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 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.
The Issue This case concerns four Certificate of Need ("CON") applications ("CONs 9891, 9992, 9893, and 9894") that seek to establish long-term acute care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Miami-Dade County (the "County" or "Miami-Dade County"), a part of AHCA District 11 (along with Monroe County). Promise Healthcare of Florida XI, Inc. ("Promise") in CON 9891, Select Specialty Hospital-Dade, Inc. ("Select-Dade") in CON 9892, and Kindred Hospitals East, L.L.C. ("Kindred"), in CON 9894, seek to construct and operate a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in the County. Miami Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged, Inc. ("MJH"), in CON 9893, seeks to establish a 30-bed hospital within a hospital ("HIH") on its existing campus in the County. In its State Agency Action Report (the "SAAR"), AHCA concluded that all of the need methodologies presented by the applicants were unreliable. Accordingly, AHCA staff recommended denial of the four applications. The recommendation was adopted by the Agency when it issued the SAAR. The Agency maintained throughout the final hearing that all four applications should be denied, although of the four, if any were to be granted, it professed a preference for MJH on the basis, among other reasons, of a more reliable need methodology. Since the hearing the Agency has changed its position with regard to MJH. In its proposed recommended order, AHCA supports approval of MJH's application. MJH and Promise agree with the AHCA that there is need for the 30 LTCH beds proposed by MJH for its HIH and that MJH otherwise meets the criteria for approval of its application. MJH seeks approval of its application only. Likewise, the Agency supports approval of only MJH's application. Promise, on the other hand, contends that there is need for a 60-bed facility as well as MJH's HIH and that between Promise, Select- Dade and Kindred, based on comparative review, its application should be approved along with MJH's application. Although Promise's need methodology supports need for more LTCH beds than would be provided by approval of its application and MJH's, its support for approval is limited to its application and that of MJH. Like Promise's methodology, Select-Dade and Kindred's need methodologies project need for many more beds than would be provided by the 60 beds each of them seek. Unlike Promise, however, neither Select-Dade nor Kindred supports approval of MJH's application. Each proposes its application to be superior to the other applications; each advocates approval of its respective application alone. Given the positions of the parties reflected in their proposed recommended orders, whether there is need for at least an additional 30 LTCH beds in District 11 is not at issue. Rather, the issues are as follows. What is the extent of the need for additional LTCH beds in District 11? If the need is for at least 30 beds but less than 60 beds, does MJH meet the criteria for approval of its application? If the need is for 60 beds or more, what application or applications should be approved depends on what applications meet CON review criteria and on the number of beds needed (60 but less than 90, 90 but less than 120, 120 but less than 150, 150 but less than 180, 180 but less than 210, and 210 or more) and whether there is health- planning basis not to grant an application even if the approval would meet a bed need and all four applicants otherwise meet review criteria. Finally, based on comparative review, what is the order of approval among the applications that meet CON need criteria? Ultimately, the issue in the case is which if any of the four applications should be approved?
Findings Of Fact The Parties "[D]esignated as the state health planning agency for purposes of federal law," Section 408.034(1), Florida Statutes, AHCA is responsible for the administration of the CON program and laws in Florida. See §§ 408.031, Fla. Stat., et seq. As such, it is also designated as "the single state agency to issue, revoke, or deny certificates of need . . . in accordance with present and future federal and state statutes." § 408.034(1), Fla. Stat. Promise Healthcare of Florida XI, Inc. ("Promise") is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Promise Healthcare, Inc. The applicant for CON 9891, Promise proposes the construction of a 60-bed freestanding LTCH to be located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Select-Dade, the applicant for CON 9892, proposes the construction of a 60-bed freestanding LTCH to be located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Select Medical Corporation ("SMC"). The largest operator of LTCHs in the country, SMC operates 96 LTCHs in 24 states. The Miami Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged is an existing not-for-profit provider of comprehensive health and social services in Miami-Dade County. The applicant for CON 9893, MJH proposes the creation of a 30-bed hospital within a hospital (HIH) LTCH by the renovation of a former acute care hospital building on its existing campus in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Kindred is the applicant for CON 9894 and proposes the construction of a 60-bed freestanding LTCH to be located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Kindred is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kindred Healthcare, Inc. ("Kindred Healthcare"). Kindred Healthcare operates 85 LTCHs in the country, eight of which are in the State of Florida. One of the eight is in Miami-Dade County. Twenty-three of Kindred Healthcare's LTCHs are operated by Kindred as well as seven of the eight Florida LTCHs. Kindred has also received CON approval for another LTCH in Florida. It is to be located in Palm Beach County in LTCH District 9. The District and its LTCHs Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties comprise AHCA District The population of Monroe County is 80,000 and of Miami-Dade County, 2.4 million. As to be expected from the population's distribution in the District, the vast majority of the District's health services are located in Miami-Dade County. The greater part of the County's population is in the eastern portion of Miami-Dade County, with population densities there 3-4 times higher than in the western portion of the County. But there is little to no space remaining for development in the eastern portion of the County. Miami-Dade County has an urban development boundary that shields the Everglades from development in the western portion of the County. Still, the bulk of population growth that has occurred recently is in the west and that trend is expected to continue. While the growth rate on a percentage basis is higher in the more-recently developed western areas of the County, the great majority of the population is and will continue to be within five miles of the sea coast on the County's eastern edge. At the time of hearing, there were three LTCHs operating in the District with a total of 122 beds: Kindred- Coral Gables, Select-Miami, and Sister Emmanuel. All three are clustered within a radius of six miles of each other in or not far from downtown Miami. The three existing LTCHs in the District are utilized at high occupancy levels. Kindred's 53-bed facility receives most of its referrals from a within a 10 mile radius. It has operated for the 11-year period beginning in 1995 with an occupancy level from a low of 82.08 percent to a high of 92.86 percent. The occupancy levels for 2004 (82.08 percent) and 2005 (84.90 percent) show occupancy recently at a relatively stable level within the range of optimal functional capacity which tends to be between 80 and 85 percent when facilities are equipped with semi-private rooms. With gender and infection issues in a facility with semi-private rooms, admissions to those facilities are usually restricted above 85 percent. Select operates a 40-bed LTCH on one floor of a health care service condominium building in downtown Miami. It began operation in 2003 as part of legislatively-created special Medicaid demonstration project. Its occupancy levels for the two calendar years of 2004 and 2005 were 83.39 percent and 95.10 percent. Sister Emmanuel Hospital for Continuing Care ("Sister Emmanuel") is a 29-bed HIH located at Mercy Hospital in Miami. It became operational in 2004 with an occupancy level of 82.64 percent, and attained an occupancy level of 85.46 percent in 2005. Kindred's Broward County LTCHs Kindred operates two LTCHs in Broward County (outside of District 11); one is in Ft. Lauderdale, the other in Hollywood. From 1995 to 2003, Kindred-Hollywood's occupancy rate ranged from a low of 65.17 percent to a high of 72.73 percent, generally lower than the state-wide occupancy rate. For the same period, Kindred-Ft. Lauderdale's rate was significantly higher, between 83.69 percent and 91.65 percent. Both LTCHs have experienced occupancy rates significantly lower than the state-wide rates in 2004 and 2005. Kindred-Ft. Lauderdale's occupancy in 2004 fell substantially from earlier years to 66.41 percent and then even farther in 2005 to 57.73 percent. Kindred-Hollywood's rates for these two years were also well below the state's at 59.74 percent and 58.04 percent, respectively. Historically used by residents of District 11, the Hollywood facility served 4,292 patients from Miami-Dade County in the eleven year period from 1995 through 2005. For the same period, the Ft. Lauderdale facility served 275 Miami-Dade residents. Kindred assigns its clinical liaisons to hospitals in a territorial manner to minimize competition for referrals between its two facilities in Broward County and Kindred-Coral Gables. LTCHs A "Long-term care hospital" means a general hospital licensed under Chapter 395, which meets the requirements of 42 C.F.R. Section 412.23(e) and seeks exclusion from the acute care Medicare prospective payment system for inpatient hospital services. § 408.032(13), Fla. Stat. (2005), and Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.002(28). Under federal rules, an LTCH must have an average Medicare length of stay (LOS) greater than 25 days. LTCHs typically furnish extended medical and rehabilitation care for patients who are clinically complex and have multiple acute or chronic conditions. Patients appropriate for LTCH services represent a small but discrete sub-set of all patients. They are differentiated from other hospital patients in that, by definition, they have multiple co-morbidities that require concurrent treatment. Patients appropriate for LTCH services tend to be elderly, frail, and medically complex and are usually regarded as catastrophically ill although some are young, typically victims of severe trauma. Approximately 85 percent of LTCH patients qualify for Medicare. Generally, Medicare patients admitted to LTCHs have been transferred from general acute care hospitals and receive a range of services at LTCHs, including cardiac monitoring, ventilator support and wound care. In 2004, statewide, 92 percent of LTCH patients were transferred from short-term acute care hospitals. That figure was 98 percent for District 11 during the same period of time. The single most common factor associated with the use of long-term care hospitals are patients who have pulmonary and respiratory conditions such as tracheotomies, and require the use of ventilators. There are three other general categories of LTCH patients as explained by Dr. Muldoon in his deposition: The second group is wound care where patients who are at the extreme end of complexity in wound care would come to [an] LTCH if their wounds cannot be managed by nurses in skilled nursing facilities or by home health care. The third category would be cardiovascular diseases where patients compromise[d by] injury or illness related to the circulatory system would come [to an LTCH.] And the fourth is the severe end of the rehabilitation group where, in addition to rehabilitation needs, there's a background of multiple medical conditions that also require active management. (Kindred Ex. 8 at 10-11). Effective October 1, 2002, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") established a new prospective payment system for long term care hospital providers. Through this system, CMS recognizes the patient population of LTCHs as separate and distinct from the populations treated by short-term acute care hospitals and by other post acute care providers, such as Skilled Nursing Facilities ("SNFs") and Comprehensive Rehabilitation Hospitals ("CMRs"). The implementation by CMS of categories of payment designed specifically for LTCHs, the "LTC-DRG," indicates that CMS and the federal government recognize the differences between general hospitals and LTCHs when it comes to patient population, costs of care, resources consumed by the patients and health care delivery. Under the LTCH reimbursement system, each patient is assigned a Diagnosis Related Group or "DRG" with a corresponding payment rate that is weighted based upon the patient's diagnosis. The LTCH is reimbursed the predetermined payment rate for that DRG, regardless of the costs of care. These rates are higher than what CMS provides for other traditional post-acute care providers. Since the establishment of the prospective pay system for LTCHs, concerns about the high reimbursement rate for LTCHs, as well as about the appropriateness of the patients treated in LTCHs, have been raised by the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee ("MedPAC") and the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. CMS administers the Medicare payment program for LTCHs, as well as the reimbursement programs for acute care hospitals, SNFs, and CMRs. MedPAC's role is to help formulate federal policy on Medicare regarding services provided to Medicare beneficiaries (patients) and the appropriate reimbursement rates to be paid to health care providers. The 2006 MedPAC report reported that LTCHs were making a good margin or profit, and recommended against an annual increase in the Medicare reimbursement rate for the upcoming fiscal year. In 2006, CMS adopted a reimbursement rate rule for LTCHs for 2007 that did not raise the base rate, and made other changes that reflect the ongoing concerns of CMS regarding LTCHs. 42 C.F.R. Part 412, May 12, 2006. In that rule, CMS found that approximately 37 percent of LTCH discharges are paid under the short-stay outliers, raising concerns that inappropriate patients may be being admitted to LTCHs. CMS made other changes to the reimbursement system which, taken as a whole, actually reduced the reimbursement that LTCHs will receive for 2007. Even with the concerns raised by MedPAC and CMS and recent changes in federal fiscal policy related to LTCHs, the distinction between general hospitals and LTCHs and the legitimate place for LTCHs in the continuum of care continues to be recognized by the federal government. One way of looking at recent developments at the federal level was articulated at hearing by Mr. Kornblat. Federal regulatory changes will reduce the reimbursement LTCHs receive when treating short-term patients (short-term outliers). "On the other end of the spectrum, there are patients who stay significantly longer than would be expected on average, long- stay outliers, and the reimbursement for those patients was also modified." Tr. 163. There have been other changes with regard to LTCH patients who require surgery the LTCHs cannot provide and patients with a primary psychiatric diagnosis or a primary rehab diagnosis. Requiring the LTCH to "foot the bill" for surgery that it cannot provide for its patients and the elimination from LTCHs of patients with a primary psychiatric or rehab diagnosis send a strong signal to the LTCH industry specifically and those who interact with it: LTCHs should admit only the medically complex and severely acutely ill patient who can be appropriately treated at an LTCH. Despite recent changes at the federal level and the clear recognition by the federal government that LTCHs have a place in the continuum of health care services, AHCA remains concerned about LTCHs in Florida. AHCA's Concerns Regarding LTCHs In deciding on whether to approve or deny new health care facilities, the Agency is responsible for the "coordinated planning of health care services in the state." § 408.033(3)(a), Fla. Stat. In carrying out this responsibility, AHCA looks to federal rules and reports to assist in making health care planning decisions for the state. Regarding LTCHs, MedPAC has reported, and CMS has noted that, nationwide, there has been a recent, rapid increase in the number of LTCHs: "It [LTCHs] represents a growth industry of the last ten years." Nationwide there has also been a huge increase in Medicare spending for LTCH care from $398 million in 1993 to $3.3 billion in 2004. AHCA has also become concerned about the recent rapid increase in LTCH applications in Florida. From 1997 through 2001 there were 8 LTCHs in the state. Starting in 2002, there was a marked increase in the number of applications for LTCHs and the number of approved LTCHs rose quickly to the current 14 in 2006. In addition, 9 new LTCHs have been approved and are expected to be licensed in the next 1-3 years. When all of the approved hospitals are licensed the number of available beds will rise from 876 to 1,351 (adding the approved 475 beds), over a 50 percent increase in LTCH beds statewide. In addition, AHCA is concerned that the occupancy level of LTCHs over the entire state appears to be falling over the last 11 years. In response to the rise in LTCH applications over the last several years, and given the decrease in occupancy of the current LTCHs, the Agency has consistently voiced concerns about lack of identification of the patients that appropriately comprise the LTCH patient population. Because of a lack of specific data from applicants with regard to the composition and acuity level of LTCH patient populations, AHCA is not convinced that there is a need for additional LTCHs in the state or in District 11. There are several reasons for this concern. First, AHCA believes, like MedPAC, that there may be an overlap between the LTCH patient populations and the population of patients served in other health care settings, such as SNFs and CMRs. Kindred's expert, Dr. Muldoon, noted that length of stay in the general acute care hospital has been shortened over the last few years because there are new more effective medical treatments, and because the "post-acute sector has emerged as the place to carry out the treatment plan that 20 years ago may been provided in its entirety in the short-term hospital." (Kindred Ex. 8 at 23). To AHCA, what patients enter what facilities in this "post-acute sector" is unclear. In the absence of the applicants better identifying the acuity of the LTCH patient population, AHCA has reached the conclusion that there may be other options available to those patients targeted by the LTCH applicants. In support of this view, AHCA presented a chart showing SNFs in District 11 that offer to treat patients who need dialysis, tracheotomy or ventilator care. These conditions are typically treated in LTCHs. In addition, AHCA believes that some long-stay patients can be appropriately served in the short-stay acute care hospitals, rather than requiring LTCH care. The length of stay in 2005 for the typical acute care hospital for most patients is five to six days. (Kindred Ex. 8, Dr. Muldoon Depo, at 23). Some hospital patients, however, are in need of acute care services on a long-term basis, that is, much longer than the average lengths of stay for most patients. Thus, patients who may need LTCH services often have lengths of stay in the acute care hospitals that exceed the typical stay. AHCA believes that these long-stay patients can be as appropriately served in the short stay acute care hospitals as in LTCHs. AHCA'S Denial of the Four Applications and Change