent higher than NCH’s operating margin between 2009 and 2012. LMHS’s financial expert’s opinion that total margin should be considered instead of operating margin when looking at market power was not persuasive. Of concern is the market power in the field of hospital operations, making operating margin the appropriate measure. Overall, Mr. Gregg reasonably explained the lack of competitive benefit from the proposed project: I think that this proposal does less for competition than virtually any acute care hospital proposal that we’ve seen. As I said, it led the Agency to somewhat scratch [its] head in disbelief. There is no other situation like it. . . . This is the most basic of satellites. This hospital will be referring patients to the rest of the Lee Memorial system in diverse abundance because they are not going to be able to offer specialized services. And economies of scale are not going to allow it in the future. People will not be able to duplicate the expensive services that hospitals offer. So we do not see this as enhancing competition in any way at all. (Tr. 1416-1417). The proposed hospital’s inclusion of outpatient services, community education, and chronic care management presents an awkward dimension of direct competition with adjacent BCHC, the joint venture between LMHS and NCH. BCHC has been a money-losing proposition in a direct sense, but both systems remain committed to the venture, in part because of the indirect benefit they now share in the form of referrals of patients to both systems’ hospitals. Duplication of BCHC’s services, which are already struggling financially, would not appear to be beneficial competition. While this is not a significant factor, to the extent LMHS makes a point of the non-hospital outpatient services that will be available at the proposed new hospital, it must be noted that that dimension of the project does nothing to enhance beneficial competition. Adverse Impact NCH would suffer a substantial adverse financial impact caused by the establishment of the proposed hospital, if approved. A large part of the adverse financial impact would be attributable to lost patient volume at North Naples, an established hospital which is not well-utilized now, without a new hospital targeting residents of North Naples’ home zip code. The expected adverse financial impact of the proposed new hospital was reasonably estimated to be $6.4 million annually. Just as LMHS cited concerns about the unpredictability of the health care environment as a reason to lower its Medicaid/charity commitment for the proposed project, NCH has concerns with whether the substantial adverse impact from the proposed hospital will do serious harm to NCH’s viability, when added to the uncertain impacts of the Affordable Care Act, sequestration, Medicaid reimbursement, and other changes. LMHS counters with the view that if the proposed hospital is approved, in time population growth will offset the proposed hospital’s adverse impact. While consideration of medical treatment trends may dictate that an increasing amount of future population growth will be treated in settings other than a traditional hospital, Mr. Gregg opined that over time, the area’s population growth will still tend to drive hospital usage up. However, future hospital usage will be by a narrower class of more complex patients. Considering all of the competing factors established in this record, the likely adverse impact that NCH would experience if the proposed hospital is established, though substantial enough to support the standing of Petitioner North Naples, is not viewed as extreme enough to pose a threat to NCH’s viability. Institution/System-Specific Interests LMHS’s proposed condition to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial downtown is not a factor weighing in favor of approval of its proposed hospital. At hearing, LMHS defended the proposed CON condition as a helpful way to allow LMHS to address facility challenges at Lee Memorial. The evidence showed that to some extent, this issue is overstated in that, by all accounts, Lee Memorial provides excellent, award-winning care that meets all credentialing requirements for full accreditation. The evidence also suggested that to some extent, there are serious system issues facing LMHS that will need to be confronted at some point to answer the unanswered question posed by Mr. Gregg: What will become of Lee Memorial? Recognizing this, LMHS began a ten-year master planning process in 2011, to take a look at LMHS’s four hospitals in the context of the needs of Lee County over a ten-year horizon, and determine how LMHS could meet those needs. A team of outside and in-house experts were involved in the ten-year master planning process. LMHS’s strategic planning team looked at projected volumes and population information for all of Lee County over the next ten years and determined the number of beds needed to address projected needs. Recommendations were then developed regarding how LMHS would meet the needs identified for Lee County through 2021 by rearranging, adding, and subtracting beds among the four existing hospital campuses. A cornerstone of the master plan assessment by numerous outside experts and LMHS experts was that Lee Memorial’s existing physical plant was approaching the end of its useful life. Options considered were: replace the hospital building on the existing campus; downsize the hospital and relocate some of the beds and services to Gulf Coast; and the favored option, discontinue operations of Lee Memorial as an acute care hospital, removing all acute care beds and reestablishing those beds and services primarily at the Gulf Coast campus, with some beds possibly placed at Cape Coral. All of these options addressed the projected needs for Lee County through 2021 within the existing expansion capabilities of Gulf Coast and Cape Coral, and the expansion capabilities that HealthPark will have with the addition of its new on-campus children’s hospital. Somewhat confusingly, the CON application referred several times to LMHS’s “ten-year master plan for our long-term facility needs, which considers the changing geographic population trends of our region, the need for additional capacity during the seasonal months, and facility challenges at Lee Memorial[.]” (LMHS Exh. 3, pp. 12, 57). The implication given by these references was that the new hospital project was being proposed in furtherance of the ten-year master plan, as the product of careful, studied consideration in a long-range planning process to address the future needs of Lee County. To the contrary, although the referenced ten-year master plan process was, indeed, a long- range deliberative planning process to assess and plan for the future needs of Lee County, the ten-year master plan did not contemplate the proposed new hospital as a way to meet the needs in Lee County identified through 2021.15/ The ten-year master planning process was halted because of concerns about the options identified for Lee Memorial. Further investigation was to be undertaken for Lee Memorial and what services needed to be maintained there. No evidence was presented to suggest that this investigation had taken place as of the final hearing. The proposed CON condition to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial does nothing to address the big picture issues that LMHS faces regarding the Lee Memorial campus. According to different LMHS witnesses, either some or nearly all of those licensed beds are not operational or available to be put in service, so the license is meaningless and delicensing them would accomplish nothing. To the extent any of those beds are operational, delicensing them might cause Lee Memorial to suddenly have throughput problems and drop below the EMS offload time goal, when it has been one of the system’s best performers. The proposed piecemeal dismantling of Lee Memorial, without a plan to address the bigger picture, reasonably causes AHCA great concern. As Mr. Gregg explained, “[I]t raises a fundamental concern for us, in that the area around Lee Memorial, the area of downtown Fort Myers is the lower income area of Lee County. The area around the proposed facility, Estero, Bonita, is one of the upper income areas of Lee County.” (Tr. 1410). The plan to shift resources away from downtown caused Mr. Gregg to pose the unanswered question: “[W]hat is to become of Lee Memorial?” Id. Recognizing the physical plant challenges faced there, nonetheless AHCA was left to ask, “[W]hat about that population and how does [the proposed new hospital] relate? How does this proposed facility fit into the multihospital system that might exist in the future?” (Tr. 1410-1411). These are not only reasonable, unanswered questions, they are the same questions left hanging when LMHS interrupted the ten-year master planning process to react to HMA’s LOI with the CON application at issue here. Balanced Review of Pertinent Criteria In AHCA’s initial review, when it came time to weigh and balance the pertinent criteria, “It was difficult for us to come up with the positive about this proposal.” (Tr. 1432). In this case, AHCA’s initial review assessment was borne out by the evidence at hearing. The undersigned must agree with AHCA that the balance of factors weighs heavily, if not entirely, against approval of the application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a Final Order denying CON application no. 10185. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2014.