of Position with regard to MJH On December 15, 2005, the Agency issued its SAAR after review of the applications. The SAAR recommended denial of all four applications based primarily on the Agency's determination that none had adequately demonstrated need for its proposed LTCH in District 11. In denying the four applications, AHCA relied in part on reports issued the Congress annually by MedPAC that discuss the placement of Medicare patients in appropriate post-acute settings. Appropriate use of long term care hospital services is an underlying concern that we [AHCA] have and had the federal government has as evidenced by their MedPAC reports and the CMS information in its most recent proposed rule on the subject. (Tr. 2486). The June 2004 MedPAC report states the following about LTCHs: Using qualitative and quantitative methods, we find the LTCH's role is to provide post- acute care to a small number of medically complex patients. We also find that the supply of LTCHs is a strong predictor of their use and those acute hospitals and skilled nursing facilities are the principal alternatives to LTCHs. We find that, in general, LTCH patients cost Medicare more than similar patients using alternative settings but that if LTCH care is targeted to patients of the highest severity, the cost is comparable. Given these concerns, AHCA looked to the four applicants to prove need through a needs methodology that provides sufficient information on the patient severity criteria to better define the patients that would mostly likely be appropriate candidates for LTCHs. AHCA found the need methodologies of three of the four applicants (Kindred, Promise, and Select) "incomplete" because they lacked specific information on the severity level of the patients the applicants plans to admit, and therefore they "overstate need." AHCA pointed to a former LTCH provider that did provide detailed useful information on the acuity level of its patients, and the acuity level of its patients in reference to similar patients in SNFs. Other then MJH, the applicants presented approaches to projecting need that are based, in one way or another, on long- stay patients in existing acute care hospitals. In the Agency's view these methods "significantly overstate need." The method creates a "candidate pool" for the future long-term care hospital users. But it does not include enough information on severity of illness of the patients, in AHCA's view, to give a sense of who might be expected to appropriately use the service. Further, the Agency sees no reason to believe that all long-stay patients in acute care short-stay hospitals are appropriate candidates for long-term hospital services. Lastly, AHCA believes that LTCH applicants should develop an "acuity coefficient or an acuity factor," tr. 2627, to be considered as part of an LTCH need methodology. The need methodology employed by MJH differed substantially from the methodologies of the other three applicants. Because it is more conservative and yields a need "approximately a tenth of what the other three propose," tr. 2500, at the time of hearing AHCA was much more comfortable with MJH's need methodology. By the time AHCA filed its PRO, its comfort with MJH's need methodology had solidified and improved to the point that AHCA changed its position with regard to MJH. Describing MJH's "use rate model" as conservative, see Agency for Health Care Administration Proposed Recommended Order, at 24, AHCA proposed the following finding of fact in support of its conclusion that MJH's application be approved: "Miami Jewish Home projected a reasonably reliable bed need using approved, conservative, but detailed and supportable, need methodologies." Id. at 25. MJH MJH, is an existing not-for-profit provider of comprehensive health and social services in Miami-Dade County. As recited in the Omissions Response to CON 9893: [MJH's] mission is to be the premier multi- component, not-for-profit charitable health care system in South Florida, guided by traditional Jewish values, dedicated to effectively and efficiently serving a non- sectarian population of elderly, mentally ill, disabled, and chronically ill people with a broad range of the highest quality institutionally-based, community-based and ambulatory care services. MJH Ex. 1. Originally founded in 1945 to provide residential care for Jewish persons unable to access services elsewhere, MJH is now in its 62nd year of operation. MJH enjoys a good reputation within its community. MJH is located at Northeast Second Avenue and 2nd Street in north-central Miami in one of the most densely populated areas of the County. Known as “Little Haiti,” the surrounding community is primarily low income, and is a federally designated “medically underserved area.” A “safety net” provider of health care services, MJH's SNF is the largest provider of Medicaid skilled nursing services in the State of Florida. MJH assists its patients/residents in filing Medicaid applications, and also assists individuals in applying for Medicaid for community-based services. This same kind of assistance will also be provided to patients of the MJH LTCH. A 2004 study conducted by the Center on Aging at Florida International University identified unmet needs among elders living within the zip codes surrounding MJH. The study notes that the greatest predictors of need for home and community-based services are poverty, disability, living alone, and old age. Several of the zip codes within the MJH PSA were found to have relatively large numbers of at risk elders due to poverty and dramatic community changes. The study has assisted MJH in identifying service gaps within the community, and in focusing its efforts to serve this at-risk population. Following its most recent JCAHO accreditation survey, both MJH’s hospital and SNF received a three-year “accreditation without condition,” which is the highest certification awarded by JCAHO. MJH is a national leader in the provision of comprehensive long-term care services. MJH has been recognized on numerous occasions for its innovative long-term and post- acute care programs. The awards and recognitions include the Gold Seal Award for Excellence in Long Term Care, the "Best Nursing Home" Award from Florida Medical Business and "Decade of Excellence Award" from Florida Health Care Association. An indicator of quality of care, AHCA’s “Gold Seal” designation is especially significant. Of the 780 nursing homes in Florida, only 13, including MJH, have met the criteria to be designated as Gold Seal facilities. MJH operates Florida's only Teaching Nursing Home Program. Medical students, interns, and other health professionals rotate through the service program in the nursing home and hospital on a regular basis. Specifically, MJH serves as a student and resident training site for the University of Miami and Nova Southeastern University Medical Schools, and the Barry University, FIU, and University of Miami nursing schools. The LTCH would enhance these capabilities and give physicians in training additional opportunities. Not only will this enhance their education, but also will contribute to the high quality of care to be provided in the MJH LTCH. MJH has been the site and sponsor of many studies to enhance the delivery of social and health services to elderly and disabled persons. Most recently, MJH was awarded a grant to do research on fall prevention in the nursing home. MJH is committed to continue research on the most effective means of delivering rehabilitative and long-term care services to a growing dependent population. The development of an LTCH at MJH will enhance the opportunities for this research. MJH operates Florida’s first and only PACE Center (Program of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly) located on the main Douglas Gardens campus. The program provides comprehensive care (preventive, primary, acute and long-term) to nursing home eligible seniors with chronic care needs while enabling them to continue to reside in their own home as long as possible. MJH was recently approved by the Governor and Legislature to open a second PACE site, to be located in Hialeah. The proposed 30-bed LTCH will be located on MJH’s Douglas Gardens Campus. The Douglas Gardens Campus is the site of a broad array of health and social services that span the continuum of care. These programs include community outreach services, independent and assisted living facilities, nursing home diversion services, chronic illness services, outpatient health services, acute care hospital services, rehabilitation, post-acute services, Alzheimer’s disease services, pain management, skilled nursing and hospice. LTCH services, however, are not currently available at MJH. Fred Stock, the Chief Operating Officer of MJH is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the MJH nursing home and hospital and has 24 years experience in the administration of long-term care facilities. An example of Mr. Stock’s leadership is that when he came to MJH, its hospice program had management issues. He assessed the situation and then made a management change which has resulted in a successful turnaround of the program. There are now 462 skilled nursing beds licensed and operated by MJH at the Douglas Garden’s Campus. All of these beds are certified by Medicare. Community hospitals have come to rely on these skilled nursing beds as a placement alternative for their sickest and most difficult-to-place, post-acute patients. The discharges of post-acute patients in the SNF at Douglas Gardens more than doubled from 350 in FY 2002 to 769 in FY 2005. Dr. Tanira Ferreira is the Medical Director of the MJH ventilator unit. Dr. Ferreira is board-certified in the specialties of Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Diseases, Critical Care Medicine, and Sleep Disorders. Dr. Ferreira will be the Medical Director of the MJH LTCH. In addition to Dr. Ferreira, MJH has five other pulmonologists on its staff. MJH also employs: a full-time Medical Director (Dr. Michael Silverman); three full-time physicians whose practices are restricted to MJH hospital and SNF patients; and four full-time nurse practitioners whose practices are restricted to residents of the SNF. MJH employs two full-time psychiatrists, two full-time psychologists, and seven full-time Master’s level social workers. The MJH medical staff also includes many specialist physicians such as cardiologists, surgeons, orthopedists, nephrologists and opthamologists, and other specialists are called for a consultation as needed. A number of the MJH patients/residents are non-English speakers. However, many of the MJH employees, including all of its medical staff, are bilingual. Among the languages spoken by MJH staff are Haitian, Spanish, Russian, Yiddish, French, and Portuguese. This multi-language capability greatly enhances patient/resident communication and enhances MJH’s ability to provide supportive services. The proposed project is the development of a 30-bed LTCH in Miami-Dade County. The LTCH will be located in renovated space in an existing facility and will conform to all the physical plant and operating standards for a general hospital in Florida. The estimated project cost is $5,315,672. The first patient is expected to be admitted by July 1, 2007. The LTCH will be considered an HIH under Federal regulations 42 CFR Section 412.22(e). The LTCH will comply with these requirements including a separate governing body, separate chief medical officer, separate medical staff, and chief executive officer. The LTCH will perform the hospital functions required in the Medicare Conditions of Participation set forth at 42 CFR Section 482. In addition, fewer than 25 percent of the admissions to the LTCH will originate from the MJH acute care hospital, and less than 15 percent of the LTCH operating expenses will be through contracted services with any other MJH affiliate, including the acute care hospital. The separate LTCH governing body will be legally responsible for the conduct of the LTCH as an institution and will not be under the control of the MJH acute care hospital. Finally, less than five percent of the annual MJH LTCH admissions will be re-admissions of patients who are referred from the MJH SNF or the MJH hospital. Each referral to the LTCH will be carefully assessed using the InterQual level-of-care criteria to ensure that the most appropriate setting is chosen. MJH is also a member of the ECIN (Extended Care Information Network) system. As a member of this system, MJH is able to make referrals and place patients who may not be appropriate for its own programs. Only those patients who are medically and functionally appropriate for the LTCH will be admitted to the LTCH program. Many patients admitted to the MJH LTCH will have complex medical conditions and/or multiple-system diagnoses in one or more of the following categories: Respiratory disorders care (including mechanical ventilation or tracheostomy care) Surgical wound or skin ulcer care Cardiac Care Renal disease care Cancer care Infectious diseases care Stroke care The patient and family will be the focus of the interdisciplinary care provided by the MJH LTCH. The interdisciplinary care team will include the following disciplines: physicians, nurses, social workers, psychologists, spiritual counselors, respiratory therapists, physical therapists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, pharmacists, and dietitians. MJH uses a collaborative care model that will be replicated in the LTCH and will enhance the effectiveness of the interdisciplinary team. The direct care professionals in the LTCH will maintain an integrated medical record, so that each member of the care team will have ready access to all the information and assessments from the other disciplines. Nursing staff will provide at least nine hours of nursing care per patient per day. Seventy-five percent of the nursing staff hours will be RN and LPN hours. Therapists (respiratory, physical, speech and occupational) will provide at least three hours of care per patient day. The MJH medical staff includes a wide array of specialty consultants that will be available to LTCH patients. The specialties of pulmonology, internal medicine, geriatrics and psychiatry will be available to each patient on a daily basis. A complete listing of all of the medical specialties available to MJH patients was included with its application. The interdisciplinary team will meet at least once per week to assess the care plan for each patient. The care plan will emphasize rehabilitation and education to enable the patient to progress to a less restrictive setting. The care team will help the patient and family learn how to manage disabilities and functional impairments to facilitate community re-entry. Approval of the LTCH will allow the MJH to "round out" the continuum of care it can offer the community by placing patients with clinically complex conditions in the most appropriate care setting possible. This is particularly true of persons who would otherwise have difficulty in accessing LTCH services. MJH has committed to providing a minimum of 4.2 percent of its patient discharges to Medicaid and charity patients. However, Mr. Stock anticipates that the actual percentage will be higher. If approved, MJH has committed to licensing and operating its proposed LTCH. MJH already has a number of the key personnel that will be required to implement its LTCH, including the Medical Director and other senior staff. In addition, MJH has extensive experience gleaned from both its acute care hospital and SNF in caring for very sick patients. In short, MJH has the clinical, administrative, and financial infrastructure that will be required to successfully implement its proposed LTCH. Approval of the MJH LTCH will dramatically reduce the number of persons who are now leaving the MJH PSA to access LTCH services. The hospitals in close proximity to MJH have LTCH use rates that are very low in comparison to other hospitals that are closer to existing LTCHs. Thus, it is likely that there are patients being discharged from the hospitals close to MJH that could benefit from LTCH services, but are not getting them because of access issues or because the existing LTCHs are perceived to be too far away. A number of hospitals located close to MJH are now referring ventilator-dependent patients to MJH, and would also likely refer patients to the MJH LTCH. Because the majority of the infrastructure required is already in place, the MJH HIH can be implemented much more quickly and efficiently than can a new freestanding LTCH. For example, ancillary functions such as billing, accounting, human resources, housekeeping and administration already exist, and the LTCH can be efficiently integrated into those existing operations on campus. MJH will be able to appropriately staff its LTCH through a combination of its current employees and recruitment of new staff as necessary. In addition, MJH will be establishing an in-house pharmacy and laboratory within the next six months, which will also provide services to LTCH patients. On-site radiology services are already available to MJH patients. MJH has an excellent track record of successfully implementing new programs and services. There is no reason to believe that MJH will not succeed in implementing a high quality LTCH if its application is approved. MJH's Ventilator Unit By the time ventilator-dependent and other clinically complex patients are admitted to a nursing home they have often exhausted their 100 days of Medicare coverage, and have converted to Medicaid. Since Medicaid reimbursement is less than the cost of providing such care, most nursing homes are unwilling to admit these types of patients. Thus, it is very difficult to place ventilator patients in SNFs statewide. The problem is further exacerbated in District 11 by the lack of any hospital-based skilled nursing units. With the recent closure of two SNF-based vent units (Claridge House and Greynolds Park) there are now only three SNF-based vent units remaining in District 11. They are located at MJH, Hampton Court (10 beds), and Victoria Nursing Home. MJH instituted a ventilator program in its SNF in early 2004. Many of the patients admitted into the ventilator program fall into the SE3 RUG Code. On July 1, 2005, there were 24 patients in the SE3 RUG code in MJH. Only one other SNF in District 11 has more than four SE3 RUG patients in its census on an average day. Over 60 percent of the Medicare post-acute census at the MJH SNF falls into the RUG categories associated with extensive, special care or clinically complex services. This mix of complex cases is about three times higher than average for District 11 SNFs. Although some of the patients now admitted to the MJH SNF vent unit would qualify for admission to an LTCH, there are also a number of patients who are not admitted because MJH cannot provide the LTCH level of care required. SNF admissions are required to be initiated following a STACH admission. MJH has actively marketed its vent unit to STACHs. Similarly most LTCH admissions come from STACHs and, like MJH’s efforts, LTCHs also market themselves to STACHs. Hospitals providing tertiary services and trauma care will generate the greater number of LTCH referrals, with approximately half of all LTCH patients being transferred from an ICU. The implementation of the MJH ventilator unit required the development of protocols, infrastructure, clinical capabilities and internal resources beyond those found in most SNFs. Dr. Ferreira conducted pre-opening comprehensive staff education. These capabilities will serve as a precursor to the development of the next stage of service delivery at MJH: the LTCH. MJH’s vent unit provides care for trauma victims, and recently received a Department of Health research grant to develop a program for long-term ventilator rehab for victims of trauma. Jackson Memorial Hospital is experiencing difficulty in placing "certain" medically complex patients, who at discharge, have continuing comprehensive medical needs. MJH is the only facility in Dade County that has accepted Medicaid ventilator patients from Jackson. Mt. Sinai Medical Center also has difficulty placing medically complex patients, particularly those requiring ventilator support, wound care, dialysis and/or other acute support services. Mt. Sinai is a major referral source to MJH and supports its LTCH application. MJH has received statewide referrals, including from the Governor's Office and from AHCA, of difficult to place vent patients. Most of these referrals are Medicaid patients. Ten of the MJH vent beds are typically utilized by Medicaid patients. Although MJH would like to accommodate more such referrals, there are financial limitations on the number of Medicaid patients that MJH can accept at one time. Promise Promise owns and operates approximately 718 LTCH beds outside of Florida and employs an estimated 2,000 persons. Promise proposes to develop and LTCH facility in the western portion of the County made up of 59,970 gross square feet, 60 private beds including an 8-bed ICU, and various ancillary and support areas. The projected costs to construct its freestanding LTCH is $11,094,500, with a total project cost of $26,370,885. As a condition of its CON if its application is approved, Promise agrees to provide three percent of projected patient days to Medicaid and charity patients. Select Select-Dade proposes to locate its 60-bed, freestanding LTCH in the western portion of Miami-Dade County. The Agency denied Select-Dade's application because of its failure to prove need. Otherwise, the application meets the CON review criteria and qualifies for comparative review with the other three applicants. Select-Dade proposes to serve the entire District, but it has targeted the entire west central portion of the County that includes Hialeah, Hialeah Gardens, Doral, Sweetwater, Kendall, and portions of unincorporated Miami. This area is west of State Road 826 (the "Palmetto Expressway"), south of the County line with Broward County, north of Killian Parkway and east of the Everglades ("Select's Target Service Area"). To be located west of the Palmetto Expressway, east of the Florida Turnpike, north of Miller Drive and south of State Road 836, the site for the LTCH will be generally in the center of Select's Target Service Area. Approximately 700,000 people (about 30 percent of the County's population) reside within Select-Dade's Target Service Area. This population of the area is expected to grow almost ten percent in the next five years. The rest of the County is expected to grow about five and one-half percent. Kindred Kindred proposes to construct a 60-bed LTCH in the County. It will consist of 30 private rooms, 20 beds in 10 semi-private rooms, and 10 ICU beds. The facility would include the necessary ancillary service, including two operating rooms, a radiology suite, and a pharmacy. Kindred utilizes a screening process before admission of a patient to assure that the patient needs LTCH level care that includes the set of criteria known as InterQual. InterQual categorizes patients according to their severity of illness and the intensity of services they require. Every patient admitted to a Kindred hospital must be capable of improving and the desire to undergo those interventions aimed at improvement. Kindred does not provide hospice or custodial care. In addition, through its reimbursement process, the federal government provides strong disincentives toward LTCH admission of inappropriate patients. Furthermore, every Kindred hospital has a utilization review (UR) plan to assure that patients do not receive unnecessary, unwanted or harmful care. In addition to the UR plan, the patient's condition is frequently reviewed by nursing staff, respiratory staff and by a multi-disciplinary team. Kindred had not selected a location at the time it submitted its application. Kindred anticipates, however, that its facility if approved would be located in the western portion of the County. Stipulated Facts As stated by Kindred in its Proposed Recommended Order, the parties stipulated to the following facts (as well as a few other related to identification of the parties): Each applicant timely filed the appropriate letter of intent, and each such letter contained the information required by AHCA. Each CON application was timely filed with AHCA. Following its initial review, AHCA issued a State Agency Action Report ("SAAR") which indicated its intent to deny each of the applications. Each applicant timely filed the appropriate petition with AHCA, seeking a formal hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Fla. Stat. In the CON batch cycle that is the subject of this proceeding, Promise XI proposed to construct a 59,970 square foot building at a total project cost of $26,370,885.00, conditioned upon providing 3 percent of its patient days to Medicaid and charity patients. Select proposes to construct a 62,865 square foot building at a total project cost of $22,304,791.00, conditioned upon providing 2.8 percent of its patient days to Medicaid and charity patients. MJHHA proposes to renovate 17,683 square feet of space at a total project cost of $5,315,672.00, conditioned upon providing 4.2 percent of its patient days to Medicaid and charity patients. Kindred proposes to construct a 69,706 square foot building at a total project cost of $26,538,458.00, conditioned upon providing 2.2 percent of its patient days to Medicaid and charity patients. Long term hospitals meeting the provisions of AHCA Rule 59A-3.065(27), Fla. Admin. Code, are one of the four classes of facilities licensed as Class I hospitals by AHCA. The length of stay in an acute care hospital for most patients is three to five days. Some hospital patients, however, are in need of acute care services on a long- term basis. A long-term basis is 25 to 34 days of additional acute are service after the typical three to five day stay in a short-term hospital. Although some of those patients are "custodial" in nature and not in need of LTCH services, many of these long-term patients are better served in a LTCH than in a traditional acute care hospital. Within the continuum of care, the federal government's Medicare program recognizes LTCHs as distinct providers of services to patients with high levels of acuity. The federal government treats LTCH care as a discrete form of care, and treats the level of service provider by LTCHs as distinct, with its own Medicare payment system of DRGs and case mix reimbursement that provides Medicare payments at rates different from what the Medicare prospective payment system ("PPS") provides for other traditional post-acute care providers. The implementation by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") of categories of payment design specifically for LTCHs, the "LTC-DRG," is a sign of the recognition by CMS and the federal government of the differences between general hospitals and LTCHs when it comes to patient population, costs of care, resources consumed by the patients and health care delivery. Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation at 4, 6-7, 9-10. Applicable Statutory and Rule Criteria The parties stipulated that the review criteria in Subsections (1) through (9) of Section 408.035, Florida Statutes (the "CON Review Criteria Statute"), apply to the applications in this proceeding. Subsection (10) of the CON Review Criteria Statute, relates to the applicant's designation as a Gold Seal Program Nursing facility. Subsection (10) is applicable only "when the applicant is requesting additional nursing home beds at that facility." None of the applicants are making such a request. MJH's designation as a Gold Seal Program is not irrelevant in this proceeding, however, since it substantiates MJH's "record of providing quality of care," a criterion in Subsection (3) of the CON Review Criteria Statute. The Agency does not have a need methodology for LTCHs. Nor has it provided any of the applicants in this proceeding with a policy upon which to determine need for the proposed LTCH beds. The applicants, therefore, are responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology of their own. Topics that must be included in the methodology are listed Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2., a. through d. Subsection (1) of the CON Review Criteria: Need Not only does AHCA not have an LTCH need methodology in rule or a policy upon which to determine need for the proposed LTCH beds, it did not offer a methodology for consideration at hearing. This is the typical approach AHCA takes in LTCH cases; demonstration of LTCH need through a needs assessment methodology is left to the parties, a responsibility placed upon them in situations of this kind by Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. MJH's Need Methodology Unlike the other three applicants, all of whom used one form or another of STACH long-stay methodologies, MJH utilized a use-rate analysis which projects LTCH utilization forward from District 11's recent history of increased utilization. A use-rate methodology is one of the most commonly used health care methodologies. The MJH use-rate methodology projected need based upon all of District 11. The methodology projected need for 42 LTCH beds in 2008, with that number growing incrementally to 55 beds by 2012. Because statewide LTCH utilization data is not reliable when looking at any particular district, MJH developed a District 11 use-rate, by age cohort, to yield a projection of LTCH beds needed. The use-rate is derived from the number of STACH admissions compared to the number of LTCH admissions, by age cohort. Projected demographic growth by age cohort was applied to determine the number of projected LTCH admissions. The historic average LTCH LOS in District 11 was applied to projected admissions and then divided by 365 to arrive at an ADC. That ADC was then adjusted for an occupancy standard of 85 percent, which is consistent with District 11. A number of states have formally adopted need methodologies that use an approach similar to MJH's in this case. Kindred has used a shortcut method of the use rate model in other states for analyzing proposed LTCHs "when there is not much data to work with." Tr. 1744. The methodology used by MJH was developed by its expert health planner, Jay Cushman. The methodology developed by Mr. Cushman was described by Kindred's health planner as "a couple of steps beyond" Kindred's occasionally-used shortcut method. Kindred's health planner described Mr. Cushman's efforts with regard to the MJH need methodology as "a very nice job." Tr. 1745. Mr. Cushman created a use-rate by examining the relationship between STACH admissions and LTCH admissions. The use-rate actually grows as it is segmented by age group, and thus the growth in the elderly population incrementally increases the utilization rate. MJH’s application demonstrated how LTCH utilization has varied greatly statewide, and how the District 11 market has a significant history of utilizing LTCH services. For planning purposes the history of District 11 is a significant factor, and the MJH methodology is premised upon that history, unlike the other methodologies. MJH demonstrated a strong correlation between STACH and LTCH utilization in District 11, where 98 percent of LTCH admissions are referred from STACHs. MJH also demonstrated that the south and western portions of Miami-Dade have overlapping service areas from the three existing LTCHs, while northeastern Miami-Dade has only one provider with a similar service area, Kindred Hollywood in neighboring District 10. This peculiarity explains why the LTCH out-migration trend is much stronger in northeastern portions of the District. The area most proximate to MJH would enjoy enhanced access to LTCH services, including both geographic and financial access, if its program is approved. In short, as AHCA, now agrees, MJH demonstrated need for its project through a thorough and conservative analysis. All parties agree that the number of LTCH beds yielded by MJH's methodology are indeed needed. Whether more are needed is the point of disagreement. For example, Mr. Balsano plugged the 2003 use rate into MJH's methodology instead of the 2004 used by MJH. Employment of the 2003 use rate in the calculation has the advantage that actual 2004 and 2005 data can serve as a basis of comparison. Mr. Balsano explained the result: "The number of filled beds in 2005 in District 11 would exceed by 33 beds what the use rate approach would project as needed in 2005." Tr. 370. The reason, as Mr. Balsano went on to explain, is that the use-rate changed dramatically between 2002, 2003, and 2004. Thus MJH's methodology, while yielding a number of beds that are surely needed in the District, may yield a number that is understated. This is precisely the opposite problem of the need assessment methodologies of the other three applicants, all of which overstated LTCH bed need in the District. The Need Methodologies of the Other Three Applicants The need methodologies presented by the other applicants vary to some degree. All three, however, are based on STACH long-stay data. Long-stay STACH analyses rely upon a number of assumptions, but fundamentally they project need forward from historic utilization of STACHs. The methodologies used by each of these three applicants identify patients in STACHs whose stays exceeded the geometric mean of length of stay plus fifteen days (the "GMLOS+15 Methodologies"), although the extent of the patients so identified varied depending on the number of DRGs from which the patients were drawn. Each of the proponent’s projects would serve only a relatively small fraction of the District 11 patients purported by the GMLOS+15 Methodologies to be in need of LTCH services. The lowest projected need of the three was produced by Promise: 393 beds in 2010. Promise's methodology is more conservative than that of Kindred and Select. Unlike the latter two, Promise reduced the number of potential projected admissions to be used in its calculation. The reduction, in the amount of 25 percent of the projection of 500 beds, was made because of several factors. Among them were anticipation that MedPAC's suggestions for ensuring that patients were appropriate for LTCH admission, which was expected to reduce the number of LTCH admissions, would be adopted. The methodologies proposed by Kindred and Select-Dade did not include the Promise methodology's reduction potentially posed by the impact of new federal regulation. Kindred's methodology projected need for 509 new LTCH beds in District 11; Select-Dade's methodology projected need for 556 beds. One way of looking at the substantial bed need produced by the GMLOS+15 Methodologies used by Promise, Select and Kindred was expressed by Kindred. As an applicant proposing a new hospital of 60 beds, when its need methodology yielded a need in the District for more than 500 beds, Kindred found the methodology to provide assurance that its project is needed. On the other hand, if the methodology was reliable then the utilization levels of the two Kindred hospitals in Broward County in relative proximity to a populated area of District 11 would have been much higher in 2004 and 2005, given the substantial out-migration to those facilities from District 11. The Kindred and Select methodologies are not reliable. Their flaws were outlined at hearing by Mr. Cushman, MJH's expert health planner who qualified as an expert with a specialization in health care methodology. Mr. Cushman attributed the flaws to Promise's methodology as well but as explained below, Promise's methodology is found to be reliable. Comparison of the projections produced by MJH's use rate methodology with the projections produced by the other three methodologies results in "a tremendous disconnect," tr. 1233, between experiences in District 11 upon which MJH's methodology is based and the GMLOS+15 Methodologies' bed need yield "that are three or four or five times as high as have actually been expressed in the existing system." Id. One reason in Mr. Cushman's view for the disconnect is that the GMLOS+15 Methodologies identify all long-stay patients in STACHs as candidates for LTCH admission when "there are many reasons that patients might stay for a long time in an acute care facility that are not related to their clinical needs." Tr. 1234. This criticism overlooks the limited number of long-stay patients in STACHs used by the Promise methodology but is generally applicable to the Select and Kindred methodologies. Mr. Cushman performed detailed analysis of the patients used by Kindred in its projection to reach conclusions applicable to all three GMLOS+15 Methodologies. Mr. Cushman's analysis, therefore, related to actual patients. They are based on payor mix, discharge status, and case mix. The analysis showed that the GMLOS+15 Methodologies are "disconnected from the fundamental facts on the ground," tr. 1240, in that the methodologies produce tremendous unmet need not reconcilable with actual utilization experience. Some of the gaps based on additional case mix testing were closed by Kindred's expert health planner. The additional Kindred test, however, did not completely close the gap between projected unmet need and actual utilization experience. Mr. Cushman summed up his basis for concluding that the GMLOS+15 Methodologies employed by Kindred, Select-Dade and Promise are unreliable: [W]e have an untested method that's disconnected from actual utilization experience on the ground. And it provides projections of need that are way in excess of what the experience would indicate and way in excess of what the applicants are willing to propose and support [for their projects.] So for those reasons, I considered [the GMLOS+15 method used by Kindred, Select-Dade and Promise] to be an unreliable method for projecting the need for LTCH beds. Tr. 1243-44. The criticism is not completely on point with regard to the Promise methodology as explained below. Furthermore, at hearing, Mr. Balsano made adjustments to the Promise GMLOS+15 Methodology ("Promise's Revised Methodology"). Although not sanctioned by the Agency, the adjustments were ones that made the Agency more comfortable with the numeric need they produced similar to the Agency's comments at hearing about MJH's methodology. For example, if the number of needed beds were reduced by 50 percent (instead of 25 percent as done in Promise's methodology) to account for the effect of federal policies and alternative providers and if an 85 percent occupancy rate were assumed instead of an 80 percent occupancy rate, the result would be reduce the LTCH bed need yielded by Promise's methodology to 200. These adjustments make Promise's Revised Methodology more conservative than Select's and Kindred's. In addition, Promise's methodology commenced with a much fewer number of STACH patients because Promise based on its inquiry into the patient population that is "using LTCHs in Florida right now." Tr. 351. Examination of AHCA's database led to Promise's identification of patients in 169 DRGs currently served in Florida LTCHs. In contrast, Select-Dade and Kindred, used 483 and 390 DRGs respectively. Substantially the same methodology was used by Promise in Promise Healthcare of Florida III, Inc. v. AHCA, Case No. 06-0568CON (DOAH April 10, 2007). The methodology, prior to the 25 percent reduction to take into account the effects of new federal regulations, was described there as: Long-stay discharges were defined using the following criteria: age of patient was 18 years or older; the discharge DRG was consistent with the discharge DRGs from a Florida LTCH; and the ALOS in the acute care hospital was at the GMLOS for the specific DRG plus 15 days or more. Applying these criteria reduced the number of DRGs used and the potential patient pool. Id. at 19 (emphasis supplied.) The methodology in this case produced a number that was then reduced by 25 percent, just as Promise did in its application in this case. The methodology was found by the ALJ to be reliable. If the methodology there were reliable then Promise's Revised Methodology (an even more conservative methodology) must be reliable as well as the numeric need for District 11 LTCH beds it yields: 200. Such a number (200) would support approval of MJH's application and two of the others and denial of the remaining application or denial of MJH's application and approval of the three other applications. Neither of these scenarios should take place. However high a number of beds that might have been projected by a reasonable methodology, no more than two of the applications should be granted when one takes into consideration the ability of the market to absorb new providers all at once. Tr. 518-520. Nonetheless, such a revised methodology would allow approval of MJH and one other of the applicants. Furthermore, there are indications of bed need greater than the need produced by MJH's methodology. Market Conditions, Population and History The large majority of patients admitted to LTCHs are elderly, Medicare beneficiaries. Typically, elderly persons seek health care services close to their homes. This is often because the elderly spouse or other family members of the patient cannot drive to visit the patient. This contributes to the compressed service areas observed in District 11. Historic patient migration patterns show that for STACH services, there is nine percent in-migration to Miami- Dade, and only five percent out-migration from Miami-Dade, a normal balance. Most recent data for LTCH service, however, shows an abnormal balance: three percent in-migration and 22 percent out-migration. The current utilization of existing LTCHs in District 11 and the high out-migration indicates that additional LTCH beds are needed. Notably, of the 400 District 11 residents who accessed LTCH care in Broward County in 2004, 114 (over 25 percent) lived in the 15 zip codes closest to MJH. MJH’s location will allow its LTCH to best impact and reduce out- migration from District 11 for LTCH services. Neither Kindred nor Promise has a location selected, and while Select-Dade has a “target area,” its actual location is unknown. None of the existing LTCHs in District 11 or in District 10 have PSAs that overlap with the area around MJH. For example, the Agency had indicated that there was no need in the case which led to approval of the Sister Emmanuel LTCH at Mercy Hospital. It was licensed in July of 2002, barely half a year after the Select-Miami facility was licensed. Both facilities were operating at or near optimal functional capacity less than two years from licensure without adverse impact to Kindred-Coral Gables. The utilization to capacity of new LTCH beds in the District indicate a repressed demand for LTCH services. The demand for new beds, however, is not limited to the eastern portion of the County. The demand exists in the western portion as well where there are no like and existing facilities. Medicare patients who remain in STACHs in excess of the mean DRG LOS become a financial burden on the facility. The positive impact on them of an LTCH with available beds is an incentive for them to refer LTCH appropriate patients for whom costs of care exceeds reimbursement. There were a total of 1,231 adult discharges from within Select-Dade's targeted service area with LOS of 24 or more days in calendar year 2004. Medical Treatment Trends in Post-Acute Service The number of LTCHs in Florida has increased substantially in recent years. The increase is due, in part to the better treatment the medically complex, catastrophically ill, LTCH appropriate patient will usually receive at an LTCH than in traditional post acute settings (SNFs, HBSNUs, CMR, and home health care). The clinical needs and acuity levels of LTCH- appropriate patients require more intense services from both nursing staff and physicians that are available in an LTCH but not typically available in the other post acute settings. LTCH patients require between eight to 12 nursing hours per day and daily physician visits. CMS reimbursement at the Medicare per diem rate would not enable a SNF to treat a person requiring eight to 12 hours of nursing care per day. CMR units and hospitals are inappropriate for long- term acute care patients who are unable to tolerate the minimum three hours of physical therapy associated with comprehensive medical rehabilitation. The primary focus of an LTCH is to provide continued acute care and treatment. Patients in a CMR are medically stable; the primary focus is on restoration of functional capabilities. Subsection (2): Availability, Quality of Care, Accessibility, Extent of Utilization of Existing Facilities There are 27 acute care hospitals dispersed throughout the County. Only three are LTCHs. The three existing LTCHs, all in the eastern portion of the County, are not as readily accessible to the population located in the western portion as would be an LTCH in the west. Approval of an application that will lead to an LTCH in the western portion of the County will enhance access to LTCH services or as Ms. Greenberg put it hearing, "if only one facility is going to be built, the western part of the county is where that needs to go." Tr. 2101. See discussion re: Subsection (5), below. In confirmation of this opinion, Dr. Gonzalez pointed out several occasions when he was not able to place a patient at one of the existing LTCHs due to family member reluctance to place their loved one in a facility that would force the family to travel a long distance for visits. LTCH appropriate patients are currently remaining in the acute care setting with Palmetto General and Hialeah Hospital among the busiest of the STACHs in the County. Both are within Select-Dade's targeted service area. From 2002 to 2005 the number of LTCH beds in the District increased from 53 to 122. During the same period, the number of patient days increased from 18,825 to 37,993. Recently established LTCH facilities in District 11 have consistently reached high occupancy levels, approaching 90 percent at the time of hearing. From 2001 to 2004, the use rate for LTCH services grew from 3.07 per 1,000 to 6.51 per 1,000. The increase in use rate for those aged 65 and over was even more significant; from 19.32 per 1,000 to 41.67 per 1,000. Kindred's Miami-Dade facility is licensed at 53 beds; of those seven are in private rooms; the facility has 23 semi- private rooms. As far back as 2001, the facility has operated at occupancy rates in excess of 85 percent; in 1998 and 1999 its occupancy rate exceeded 92 percent and 93 percent, respectively. More recently, it has operated at an ADC of 53 patients; 100 percent capacity. Several physicians and case managers provided support to Kindred's application by way of form letters, indicating patients would benefit from transfers to LTCHs and "an ever growing need for (these) services." Kindred's daily census has averaged 50 or more patients since 2004. Unlike an acute care hospital, Kindred has not experienced any seasonal fluctuations in its census, running at or above a reasonable functional capacity throughout the year. Taking various factors into consideration, including the number of semi-private beds, the facility is operating at an efficient occupancy level. Looking ahead five years, the capacity at Kindred's facility cannot be increased in order to absorb more patients. As designed, the facility cannot operate more efficiently than it has at 85 percent occupancy. Select's facility, located in a medical arts building, houses 34 private and six semi-private beds. In 2005, Select's facility operated at an average occupancy of almost 88 percent. Unlike Kindred, Select can add at least seven more beds to its facility by converting offices. As a hospital within a hospital, Sister Emmanuel's 29-bed facility is subject to limits on the percentage of admissions it can receive from "host" Mercy Hospital; even with such restrictions, its 2005 occupancy rate was 84.6 percent. Because of gender mix and infection opportunities, among other reasons, it is difficult to utilize semi-private beds. Only three District facilities offer ventilator care: MJHHA, HMA Hampton Court, and Victoria Nursing Home. Other health care facility settings do not serve as reasonable alternatives to the LTCH services proposed here. In 2004, roughly one quarter of District 11 residents, (nearly 400 patients), requiring LTCH services traveled to District 10 facilities. In 2005 that number fell to 369, or about 22 percent. Although there is a correlation between inpatient acute care services and LTCH services, the out-migration of patients requiring LTCH services indicated above differs markedly from the out-migration numbers generated by acute care patients. The primary north-south road configurations in the county are A1A, U.S. 1 and I-95 on the east and the Palmetto Expressway on the west. The primary east-west road configurations are composed of the Palmetto Expressway extension, S.R. 112; the Airport Expressway feeding into the Miami International Airport area and downtown Miami, S.R. 836 to Florida's Turnpike, and the Don Shula Expressway in the southwest. Assuming no delays, a trip by mass transit, used by the elderly and the poor, from various areas in Miami-Dade to the nearest LTCH outside District 11 (Kindred Hollywood) runs two to four hours one way. These travel times pose a special hardship to the elderly traveling to a facility to receive care or visit loved ones. While improvements in the system are planned over the next five years, they will not measurably change the existing travel times. These factors, along with high occupancy levels in District 11 LTCHs, indicate the demand for LTCH services in the District exceeds the existing bed supply. The three existing LTCHs have recently operated at optimal functional capacity or above it. On December 31, 2005, Select Specialty Hospital-Miami was operating with 95 percent occupancy. Subsection (3): Ability of the Applicant to Provide Quality of Care and the Applicant's Record of Providing Quality of Care As discussed above, MJH has the ability to provide high quality of care to its LTCH patients and an outstanding record of providing quality of care. Select-Dade has the ability to provide quality of care to its LTCH patients and a record providing quality of care. In treating and caring for LTCH patients, Select-Dade will use an interdisciplinary team of physicians, dieticians, respiratory therapists, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, nurses, case managers and pharmacists. Each will discipline will play an integral part in assuring the appropriate discharge of the patient in a timely manner. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations (JCAHO) has accredited all Select facilities that have been in existence long enough to qualify for JCAHO accreditation. Both Select and Promise use various tools, including Interqual Criteria, to assure patients who need LTCH services are appropriately evaluated for admission. All Promise facilities are accredited by JCAHO. Promise has developed and implemented a company-wide compliance program, as well as pre-admission screening instruments, standards of performance and a code of conduct for its employees. Its record of providing quality of care was shown at hearing with regard to data related to its ventilator program weaning rate and wound healing rates. None of the parties presented evidence or argument that any of the other applicants was unable to provide adequate quality of care. The Agency adopted its statements from the SAAR at pages 43 through 45. The SAAR noted the existence of certain confirmed complaints at the two existing LTCH providers in Florida Select and Kindred. The number of confirmed complaints is relatively few. Kindred, for example, had 12 confirmed complaints with the State Department of Health at its seven facilities during a three-year period, less than one complaint per Kindred hospital every two years. Each applicant satisfies this criterion. Subsection (4): Availability of Resources, Health and Management Personnel, Funds for Capital and Operating Expenditures, Project Accomplishment and Operation The parties stipulated that all applicants have access to health care and management personnel. Select-Dade, Kindred and MJH all have funds for capital and operating expenditures and project accomplishment and operation. In turn, each of these three contends that Promise did not demonstrate the availability of funds for its project. This issue is dealt with below under the part of this order that discusses Subsection (6) of the Statutory CON Review Criteria. Subsection (5): Access Enhancement The applicants stipulated that "each of the applicants' projects will enhance access to LTCH services for residents of the district to some degree." All four applicants get some credit under this subsection because approval of their application will enhance access by meeting need that all of the parties now agree exists. Select-Dade and Promise propose to locate their projects in the western portion of the County. Kindred did not indicate a location. Location of an LTCH in the western portion of the County will enhance geographic access. MJH's location is in an area that has reasonable geographic access to LTCH services. But approval of its application, given the unique nature of its operation, chiefly its charitable mission, will enhance access to charity and Medicaid recipients. Approval of Select-Dade's application will also enhance cultural access to the Latin population in Hialeah. A substandard public transportation system for this population makes traveling to visit hospitalized loved ones an insurmountable task in some situations. Select-Dade has achieved a competent cultural atmosphere in its LTCH opened in the County in 2003. It has in excess of 100 multi-lingual employees, many of whom communicate in Spanish. The staff effectively communicates with patients with a variety of racial, cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Every new LTCH must undergo a qualifying period to establish itself as an LTCH for Medicare reimbursement. Specifically, the average LOS for all Medicare patients must meet or exceed 25 days. During the qualifying period the LTCH is reimbursed by Medicare under the regular STACH PPS, that is paid on a DRG basis as if the patient were in an ordinary general acute care hospital with its lower reimbursement. Upon initiation of their LTCH services, Promise, Kindred and Select all intend to restrict or suppress admissions to ensure longer LOS to meet the Medicare 25 day average LOS requirement, and to “minimize the costs” of obtaining LTCH certification and reimbursement. MJH will not be artificially restricting its LTCH admissions during the initial 6 month Medicare qualification period, even though the cost of providing services during this period will likely exceed the STACH Medicare reimbursement. MJH’s opening without suppressing admissions (as in the case of Sister Emmanuel), will enhance access by patients in need of these services during the initial qualification period. Subsection (6): Immediate and Long-term Financial Feasibility a. Short-Term Financial Feasibility Short-term financial feasibility is the ability of an applicant to fund the project. None of the parties took the position that the MJH project was not financially feasible in the short term. MJH's current assets are equal to current liabilities, a short-term position found by AHCA to be weak but acceptable. The financial performance of MJH, however, has been improving in the past three years. Expansion of existing services, improved utilization of services, and the development of new programs have all contributed to a significant increase in operational revenue and total revenue during that period. MJH has a history of receiving substantial charitable gifts (ranging from $6.2 million to $13.2 million annually during the past three years) and can reasonably expect to receive financial gifts annually of between $4-5 million in the coming years. However, MJH is moving away from reliance on charitable giving, and toward increasing self-sufficiency from operations. Approval of the LTCH will play a major role in achieving that goal. In addition, MJH has total assets, including land and buildings, of approximately $150 million. The cost to implement the proposed MJH LTCH is $5,319,647. The projected cost is extremely conservative in the sense of overestimating any potential contingency costs that could be incurred. MJH has the resources available to fund the project through endowments and investments (currently $41 million) as well as from operating cash flow and cash on hand. Select-Dade has an adequate short-term position and Kindred a good short-term position. None of the parties contest the short-term financial feasibility of either Select-Dade or Kindred. In contrast, both Select-Dade and Kindred contested the short-term financial feasibility of Promise. In accord is MJH's position expressed in its proposed recommended order: "Promise did not demonstrate the availability of funds for its project." Miami Jewish Home & Hospital For the Aged, Inc.'s Proposed Recommended Order, at 37. Promise's case for short-term financial feasibility rests on the historical relationship between the principals of Promise, Sun Capital Healthcare, Inc., and Mr. William Gunlicks of Founding Partners Capital Management Company ("Founding Partners.") The relationship has led to great success financially over many years. For example, through the efforts of Mr. Gunlicks, Sun Capital has generated over $2 billion in receivable financing. Founding Partners is an investment advisor registered with the Security Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Futures Association and the State of Florida. As a general partner, it manages two private investment funds: Founding Partners Stable Value Fund and Founding Partners Equity Fund. Founding Partners also manages an International Fund for non-U.S. investors. Its base is composed of approximately 130 individuals with high net worth and access to capital. Founding Partners provided Promise with a "letter of interest" dated October 12, 2005, which indicated its interest in providing the "construction, permanent, and working capital financing for the development of a 60 bed long-term acute care hospital to be located in Dade County, Florida." Promise Ex. 3, Exhibit Promise XI, Gunlicks 4, 6-27-06. The letter makes clear, however, that it is not a commitment to finance the project: "The actual terms and conditions of this loan will be determined at the time of your loan request is approved. Please recognize this letter represents our interest in this project and is not a commitment for financing." Id. Testimony at hearing demonstrated a likelihood that Promise would be able to fund the project should it's application be approved. Mr. Balsano opined that this is sufficient to meet short-term financial feasibility: "[I]t's not required at this point that firm funding be in place. . . . [W]e have an appropriate letter from Mr. Gunlicks' organization that they're interested and willing to fund the project. It kind of goes to the second issue, which is, well, what if there were some issue in that regard? Would this project be financed. And I guess I would just have to say bluntly that in doing regulatory work for the last 20-some years, that if an applicant has a certificate of need for a given service, most lending institutions view that as a validation that the project is needed and can be supported. My experience has been that I have never personally witnessed a project that was approved that could not get financing. Tr. 392. Other expert health planners with considerable experience in the CON regulatory arena conceded that they were not aware of a CON-approved hospital project in the state that could not get financing. Despite the proof of a likelihood that Promise's project would be funded if approved, however, Promise failed to demonstrate as MJH, Select-Dade and Kindred continue to maintain, that funds are, indeed, available to fund the project. In sum, Promise failed to demonstrate the short-term financial feasibility of the project. The projects of MJH, Select-Dade and Kindred are all financially feasible in the short-term. b. Long-Term Financial Feasibility Long-term financial feasibility refers to the ability of a proposed project to generate a positive net revenue or profit at the end of the second full year of operation. MJH’s projected patient volumes are both reasonable and appropriate, given its current position in the community, the services it currently provides, and the need for LTCH services in the community. MJH’s projected payor mix was largely based upon the historical experience of the three existing LTCHs in the District, with the exception of the greater commitment to charity and Medicaid patients. The higher commitment to Medicaid/charity is consistent with MJH’s historical experience and status as a safety net provider. Sister Emmanuel is a 29-bed LTCH located within Mercy Hospital. As a similarly-sized HIH, a not-for-profit provider, and an entity with the same kind of commitment to Medicaid/charity patients, Sister Emmanuel is the best proxy for comparison of the financial projections contained in the MJH application. MJH projected its gross revenues based upon Sister Emmanuel’s general charge structure, adjusted for payor mix and inflated at 4 percent per year. The staffing positions, FTEs and salaries contained on Schedule 6 of each of the applications were stipulated to represent reasonable projections. MJH’s Medicaid net revenues were calculated by determining a specific Medicaid per diem rate using the Dade County operating cost ceiling and 80 percent of the capital costs. Given that many LTCH patients exhaust their allowable days of Medicaid coverage, 70 percent of the revenue associated with MJH’s Medicaid patient days were “written off” in total. Similarly, patient days associated with charity care and bad debt reflected no net revenue. MJH's Medicare net revenues were determined using the specific diagnosis (DRG) of each projected patient. For the first six months of operation it was assumed that MJH would receive the short-stay DRG reimbursement, and in the second 6 months and second year of operation would receive the LTCH DRG payment. Net revenues for the remaining payor categories were based upon the historical contractual adjustments of MJH. MJH’s projected gross and net revenues for its proposed LTCH are conservative, reasonable and achievable. However, if MJH has in fact understated the net revenues that it will actually achieve, the impact will be an improved financial performance and improved likelihood of long-term financial feasibility. MJH’s staffing expense projections were derived from its Schedule 6 projections (which were stipulated to be reasonable) with a 28 percent benefit package added. Non- ancillary expense costs were based upon MJH’s historical costs, while ancillary expenses (lab, pharmacy, medical supplies, etc.) were based upon the Sister Emmanuel proxy. Capitalized project costs, depreciation and amortization were derived from Schedule 1 and the historical experience of MJH, as were the non- operating expenses such as G&A, plant maintenance, utilities, insurance and other non-labor expenses. MJH’s income and expense projections are reasonable and appropriate, and demonstrate the long-term financial feasibility of MJH’s proposed LTCH. John Williamson is an Audit Evaluation and Review Analyst for AHCA. He holds a B.S. in accounting and is a Florida CPA. Mr. Williamson conducted a review of the financial schedules contained in each of the four applications at issue. In conducting his review, Mr. Williamson compared the applicants’ financial projections with the “peer group” of existing Florida LTCHs. With regard to the MJH projections, Mr. Williamson noted: Projected cost per patient day (CPD) of $1,087 in year two is at the group lowest value of $1,087. Projected CPD is considered efficient when compared to the peer group with CPD falling at the lowest level. The apparent reason for costs at this level are the low overhead costs associated with operating a hospital-within- a-hospital. MJH Ex.34, depo Ex. 4, Page 3 of 5. Mr. Williamson further concluded that MJH presented an efficient LTCH project, which is likely to be more cost- effective and efficient than the other three proposals. In its application, Kindred projected a profit of $16,747 at the end of year two of operation. Schedule 8A listed interest expense "as a way of making a sound business decision." Tr. 1458. Interest expense, however, is not really applicable because Kindred funds new projects out of operation cash flows. If the interest expense is omitted, profit before taxes would roughly $1.5 million. Taking taxes into consideration, the profit at the end of year two of operation would be roughly $1 million. Promise's projections the facility will be financially feasible in the long term are contained in its Exhibit 2, Schedules 5, 6, 7 and 8A and related assumptions. The parties agreed the information contained in Promise's Schedule 5, and the supporting assumptions, were reasonable. Schedule 5 indicates Promise projects an occupancy rate in Year 2 of 76.1 percent, based on 16,660 patient days and an ADC of 45.6 patients. To reach projected occupancy rates, Promise would have to capture roughly 15-17 percent of the LTCH market in Year 2. AHCA concluded Promise's project would be financially feasible in the long term. Only Select questioned Promise's projected long term financial feasibility. The attack, evidenced by Select Exhibits 12 and 14, was composed of a numbered of arguments, considered below: The estimated Medicare revenue per patient projected by Promise was high, and among other factors, erroneously assumed Medicare would increase reimbursement by an average of 3 percent per year. In determining a project's long-term financial feasibility, AHCA looks to the facility's second full year of operation, and, assuming reasonable projections, determines if there is a net positive profit. The analysis AHCA uses to determine the reasonableness of an applicant's projections in Schedules 7A and 8A begins with a comparison of those figures against a standardized grouping developed over the years and consistently applied by the agency as a policy. In this instance, the grouping consisted of all LTCHs operating in Florida in 2004; a total of 11 facilities; eight operated by Kindred and three operated by Select. The analysis is based on Revenue Per Patient Day (RPPD). Promise estimated it would generate an average RPPD of $1,492 in Year 2, and a net profit for the same period of $2,521.327. Using the above process, AHCA concluded that Promise's projected net income per patient day appeared reasonable. At the time of hearing, other Promise facilities were receiving an average RPPD higher than $1,400; compared to the projected "somewhat over" $1,500 it would expect to receive in Year 2 of its Miami-Dade facility. Approximately half of the existing Promise facilities (including West Valley and San Antonio) received Medicare RPPDs in excess of $1,500. As opposed to total revenue per patient, revenue on a per patient day is the one figure associated with the expenses generated to treat a patient on a given day. A comparison of net RPPDs projected by Promise with those of other applicants and the state median indicate Promise's revenue projections are reasonable. While Medicare recently opted not to increase the rate of LTCH reimbursement for the 2006-07 fiscal year, it is the first year in four that the program has done so. Compared to Promise's assumption that Medicare reimbursement would increase yearly by 3 percent on average, Select assumed a rate of 2.4 percent. The ALOS projected by Promise was too long. In projecting need, Select projected an ALOS similar to Promise's projection. Compared with the statewide ALOS of 35 days, Select's is about 28 days. This is the result of a combination of managing patients and their acuity. Assuming Promise's ability to manage patients in a manner similar to Select and achieve a like ALOS, Promise would have room available to admit more patients. There is no reason to assume Promise could not attain a similar ALOS with a similar population than that served by Select; others have done so. Like other segments of the health care industry, LTCH providers will manage patient care to the reimbursement received from payors. The CMI projected by Promise was too high. The prospective payment system is based to a great extent on how patients' diagnoses and illnesses are "coded," or identified, because the information is translated into a DRG, which, in turn, translates directly into the amount of reimbursement received. Each DRG has a "weight." By obtaining the DRG weight for each patient treated in a hospital, one can obtain the average weight, which will correspond to the average cost of care for the hospital's patients. The term for this average is Case Mix Index (CMI). Each year Medicare determines the rate it will pay for treatment of patients in LTCHs, adjusted for each market in the U.S. to account for variations in labor costs. Mr. Balsano assumed the new facility would experience an average CMI of 1.55 and that Medicare would reimburse the facility based on existing rates with an annual inflation of 3.0 percent. Mr. Balsano then reduced the estimated Medicare RPPD generated by those assumptions by 15 percent. While Select's expert criticized Promise's projected CMI adjusted reimbursement rate for Medicare patients (approximately $50,000) as to high, Select's own Exhibit 12, p. 8, indicates a projected reimbursement of $41,120.44 based on an average CMI of 1.0. However, at hearing it was verified that Select's Miami facility operated at an average CMI of 1.23. Applying a CMI of 1.23 generates an average projected Medicare reimbursement of $50,618 per patient, a number similar to that projected by Mr. Balsano. Select Ex. 14, pages 9-16, contains data on, among other things, the CMI of 161 DRGs used by Promise's expert. The data was taken from each of the existing LTCHs in Florida. In 2004, the statewide average CMI was 1.231. Also in 2004, four of 11 LTCHs in Florida experienced an average CMI of 1.4 or higher. Other Florida facilities have experienced an average CMI at or above 1.59. Indeed, other Florida facilities have experienced average CMIs and ALOS similar to that of the Select facility. While Promises operates no facility with an average CMI of 1.55, it has several with average CMIs of 1.3 or 1.4. Promise expects Medicare will take future steps to restrict the admission of patients with lower CMIs' the effect being more complex patients will access LTCHs than currently do, increasing the average CMI in LTCHs. Reducing the number of lower acuity patients admitted to LTCHs in future years will likely increase the CMI of those admitted. There is a direct correlation between CMI and ALOS. If, in fact, the CMI experienced by Promise's facility is less than 1.55, it will in turn generate a lower ALOS. Applying the reduction in reimbursement advanced by Promise's witness (15 percent) would in turn reduce the projected CMI in Promise's facility from 1.55 to 1.05. Because reimbursement coincides with acuity and ALOS, a representation that reducing one of the three does not likewise affects the others is not realistic. Whatever the CMI and ALOS for LTCHs will be in the future will be governed to a great extent by the policies established by the federal government. The federal government's reimbursement system will drive the delivery of patient services and the efficiencies the system provides, so that, in fact, the providers of care manage patients to the reimbursement provided. Whether the average CMI at Promise's facility reaches 1.55 in the future is subject to debate; however, it is reasonable that the status quo will not likely continue; thus, regardless of a facility's current CMI, more complex patients will access the facility in the future. Various sensitivity analyses generated to test the reliability of Select's criticisms in this area do not indicate any material change in the projected Medicare reimbursement. The interest rate on the loaned funds was 9 percent, rather than 7 percent. The estimated expenses did not include sufficient funds to pay the following: the necessary ad valorem taxes the required PMATF assessment the premiums to obtain premises insurance physician fees housekeeping expenses in Year 1 Using the same standardized "grouping" analysis, AHCA calculated Promise's projected costs per patient day and found them reasonable. Because the projected increase in ad valorem taxes and the PMATF assessment will not be payable until 2010, it is not necessary to borrow additional funds to meet these obligations. Select's expert concluded that, depending on a number of scenarios, the result of the appropriate calculations would produce a loss to Promise's project of between $624,636 and $902,361 of year 2. Assuming they represented sensitivity analyses which included various assumptions based on criticisms from Select. The impact of Select's suggested adjustments, reduced by overstated costs in Promise's application Schedule 8A, increased Promise's projected Year 2 net income from the initial estimate of $2,521,327 to $2,597.453. Even if the 15 percent reduction previously included in Mr. Balsano's assumptions on Medicare reimbursement were not considered, and assuming a lower CMI consistent with the existing statewide average (1.43 vs. 1.23), or that Promise's experience in District 11 will be similar to Select's, Promise's facility would still be financially feasible. Select's witness conceded that if Promise's facility experienced a lower ALOS, the demand for additional LTCH services is high enough to allow the facility to admit additional patients ("backfill"). While assuming a lower reimbursement due to lower acuity patients admitted to Promise's facility, Select's witness did not similarly assume any reduction in expenses associated with treatment of such lower acuity patients. In reality, if revenues are less than expected a facility reduces expenses to generate profits. Select's witness also conceded that Promise could reduce the management fee to reduce costs and generate a profit. The testimony of Promise's Chairman, Mr. Baronoff, established the company would take measures to reduce expenses to assure the profitability, including reducing the facility's corporate allocation. Such a reduction by itself would reduce expenses by between $1 million and $1.5 million. Reduction in corporate allocation has occurred before to maintain the profitability of a Promise facility. With regard to Select-Dade, its forecasted expenses, as detailed on Schedules 7A and 8A of its application are consistent with Select-Miami's historical experience in Miami. Evaluation of the revenues and expenses detailed in Select-Dade's Schedules 7A and 8A (and drawing comparison with SMC's 96 other hospitals, with particular attention paid to the Select-Miami facility), its profitability after year one indicates that Select-Dade's project will be financially feasible in the long term. In sum, all four applicants demonstrated long-term financial feasibility. Subsection (7): Extent to Which the Proposal Will Foster Competition that Promotes Quality and Cost-effectiveness Competition benefits the market. It stimulates providers to offer more programs and to be more innovative. It benefits quality of care generally. Competition to promote quality and cost-effectiveness is generally driven by the best combination of high quality and fair price. The introduction of a new LTCH providers to the market would press Sister Emmanuel, Kindred-Coral Gables and Select-Miami to focus on quality, responsiveness to patients and would drive innovations. Approval of any of the applications, therefore, as the Agency recognizes, see Agency for Health Care Administration Proposed Recommended Order, at 36, will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness. Competition that promotes quality and cost- effectiveness will best be fostered by introduction to the market of a new competitor: either MJH or Promise. Between the two, Promise's application for 60 rather than 30 beds proposed by MJH, if approved, would capture a larger market share and promote more competition. On the other hand, MJH's because of its long-standing status as a well-respected community provider, particularly in the arenas of cost-effectiveness and quality of care, would be very effective in fostering competition that would promote both quality and cost-effectiveness. Kindred and Select dominate LTCH services in Florida with control over 86 percent of the licensed and approved beds: Kindred has eight existing LTCHs and one approved LTCH yet to be licensed; Select has three existing LTCHs and six approved projects in various stages of pre-licensure development. In 2005 the District 11 LTCH market shares were: Kindred-Coral Gables: 42 percent; Select-Miami: 35 percent; and Sister Emmanuel: 23 percent. Approval of Promise would only slightly diminish Select-Miami’s market share and would reduce Sister Emmanuel to a 16 percent share. A Select-Dade approval would give the two Select facilities a combined 54 percent of the market. A Kindred approval would give its two Miami-Dade facilities a combined 57 percent market share. An MJH approval would give it about 16 percent of the market, Sister Emmanuel would decline to 19 percent and Select-Miami and Kindred-Coral Gables would both have market shares above 30 percent. MJH's application is most favored under Subsection (7) of the Statutory Review Criteria. Subsection (8): Costs and Methods of Proposed Construction The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of a number of the project costs identified in Schedule 1, as well as the Schedule 9 project costs. All parties stipulated to the reasonableness of the proposed construction schedule on Schedule 10 of the application. Those additional costs items on Schedule 1 of the respective applications that were not stipulated to were adequately addressed through evidence adduced at final hearing. Given the conceptual-only level of detail required in the schematic drawings submitted as part of a CON application, and based on the evidence, it is concluded that each of the applicants presented a proposed construction design that is reasonable as to cost, method, and construction time. Each applicant demonstrated the reasonableness of its cost and method of construction. Accordingly each gets credit under Subsection (8) of the CON Statutory Review Criteria. But under the subsection, MJH's application is superior to the other three applications. The subsection includes consideration of "the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction." § 408.035(8), Fla. Stat. As an application proposing an HIH rather than a free-standing facility, not only can MJH coordinate its operations with other types of service settings at expected energy savings, its application involves less construction and substantially less cost that the other three applications. Subsection (9): Past and Proposed Provision of Services to Medicaid and Indigent Patients A provider's history of accepting the medically indigent, Medicaid and charity patients, influences patients and referral sources. Success with a provider encourages these patients on their own or through referrals to again seek access at that provider. As a safety net provider, MJH has a history of accepting financially challenged patients, many of whom are medically complex. Its application is superior to the others under Subsection (9) of the Statutory Review Criteria. Promise does not have a history of providing care in Florida. It has a history of providing health care services to Medicaid and the medically indigent at some of its facilities elsewhere in the country. As examples, its facility in Shreveport, Louisiana, provides approximately 7 percent of its care to Medicaid patients and a facility in California provides about 20 percent of its service to Medicaid patients. MJH committed to the highest percentage of patient days to Medicaid: 4.2 percent. Promise proposes a 3.0 percent commitment; Select-Dade and Kindred, 2.8 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively. Select-Dade's proposed condition is structured so as to allow it to include Medicaid days from a patient who later qualifies as a charity patient, thus accruing days toward the condition without expanding the number of patients served. Select-Dade's targeted service area, moreover, has fewer proportionate Medicaid beneficiaries identified (13 percent) as potential LTCH patients than identified by the methodologies used by the applicants (21 percent), indicating that Select's targeted area is generally more affluent than the rest of the County. Kindred does not have a favorable history of providing care to Medicaid and charity patients. For example, during FY 2004, Sister Emmanuel provided 6.1 percent of its services to Medicaid and charity patients. During this same period, Kindred-Coral Gables provided only 1.08 percent of its services to Medicaid and charity patients. Of all four applicants, Kindred proposes the lowest percentage of service to such patients: 2.2 percent. It has not committed to achieving the percentage upon its initiation of services. Its proposed condition and poor history of Medicaid and indigent care merit considerably less weight than the other applicants and reflects poorly on its application in a process that includes comparative review. MJH's proposed condition, although the highest in terms of percentage, is not the highest in terms of patient days because the facility it proposes will have only half as many beds as the facilities proposed by the other three applicants. Nonetheless, the proposal coupled with its past provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent, which is exceptional, makes MJH the superior applicant under Subsection (9) of the Statutory Review Criteria. Subsection (10) Designation as a Gold Seal Program None of the applicants are requesting additional nursing home beds. The subsection is inapplicable to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a final order that: approves Miami Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged, Inc.'s CON Application No. 9893; approves Select Specialty Hospital-Dade, Inc.'s CON Application No. 9892; denies Promise Healthcare of Florida XI, Inc.'s CON Application No. 9891; and, denies Kindred Hospitals East LLC's CON Application No. 9894. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 17th day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Andrew C. Agwunobi, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig H. Smith, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 W. David Watkins, Esquire Karl David Acuff, Esquire Watkins & Associates, P.A. 3051 Highland Oaks Terrace, Suite D Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5828 Sandra E. Allen, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 F. Philip Blank, Esquire Robert Sechen, Esquire Blank & Meenan, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark A. Emanuele, Esquire Panza, Maurer & Maynard, P.A. 3600 North Federal Highway, Third Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Fifth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110
The Issue The issue is whether the Agency should approve the Certificate of Need applications filed by Select-Marion and/or Kindred, each of which proposes to establish a new long-term care hospital in Marion County.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Parties Select-Marion is a recently-created subsidiary of Select Medical Corporation (Select). Select has its corporate headquarters in Pennsylvania. Select operates 79 LTCHs in 24 states, including two in Florida. Select’s Florida LTCHs are located in Jacksonville and Miami. Another Select LTCH has been approved in Orlando, but that facility has not yet opened. Kindred is a subsidiary of Kindred Healthcare, Inc., which has its corporate headquarters in Kentucky. Kindred Healthcare operates 72 LTCHs in 26 states, including seven in Florida. Kindred operates 17 of those LTCHs, including six of the seven Florida LTCHs. Kindred’s Florida LTCHs are located in Green Cove Springs, St. Petersburg, Hollywood, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami, and Tampa. Another subsidiary of Kindred Healthcare operates a second LTCH in Tampa. Select and Kindred Healthcare have each been in the business of operating LTCHs since the 1980’s. The Agency is the state agency responsible for administering the CON program and licensing LTCHs and other health care facilities. Relevant Demographics of Marion County The LTCHs proposed by Select-Marion and Kindred are to be located in Ocala, which is in Marion County. Marion County is in District 3 for health planning purposes. District 3 is a geographically large district. It includes 16 counties: Marion, Hamilton, Suwannee, Columbia, Lafayette, Dixie, Gilchrist, Union, Bradford, Alachua, Putnam, Levy, Citrus, Sumter, Lake, and Hernando. Marion County is the most populous county in District The 2003 population of Marion County was approximately 275,000, which represented approximately 20 percent of the total population of District 3. Approximately 25 percent of Marion County’s 2003 population was in the 65 and older (65+) age cohort, and approximately 23 percent of the population of the respective primary service areas defined by Select-Marion and Kindred (see Part D(3) below) was in that age cohort. Those percentages are higher than the statewide average of 17.5 percent in the 65+ age cohort. The population of Marion County is projected to increase approximately 8.9 percent by January 2007, and during that same period, the population of the 65+ age cohort in the county is projected to increase approximately 11.3 percent. Similar relative growth rates are projected in the primary service area defined by Kindred through July 2005, which was to be the beginning of the facility's second year of operation.4 Marion County has a higher percentage of persons in the 65+ age cohort than do any of the counties that currently have an LTCH except for Sarasota County, which has 31.2 percent of its population in the 65+ age cohort. There are 40 approved but not yet operational LTCH beds in Sarasota County. Hospitals in Marion County and the Surrounding Areas There are three acute care hospitals in Marion County: Munroe Regional Medical Center (Munroe), Ocala Regional Medical Center (Ocala Regional), and West Marion Community Hospital (West Marion). Each of those hospitals is in Ocala. Munroe is a not-for-profit hospital. It is the oldest and largest acute care hospital in Marion County. Munroe currently has 323 beds, and it is in the midst of a $78 million expansion that will increase its capacity to 421 beds. Ocala Regional and West Marion are for-profit hospitals owned by HCA, Inc. Ocala Regional, which has more than 200 beds, is located directly across the street from Munroe. West Marion, which opened in 2002 and has approximately 70 beds, is a satellite facility of Ocala Regional. There is very little in-migration to the Marion County hospitals. For fiscal year 2002, approximately 83 percent of Munroe’s discharges were residents of Marion County. A similar percentage of the discharges from Ocala Regional were Marion County residents. In addition to the three hospitals in Marion County, there are nine more acute care hospitals in District 3 within a 40-mile radius of the parties’ proposed Ocala LTCHs. Those facilities include Shands Hospital (Shands) at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Leesburg Regional Medical Center (Leesburg Regional), and The Villages Regional Hospital (Villages Regional). Shands is located to the north of Marion County in Alachua County. Leesburg Regional and Villages Regional are located to the south of Marion County in Lake County and Sumter County, respectively. The record does not reflect how many total acute care beds are in the hospitals outside of Marion County within the 40-mile radius, nor does it reflect whether any of those hospitals (other than Shands) are trauma centers or have other specialty programs that might impact, either positively or negatively, the potential patient pool for the parties’ proposed LTCHs. The record does not reflect the number, type, quality of care, or utilization at the nursing homes and other traditional post-acute care facilities in Marion County or District 3. The Parties’ Proposed LTCHs Select-Marion and Kindred each submitted timely letters of intent and CON applications for their proposed LTCHs in the first “hospital beds and facilities” batching cycle of 2003. Kindred Kindred’s proposed LTCH is a 31-bed “hospital-within- a-hospital” (HIH). Kindred's proposed LTCH will be located on a wing of the fifth floor of Munroe’s existing hospital. The wing includes 11,606 square feet of contiguous space that Kindred is leasing from Munroe. Kindred is renovating the leased space to include 15 semi-private (i.e., double-occupancy) rooms and one “isolation room.” The total project cost of Kindred’s proposed LTCH is approximately $1.4 million, or approximately $45,300 per bed. That cost will be funded by Kindred Healthcare’s “cash on hand.” The lease agreement between Kindred and Monroe has been executed. The terms of the executed lease are slightly different than the terms of the draft lease included in Kindred’s CON application. The lease is for an initial term of seven years with two five-year renewal periods upon the agreement of the parties. The draft lease included in the CON application contained a 10- year initial term with the two five-year renewals at Kindred’s option. Because renewal of the lease will require the mutual agreement of Kindred and Munroe, there is no guarantee that the lease will be renewed at the end of the seven-year initial term. However, Kindred’s expert in LTCH business development testified that HIH leases typically are renewed. There is also no guarantee that space will be made available within Munroe for future expansions of Kindred’s LTCH. However, Munroe’s Chief Operating Officer testified that Munroe would “entertain whatever discussions that would facilitate the expansion.” Kindred's application states that its proposed LTCH will include the same types of services that are provided at Kindred’s other Florida LTCHs, including respiratory/life support, wound care, and neurological. Kindred’s proposed LTCH will not include an intensive care unit (ICU) or a pediatric program. Kindred will contract with Munroe for services such as laboratory, radiology, surgery/operating room, physical and speech therapy, and cardiology. An “ancillary services agreement” for these services has been executed by Kindred and Munroe. A patient transfer agreement between Munroe and Kindred has been negotiated. The agreement cannot be formally executed until Kindred’s LTCH is approved. Kindred projected that its proposed LTCH would begin operating in June 2004, which is one year after the “initial decision deadline date” for the applicable batching cycle. The need projections in Kindred’s application were based upon July 2005 population figures, and the utilization and financial projections in Kindred’s application were for the first two years of operation ending May 31, 2005 and 2006. Select-Marion Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH is a 60-bed freestanding facility to be located in Ocala. The precise site of the facility has not yet been determined by Select-Marion. The application identifies a “top priority location” east of Interstate 75 on State Road 200 in the general vicinity of Central Florida Community College. Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH will consist of 44,434 square feet of new construction. The bed complement at the facility will be 47 private (i.e., single-occupancy) rooms, five semi-private rooms, and three “isolation rooms.” The total project cost of Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH is approximately $12.2 million, or approximately $204,100 per bed. That cost will be funded by Select from its cash flow from operations and/or through borrowings from Select’s line of credit with its bank. The services at Select-Marion's proposed LTCH will include the same "core" services found at other Select LTCHs. Those services include the treatment of pulmonary and ventilator patients, neuro-trauma and stroke patients, medically complex patients, and wound care. Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH will include a “step down” unit where ICU-level care will be provided. The facility will not include a pediatric program. Select-Marion has not negotiated patient transfer agreements with any of the area hospitals. Select-Marion’s application includes a letter from West Marion’s Administrator, which states that West Marion “anticipates implementing a transfer agreement with [Select- Marion’s] facility” in the event that the LTCH “achieves appropriate licensure and certification.” No weight is given to that letter because, as discussed below, West Marion did not have any potential LTCH patients and it is a satellite facility of Ocala Regional, which provided a letter of support to Kindred. Select-Marion projected that its proposed LTCH would begin operating in June 2005, which is one year later than Kindred's proposed LTCH was projected to open. The delay is a result of Select-Marion's proposed LTCH being a new freestanding facility, which has a longer construction period than does the renovation of the existing hospital space for Kindred's HIH LTCH. The need projections in Select-Marion’s application were focused on the facility’s third year of operation, which is the 12-month period ending June 2008. The utilization and financial projections in Select-Marion’s application were for the first two years of operation ending May 31, 2006 and 2007. Proposed Service Areas Kindred’s application defines the primary service area (PSA) for its proposed LTCH as Marion, Alachua, Levy, Citrus, Sumter, and Lake Counties. The secondary service area is defined as the remaining 10 counties in District 3. Select-Marion’s application defines the PSA for its proposed LTCH as Marion County and a 40-mile radius around the proposed facility. A secondary service area is not specifically defined, but the application states that Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH will serve the entire district “to the degree possible.” The geographic scope of the PSA proposed by Select- Marion is similar to the geographic scope of the PSA proposed by Kindred; the 40-mile radius defined by Select-Marion includes all of Marion County and substantial portions of the remaining five counties included in Kindred’s PSA. It is not reasonable to expect that a material number of the admissions to either of the proposed LTCHs would come from outside of the PSAs defined in the applications. On this issue, the undersigned accepts the expert testimony of Select- Marion’s health planner that a realistic PSA for an LTCH in Ocala would be Marion County, and based upon the limited in-migration to Marion County hospitals and the testimony of Kindred's expert health planner that patients generally prefer to receive their long-term care close to their homes, the undersigned draws the inference and finds that realistic secondary service area for an LTCH in Ocala would be the remainder of the PSAs defined by the parties. It is also not reasonable to expect that either of the proposed LTCHs will serve District 3 in its entirety despite the parties’ expressed intentions and desire to do so. Indeed, Kindred’s application states that it expects that residents of District 3 who are geographically closer to the existing LTCHs in Green Cove Springs and Tampa -– which would include a number of the counties in Kindred’s proposed secondary service area -- will continue to leave the district for LTCH services. Similar statements are included in Select-Marion’s application as part of its explanation of the proposed 40-mile PSA. Letters of Support Select-Marion’s application included only one letter of support, which was from West Marion. Although the letter represented that “[m]any of our long-stay acute patients are candidates for care in [an LTCH,]” the evidence establishes that West Marion did not have any long-stay patients that would be potential LTCH patients. Moreover, West Marion is a satellite facility of Ocala Regional, which is located across the street from Munroe and provided a letter of support for Kindred’s proposed LTCH. Kindred’s application included 13 letters of support, including letters from five hospitals in District 3 (i.e., Munroe, Ocala Regional, Leesburg Regional, Villages Regional, and Citrus Memorial Hospital), a nursing home in Ocala, a home health care organization affiliated with Munroe, a local physician, and several local and state politicians. The support expressed in the letters included in Kindred’s application was general in nature. Indeed, many of the letters, including the letters from Ocala Regional and several of the other hospitals, appeared to be form letters. Other than the letter from Monroe’s director of case management, the letters included in Kindred’s application did not attempt to quantify the number of LTCH patients that would likely be generated for Kindred’s proposed LTCH. Nor did the letters detail access or other problems for potential LTCH patients that would help to demonstrate need for an LTCH in Marion County. General letters of support typically carry little weight with the Agency in its evaluation of need for a new health care facility. Indeed, the Bureau Chief of the Agency’s CON program, Jeffrey Gregg, testified that general letters of support are only significant to the Agency where one applicant has received a number of such letters and the other applicant has not received any letters of support.5 Because of their general nature, the letters of support included in Kindred’s application do not in and of themselves demonstrate need for a proposed LTCH in Marion County, nor do they validate the numeric bed need projected in either of the applications. However, the volume of the letters included in Kindred’s application from hospitals and health care providers as compared to the single letter included in Select- Marion’s application demonstrates that there is greater support from the relevant community for Kindred’s proposed LTCH than there is for Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH. Application Review and Preliminary Agency Action The applications filed by Select-Marion (CON 9647) and Kindred (CON 9648) complied with all of the application content and submittal requirements in the governing statutes and the Agency’s rules. The required filing fees were paid, and the local health council submittal requirements were met. The applications were comparatively reviewed by the Agency in accordance with the Agency’s rules and standard procedures. On June 11, 2003, the Agency issued its State Agency Action Report (SAAR) based upon its comparative review of the applications. The SAAR recommended denial of both applications based primarily on the Agency’s determination that neither applicant had adequately demonstrated need for its proposed LTCH. The Agency’s decision to deny the applications was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly as required by statute and Agency rule, and Select-Marion and Kindred each timely requested a hearing on the Agency’s decision. This consolidated proceeding followed. In March 2004, the Agency changed its position with respect to Kindred’s application and provided timely notice of that change in position to the parties. The Agency now supports approval of Kindred’s application, even though it continued to maintain at the hearing that need has not been adequately demonstrated by either applicant. LTCHs Generally LTCHs are health care facilities that provide extended medical and rehabilitative care to patients with multiple, chronic, and/or clinically complex acute medical conditions. To qualify as an LTCH, the facility must serve a patient population whose average length of stay (ALOS) exceeds 25 days. LTCHs fit into the continuum of care between traditional, “short-term” acute care hospitals and traditional post-acute care facilities such as nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), skilled nursing units (SNUs), or comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR) facilities. LTCHs are designed to serve patients that would otherwise have to be maintained in a traditional acute care hospital where the reimbursement rates may be insufficient to cover the costs associated with a lengthy stay, or be moved to a traditional post-acute care facility where the patient may not receive the level of curative care needed. LTCH services are most highly utilized by persons in the 65+ age cohort because those persons are more likely to have complex and/or co-morbid medical conditions that require long- term acute care. The typical LTCH patient is still in need of considerable acute care, but a traditional acute care hospital may no longer be the most appropriate or lowest cost setting for that care. Most LTCH admissions are patients transferred directly from a traditional acute care hospital. It is not uncommon for an LTCH patient to be transferred on life support from a critical care unit or ICU after the patient has been diagnosed and stabilized. Nursing homes, SNFs, SNUs, CMR facilities, and home health care are not appropriate for the typical LTCH patient because the patient's acuity level and medical/therapeutic needs are higher than those generally treated in those settings. Indeed, unlike traditional post-acute care settings, which typically do not admit patients who still require acute care, the core patient-group served by LTCHs are patients who require considerable acute care through daily physician visits and intensive nursing care in excess of eight hours of direct patient care per day. LTCH patients are often discharged to a traditional post-acute care facility such as a nursing home, SNF, SNU, CMR facility, or home health care. Thus, those facilities cannot be considered as "substitutes" for LTCHs, even though there is some overlap between the services provided to lower acuity LTCH patients and higher acuity patients in those traditional post- acute care facilities. The family of a patient in an LTCH is generally encouraged to be more involved in the patient’s care than it would be if the patient was in the ICU of a traditional acute care hospital. For example, the visiting hours at LTCHs are typically more liberal than the visiting hours at a traditional acute care hospital for the ICU and, in some cases, the general medical/surgery floor. Medicare reimbursements are the primary source of revenue for LTCHs because on average 75 to 85 percent of LTCH patients are covered by Medicare. In this case, Kindred projected that approximately 91 percent of the patient days and 86 percent of the net patient revenues for its proposed LTCH would be generated by Medicare patients, and Select-Marion projected that approximately 76 percent of its patient days and approximately 71 percent of its net patient revenue at its proposed LTCH would be generated by Medicare patients. In 2002, CMS adopted a Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) specifically for LTCHs. That system recognizes the LTCH patient population as being distinct from the patient populations treated by traditional acute care hospitals and post-acute care facilities such as nursing homes, SNFs, SNUs, and CMR facilities, even though there may be some overlap between the patient populations served by LTCHs and those other types of facilities. Under the LTCH PPS, services are reimbursed by Medicare at a predetermined rate that is weighted based upon the patient's diagnosis and acuity, regardless of the cost of care. This reimbursement system is similar to, but uses Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) that are different than the DRGs used in the PPS for traditional acute care hospitals. The Medicare reimbursement rates for services to long- stay patients in an LTCH are generally higher than the reimbursement rates for the same services to long-stay patients at a traditional acute care hospital. As a result, there is a financial incentive for hospitals to transfer their long-stay patients to an LTCH. It takes approximately six months for a new LTCH to receive its Medicare certification from CMS. During that period, the LTCH is reimbursed by Medicare at the lower rates applicable to traditional acute care hospitals, and, there is a financial incentive for the LTCH to keep its patient census as low as possible while still meeting the 25-day minimum ALOS. Accordingly, the first year of operation of an LTCH is not necessarily representative of the facility’s utilization, patient mix, or payor-source mix over time. The Agency has concerns about the long-term viability of the LTCH industry because it is largely dependent upon CMS's continuing the LTCH PPS with its higher Medicare reimbursement rates. The Agency’s concerns have caused it to take a very conservative approach in evaluating CON applications for new LTCHs so as not to allow the LTCH market to over-develop in the same way that freestanding psychiatric hospitals were over- developed at a time when the reimbursement rate for those facilities was favorable, which is no longer the case. HIH Verses Freestanding LTCHs There are two distinct types of LTCHs: HIHs and freestanding facilities. Both types are accepted in the industry, and both types are found nationwide. Almost all of Select’s LTCHs (i.e., 76 out of 79) are HIHs. Approximately 80 percent of Kindred Healthcare’s LTCHs, including all of its Florida LTCHs, are freestanding facilities. Initially, all of the LTCHs approved in Florida were freestanding facilities because of the Agency’s concern that the applicable building codes precluded HIHs and/or because the Agency’s interpretation of the building codes made the development of HIH LTCHs cost-prohibitive. The Agency no longer has concerns about the building code issue and, as reflected by its change in position in this case, it is willing to approve HIH LTCHs. Indeed, the two recently-approved Orlando LTCHs are HIHs. The Agency does not have a formal preference for HIHs over freestanding LTCHs, or vice versa. There are no material operational differences between HIH LTCHs and freestanding LTCHs, except that HIHs typically contract with the “host hospital” (i.e., the hospital in which the LTCH is located) for ancillary services such as laboratory, radiology, and operating room. The acuity level and mix of patients is materially the same at HIHs and freestanding LTCHs. The ALOS at HIH LTCHs is slightly less than the ALOS at freestanding LTCHs, but the difference is not material. HIH LTCHs draw the largest percentage of their admissions from the host hospital. That percentage is typically at least 25 percent, and it is not uncommon for the percentage to range from 50 to 90 percent. Typically, HIH LTCHs are less expensive to operate than freestanding LTCHs because of lower overhead and the ability to obtain ancillary services from the host hospital; however, both types of LTCHs can be financially viable. Currently, the Medicare reimbursement rates under the LTCH PPS are the same at HIH LTCHs and freestanding LTCHs. LTCHs in Florida At the time Select-Marion’s and Kindred’s applications were filed, there were only nine LTCHs operating in Florida with a total of 683 licensed beds. Those facilities were concentrated in six counties – Dade, Broward, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Duval, and Clay – and five of the State’s 11 heath planning districts – Districts 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11. There were an additional 182 LTCH beds that had been approved by the Agency but which were not operational at the time that Kindred’s and Select-Marion’s applications were filed, including new facilities in Panama City (District 2), Orlando (District 7), and Sarasota (District 8). Those 182 beds do not include Select’s recently-approved 40-bed LTCH in Orlando. There are no licensed or approved LTCHs in District 3. The closest operational LTCH to Ocala is Kindred’s 60-bed facility in Green Cove Springs, which is 50 to 75 miles away. The approved but not yet operational Orlando LTCHs will be approximately 75 miles from Ocala. The Florida LTCHs are generally well utilized; the occupancy rates at the facilities range from 54.6 percent to 99.2 percent. Four of the nine facilities, including Kindred’s LTCH in Green Cove Springs, have occupancy rates higher than 80 percent, and the average occupancy rate for all of the Florida LTCHs is 76.6 percent. Data reported to the Agency reflects that counties and districts where LTCHs are located have considerably more LTCH admissions (both in number and as a percentage of total patients whose length of stay was greater than 25 days) than do counties and districts where there is no LTCH. See Exhibit S-4, at 5-6, 8-9. This data indicates that patients generally remain closer to home for their long-term care, which is consistent with the expert testimony of the health planners in this case. During calendar year 2002, a total of 202 District 3 residents were admitted to a Florida LTCH. Over half of those admissions were residents of the District 3 counties that are closer to an existing LTCH, which indicates that residents of those counties have better access to LTCH services than do residents of the other counties in the district.6 By contrast, only 20 Marion County residents were admitted to a Florida LTCH in calendar year 2002. The admission experience at Kindred’s Green Cove Springs LTCH is consistent with that data. Between 20 and 25 percent of the admissions at that facility are District 3 residents, most of whom come from Putnam, Bradford, and other northern counties in District 3. The ALOS for all patients discharged from Florida LTCHs between July 2001 and June 2002 was 42.2 days. The 65+ age cohort accounted for approximately 77 percent of the LTCH discharges in Florida for that period. The ALOS for Florida LTCHs is considerably higher than the ALOS experienced nationwide by either Select or Kindred Healthcare. The ALOS at Select’s LTCHs is between 25 and 30 days; the ALOS at Kindred Healthcare’s LTCHs is in the low 30's. The higher ALOS at the Florida LTCHs is due, at least in part, to the limited number of LTCHs in Florida and their tendency to treat only the “sickest of the sick,” which are the patients that generally have longest lengths of stay. The ALOS at the Florida LTCHs is expected to become lower as the number of LTCHs in Florida increases and as medical technology improves such that the more complex cases can be better managed. Determination of Need for LTCH Beds in District 3 and Marion County Generally Select-Marion and Kindred have the burden to demonstrate need for their proposed LTCHs. The Agency does not publish a fixed-need pool for LTCHs, nor is there an Agency rule which provides a specific formula or methodology for determining numeric need for LTCH beds.7 Indeed, it was clear from Mr. Gregg’s testimony at the hearing and in his deposition that the Agency’s policy toward LTCHs and, more specifically, need projections for LTCHs is still evolving. The criteria that must be addressed by the applicant to demonstrate need are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2.a. through d. The criteria are population demographics and dynamics; availability, utilization and quality of "like services" in the district; medical treatment trends; and market conditions. In addition to or as part of the demonstration of need based upon the rule criteria, the applicant must demonstrate that there is numeric need for at least the number of beds that it is proposing. Kindred and Select-Marion stipulated that there is a numeric need for at least 31 LTCH beds in District 3. The Agency did not join that stipulation, and even though Mr. Gregg testified at the hearing and in his deposition that the Agency “presumes” that there is some level of need for LTCH beds in District 3, the Agency continued to take the position that neither applicant demonstrated need for its proposed LTCH.8 Methodologies Used by Kindred and Select-Marion to Project Numeric Need Kindred and Select-Marion each used a “use rate” methodology and a “length of stay” methodology to project numeric need for their proposed LTCHs. “Use Rate” Methodologies Use rate methodologies are commonly used by health planners to project need for acute care hospital beds and other types of services. However, use rate methodologies do not produce reliable projections of bed need in the LTCH context because the existing LTCHs are not evenly distributed statewide and the utilization rates for the existing LTCHs vary significantly.9 The use rate methodologies used by Kindred and Select-Marion each projected the number of LTCH patient days that will likely be generated for their proposed LTCHs based upon the utilization rates at the existing LTCHs in Florida. Those patient days were then converted into an average daily census (ADC) and, in the case of Select-Marion, a bed need based upon a presumed occupancy rate. The use rate methodology used by Kindred calculated the average utilization rate of the existing Florida LTCHs for both the population as a whole and for the 65+ age cohort. Those use rates were then applied to the respective 2005 populations of the primary and secondary service areas for Kindred’s proposed LTCH. Kindred’s use rate methodology projected an ADC of 79 applying the use rate for the total population and an ADC of 109 applying the use rate for the 65+ age cohort. The ADCs projected for the PSA, which as noted above is a more reasonable geographic scope from which Kindred’s proposed LTCH will likely draw its patients, were 56 applying the use rate for the total population and 80 applying the use rate for the 65+ age cohort. Select-Marion’s use rate methodology calculated separate “statewide” utilization rates for the 0-44, 45-64, 65- 74, 75-84, and 85+ age cohorts. Those rates were then applied to the projected 2008 population of Marion County in the respective age cohorts in order to calculate a projected number of patient days that will be generated by Marion County residents in the third year of operation at Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH. Those patient days were then "grossed up” by an occupancy standard of 80 percent and then "grossed up" by an additional 44.5 percent to account for patients coming to the facility from outside of Marion County. Select-Marion’s use rate methodology projected that Marion County residents would generate an ADC of 55 in 2008, which resulted in a projected need for 123 LTCH beds when the ADC was “grossed up” to account for the 44.5 percent of out-of- county patients and to reflect the 80 percent occupancy standard. The use of age cohort-specific utilization rates is generally more reliable than the use of a utilization rate for the total population or only the 65+ age cohort. Kindred’s failure to use age cohort-specific utilization rates causes the bed need projections based upon its use rate methodology to be unreliable. The age cohort-specific utilization rates used by Select-Marion in this case are unreliable because the LTCHs in Miami-Dade and Pinellas Counties were excluded from the calculations because their utilization rates were, according to Select-Marion’s application, “misleadingly conservative.” The effect of excluding those counties is that the utilization rates applied by Select-Marion were inflated. The 44.5 percent out-of-county rate was purportedly derived from the experience of the other LTCHs operating in Florida, but there is no evidence in the record to corroborate that rate. Moreover, Select-Marion’s own health planning expert testified that the 44.5 percent rate was too high; she testified that a more appropriate out-of-county rate would have been 20 to 25 percent, which is more consistent with the in-migration rate experienced by existing hospitals in Marion County. Based upon the general unreliability of use rate methodologies in the LTCH context and the specific flaws in the use rate methodologies applied by Kindred and Select-Marion, the ADC and bed need projected under those methodologies are not reliable or reasonable. “Length of Stay” Methodologies The length of stay methodologies used by Kindred and Select-Marion each attempted to quantify the need for LTCH beds in their respective service areas by analyzing discharges from the hospitals in those areas. The methodologies each focused on “long-stay patients” discharged from those hospitals with “LTCH- appropriate DRGs” as the potential patient population for the proposed LTCHs. This general approach is reasonable from a health planning perspective. The lists of LTCH-appropriate DRGs used by Kindred and Select-Marion in their respective methodologies were generally consistent. Although Select-Marion’s list included a greater number of DRGs than did Kindred’s, both lists are reasonable. The parties’ respective methodologies each used the geometric mean length of stay (GMLOS) as the starting point for defining long-stay patients, which is reasonable and appropriate.10 The GMLOS is calculated by CMS. It is a statistically-adjusted value for all cases within a DRG that takes into account certain types of cases that could skew an arithmetic average length of stay. Patients who have lengths of stay substantially longer than the GMLOS due to co-morbidities, complex medical conditions, or frailties due to age are typically appropriate LTCH patients, particularly if the patient would otherwise remain in the ICU of a traditional acute care hospital. In such circumstances, an LTCH would likely be the more appropriate setting for the patient from both a financial and patient-care standpoint. Kindred defined long-stay patients as adult patients who were residents of District 3 and whose length of stay was at least 17 days longer than the GMLOS. Select-Marion’s definition of long-stay patients included adult patients whose length of stay was at least 15 days longer than the GMLOS, and was not limited to District 3 residents. Kindred’s definition of long-stay patients produced a more conservative (and more reasonable) estimate of potential LTCH patient days than did Select-Marion’s definition, primarily because Kindred’s definition included only District 3 residents. In this regard, Kindred’s methodology appropriately recognizes and takes into account the fact that patients discharged from District 3 hospitals who are not residents of the district are less likely to stay in the district for long-term acute care. Kindred’s methodology was also more conservative (and more reasonable) in the manner that it calculated the number of potential LTCH patient days generated by the identified long- stay patients. Kindred calculated the potential LTCH patient days starting seven days after the GMLOS, whereas Select-Marion calculated the potential LTCH patient days starting at the GMLOS. In this regard, Kindred’s methodology appropriately recognizes and takes into account the fact that hospitals typically do not consider the transfer of patients to an LTCH until after the GMLOS and that it typically takes several days for the transfer to be coordinated once the patient has been identified as a potential LTCH patient. Both parties’ methodologies assumed a 100 percent capture rate of the potential LTCH patients identified through their respective definitions of long-stay patients with LTCH- appropriate discharges. The assumed 100 percent capture rate is not realistic, particularly when applied to the potential LTCH patients outside of the PSAs defined by the parties in the northernmost and southernmost counties in District 3. The evidence establishes that those patients will likely continue to leave the district for LTCH services, and as a result, a considerably lower capture rate would be expected from those counties. The assumed 100 percent capture rate within the PSAs is more reasonable for Kindred’s methodology than it is for Select-Marion’s methodology because Kindred’s methodology includes only District 3 residents in the pool of potential LTCH patients whereas Select-Marion’s methodology also includes non- District 3 residents. The result of Kindred’s length of stay methodology was an estimate of 14,269 potential LTCH patient days generated by residents of its PSA and 4,762 potential LTCH patient days generated by residents of its secondary service area. Those patient days translated into an ADC of 39 from the PSA and an ADC of 13 from the secondary service area. The result of Select-Marion’s length of stay methodology was an estimate of 51,221 potential LTCH patient days generated by discharges from hospitals within the 40-mile radius around Ocala. Those patient days translated into an ADC of 140 and a bed need of 175 based upon an 80 percent occupancy standard. Kindred’s length of stay methodology is, on balance, more reasonable than Select-Marion’s, and as a result, its projection of need is more reliable than the projection based upon Select-Marion’s methodology. Specifically, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that Select-Marion’s methodology overstates need by including patient days generated by non-residents of District 3 (who would not be as likely to use an LTCH in Marion County, and would certainly not use the facility at the assumed 100 percent capture rate) and by calculating the potential LTCH patient days starting at the GMLOS, rather than the seven days after the GMLOS which reasonably reflects the period of time necessary to identify, assess, and discharge a patient to the LTCH. Ultimate Findings Related to Numeric Need There was no credible evidence that there is a need for more than 91 LTCH beds so as to allow for the approval of both applications. As discussed above, the parties' use rate methodologies and Select-Marion’s length-of-stay methodology, which all projected need for more than 91 LTCH beds, were not reliable. The most reliable projection of need for a proposed LTCH in Marion County is the ADC of 39 projected by Kindred’s length of stay methodology for its PSA.11 The assumptions underlying that methodology are more reasonable than the assumptions underlying the length-of-stay methodology used by Select-Marion, and Kindred’s PSA, which is essentially the same as Select-Marion’s proposed 40-mile service area, is the most reasonable projection of the area from which an LTCH in Ocala could expect to draw virtually all of its patients. See Part of D(3) above. An 80 percent occupancy standard is reasonable and appropriate because it is conservative figure and better reflects the lower bed turn-over by LTCH patients than does the 75 percent occupancy standard typically applied to traditional, “short-term” acute care hospitals. Applying the 80 percent occupancy standard to an ADC of 39 results in a numeric need for 49 LTCH beds in the service area from which an LTCH in Ocala could reasonably be expected to draw its patients. Ultimate Findings Related to Need Based Upon the Criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. The population demographics and dynamics of Marion County and the PSAs support the establishment of an LTCH in Ocala. The 65+ age cohort, which is the group that most highly utilizes LTCH services, represents approximately 25 percent of Marion County’s population and approximately 23 percent of the population of the parties' proposed PSAs. That age cohort is projected to grow at a higher rate than the overall population of the county and the PSAs over the planning horizons of the proposed LTCHs. There are no LTCHs in District 3, and there are no LTCHs reasonably accessible to the residents of Marion County. The closest LTCH is more than 50 miles away in Green Cove Springs, and the occupancy/utilization rate at that facility is higher than 80 percent. The absence of an LTCH in District 3 does not mean that there are no “like services” available at the existing hospitals in District 3 and, potentially, at some of the traditional post-acute care facilities in the district. The availability of an LTCH in District 3 would, however, provide an alternative and, in some cases, more appropriate and cost- effective setting for those services to be provided. There is a general trend towards the increased utilization of LTCHs due to higher reimbursement rates available under the relatively new LTCH PPS, but the evidence failed to establish that the trend will, in fact, impact the delivery of health care services in Marion County or District 3. Instead, the evidence establishes that the utilization of a LTCH in Ocala will depend in large part on how well the local physicians are “educated” about the availability of LTCH services and whether the physicians have positive experiences with their patients at the facility. Market conditions in Marion County support the establishment of an LTCH. The favorable market conditions include the size and projected growth of the 65+ age cohort and the letters of support provided by the two largest hospitals in Marion County as well as several of the hospitals in the surrounding counties. The letters demonstrate a general level of support in the community for the establishment of an LTCH in Marion County, even though they do not specifically quantify the number of LTCH patients that would be generated from those hospitals. Given the stage in the process at which the letters were obtained, the level of specificity in the letters is reasonable, at least for purposes of demonstrating market support for the proposed LTCHs. These factors, on balance, demonstrate the need for an LTCH in District 3 and Marion County, and they also support the projection of numeric need set forth above. Comparative Analysis of the CON Applications Based Upon the Criteria in Section 408.035, Florida Statutes (2003)12 Assuming the Agency accepts the foregoing findings that there is a demonstrated need for only 49 LTCH beds, it is not necessary to comparatively evaluate Kindred’s application against Select-Marion’s application, which proposes a 60-bed LTCH; it is only necessary to evaluate Kindred’s application against the applicable statutory criteria. However, in an abundance of caution, a comparative evaluation of the applications is set forth below in the event that the Agency (or an appellate court) determines that the evidence demonstrates a need for more than 60, but less than 91 LTCH beds. Criteria Upon Which All of the Parties Agree The parties stipulated that Kindred’s and Select- Marion’s applications each satisfied the criteria in Subsections 408.035(3), (5), (6), (10), and (12), Florida Statutes, or that the criteria in those subsections are not applicable. See Joint Pre-hearing Statement, at 7. Notably, the parties stipulated that both Kindred and Select have a history of providing high quality of care to their patients. The evidence fails to establish that either of the proposed LTCHs would provide a materially higher quality of care to its patients than would the other facility.13 Criteria That Are in Dispute Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes (Need in Relation to District Health Plan) There are no preferences related to the development of LTCHs in the District 3 health plan; the plan does not even address LTCH services. Accordingly, this criterion is not implicated in this case. Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes (Availability, Quality of Care, etc. of Existing Services) There are no existing LTCHs in District 3. As a result, either of the proposed LTCHs will enhance the availability and accessibility of LTCH services in the district to some degree. That impact will be most significant in Marion County and the adjacent counties because the evidence establishes that residents of the northernmost and southernmost counties in District 3, which are closer to the existing LTCHs in the adjacent districts, already have access to LTCH services. Kindred’s proposed HIH LTCH will primarily serve its host hospital, Munroe. The most persuasive evidence on this issue was that Kindred's LTCH will likely receive 80 to 90 percent of its admissions from Munroe and Ocala Regional, which is across the street from Munroe. That will leave only 10 to 20 percent of its admissions coming from the remainder of District 3, which equates to 3 to 6 of the facility’s beds being available to serve residents of District 3 outside of Marion County. Because Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH is nearly twice the size of Kindred’s proposed LTCH, it would have more beds available to serve residents of District 3 outside of Marion County. However, because it is unreasonable to expect that there will be significant in-migration to Marion County for LTCH services, the evidence does not support the inference that Select-Marion’s larger facility will, in fact, better enhance access to LTCH services for residents of District 3 than will Kindred’s facility. Accordingly, each application satisfies the criterion in Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes, and that criterion does not materially weigh in favor of the approval of one application over the other. Section 408.035(4), Florida Statutes (Special Health Care Services) The phrase “special health care services” in Section 408.035(4), Florida Statutes, is not defined in statute or Agency rule. Kindred and Select-Marion contend that LTCH services are “special health care services”; the Agency contends that they are not. See Joint Pre-hearing Statement, at 10. The health care services that will be provided in the proposed LTCHs are services that are currently being provided in District 3, either at a traditional acute care hospital (with respect to acute-level care) or at a post-acute care facility (with respect to rehabilitative care). The approval of the CON applications at issue in this proceeding would simply provide an alternative, and potentially more cost-effective setting in which those services could be provided. Accordingly, LTCH services are not “special health care services” for purposes of Section 408.035(4), Florida Statutes, and the criterion in that subsection is not implicated in this case. Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes (Enhancing Access) The approval of an LTCH in Ocala will enhance access to LTCH services in Marion County and the immediate surrounding areas; however, access to such services will not be significantly enhanced for residents of District 3 who are closer to and currently have reasonable access to LTCH services in an adjacent district. Moreover, as discussed above in relation to Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes, there is no credible evidence that access would be improved to a greater extent by the approval of Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH over Kindred’s, or vice versa. Accordingly, each application satisfies the criterion in Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes, and that criterion does not materially weigh in favor of the approval of one application over the other. Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes (Financial Feasibility) Issues Upon Which All of the Parties Agree The parties stipulated that both of the proposed LTCHs are financially feasible in the short-term. The parties also stipulated that Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH, which is projected to generate a net profit of approximately $939,000 in its second year of operation is financially feasible in the long-term. Disputed Issues Related to the Long-term Financial Feasibility of Kindred's Proposed LTCH The Agency concluded in the SAAR that Kindred’s proposed LTCH is financially feasible in the long-term, and that position was reaffirmed through Mr. Gregg’s testimony at the hearing. However, Select-Marion disputes the long-term financial feasibility of Kindred’s proposed LTCH. The general rule for assessing the long-term financial feasibility of a CON project is if the project will at least break even by the end of the second year of operation, then the project is financially feasible in the long-term; if, however, the project continues to show a loss in the second year of operations and it is not demonstrated that the project will reach a break-even point within a reasonable period of time, then the project is not financially feasible in the long-term. Schedule 8A in Kindred’s application projects a net profit from operations of $263,134 for Kindred’s proposed LTCH in its second year of the operation. Omission of Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund Assessment Kindred concedes that the net profit from operations is overstated by $117,734 because Schedule 8A did not include a deduction for the Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund assessment in that amount. That assessment is imposed on all hospitals at a rate of 1.5 percent of the facility’s gross revenues. Understatement of Property Taxes The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the net profit from operations is overstated by an additional $92,918 because the taxes shown on Schedule 8A are understated by that amount. The $92,918 represents the difference between the amount of taxes shown on Schedule 8A and the total estimated property taxes on the proposed facility, which according to John Grant, the Kindred witness responsible for calculating the taxes for Schedule 8A, were based upon the average property taxes paid on Kindred’s other Florida LTCHs. There is no competent evidence, such as expert testimony from a property appraiser, to support Kindred’s position that the $32,136 of taxes shown on Schedule 8A is a reasonable estimate of the taxes for its proposed LTCH.14 Alleged Understatements in the Nursing Costs Projected for the Second Year of Operation Select-Marion also contends that Kindred’s net profit from operations is overstated by an additional $191,856, as a result of various understatements in the nursing costs on Schedule 8A, which are based upon the staffing projections on Schedule 6 of Kindred’s application. Specifically, Select- Marion contends that the nursing costs are understated because of an alleged error in the calculation of the nursing salary expense for the second year of the facility’s operation based upon the number of nursing full-time equivalents (FTEs) identified for that period; because of the additional nursing staff (and related costs) that would be necessary to achieve the nursing-hours-per-patient-day figure and the licensed-to- unlicensed-nurse ratio that were referenced in the text of Kindred’s CON application; and because a benefit rate of 17 percent was used instead of 20 percent. Number of FTEs Used in Projecting Staffing Costs Kindred’s CON application does not include staffing projections on Schedule 6 for the second year of operation; however, Mr. Grant, the Kindred employee who developed the assumptions underlying the financial schedules in Kindred’s application testified in his deposition that at the end of the second year of operation, Kindred’s facility would have 41.7 nursing FTEs and 11.8 ancillary FTEs. Those projections were not disputed, and are reasonable. Mr. Grant and other Kindred witnesses testified that the staffing projections shown on Schedule 6 were the number of FTEs at the end of the year, rather than the average number of FTEs during the year. Those witnesses further testified that the nursing costs shown on Schedule 8A are based upon the average number of FTEs during the year, not the year-end FTEs. That testimony is found to be credible. The opinion of Select-Marion’s expert financial witness, Patricia Greenberg, that there is an error in the calculation of the nursing costs shown on Schedule 8A was based upon the incorrect assumption that the nursing costs on Schedule 8A and the staffing projections on Schedule 6 were both based upon the year-end figures. Accordingly, Ms. Greenberg’s opinion on that issue is rejected. Nursing-Hours-Per-Patient-Day Kindred’s application states that Kindred Healthcare's LTCHs currently provide an “average [of] 10.5 nursing hours per patient day.” The financial projections in Kindred’s application used the 10.5-hour figure for the proposed Ocala LTCHs' first year of operation only. The figure used for the second year of operation was approximately 9.6 nursing hours per patient day. Kindred’s application did not represent that 10.5 hours of nursing care per day would actually be provided at the proposed Ocala LTCH. There are no regulations that require that amount (or any amount) of nursing care per day at LTCHs. Kindred’s application refers to the 10.5 hours as an “average.” Kindred’s medical director testified in his deposition that 10.5 hours is “a little on the high side” based upon his experience and another Kindred witness testified that the nursing hours would only be “around that number.” Select- Marion did not offer any credible evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, the net profit from operations for Kindred’s proposed LTCH is not overstated in any amount because of the failure to project nursing costs for the second year of operation based upon the 10.5 hours of nursing care per day, and Ms. Greenberg’s opinion on that issue is rejected. Licensed-to-Unlicensed-Nurse Ratio Kindred’s application states that the ratio of licensed to unlicensed nursing personnel in Kindred Healthcare's LTCHs “averages 3.5 to 1.” The ratio actually used in the financial projections for Kindred’s proposed Ocala LTCH was approximately 2.46-to-one, which can be calculated by dividing the 23.2 FTEs shown on Schedule 6 for “R.N.’s” and “L.P.N.’s” by the 9.4 FTEs shown on that schedule for “Nurses Aides.” Kindred’s application did not represent that the 3.5- to-one ratio would actually be provided at the proposed Ocala LTCH. There are no regulations that require that ratio (or any ratio) of licensed-to-unlicensed nursing personnel at LTCHs. Accordingly, the net profit for Kindred’s proposed facility is not overstated in any amount because of the failure to project nursing costs for the second year of operation based upon the 3.5-to-one ratio, and Ms. Greenberg’s opinion on that issue is rejected. Benefit Rate The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Kindred’s benefit rate is 17 percent (not 20 percent), and that the 17 percent rate was used for the salary projections included in Kindred’s application.15 Accordingly, the net profit from operations projected for Kindred’s proposed LTCH is not understated in any amount based upon its use of a 17 percent benefit rate, and Ms. Greenberg’s opinion on that issue is rejected. Summary In sum, the evidence establishes the net profit from operations of Kindred’s proposed LTCH in the second year of operation is overstated by a total of $210,652. Even after that amount is deducted from the net profit from operations shown on Schedule 8A, Kindred’s facility will still have a net profit from operations in the amount of $52,482. Therefore, Kindred’s proposed LTCH is financially feasible in the long-term. Kindred and Select-Marion are both for-profit entities whose parent corporations are headquartered in other states, and there is no credible evidence that the local community would directly benefit from the profitability of either facility. As a result, the fact that Select-Marion’s proposed facility is projected to be “more financially feasible" in the long-term than Kindred’s proposed facility is immaterial to the outcome of this case. Moreover, on the latter point, the net profit projected for Select-Marion’s facility is likely overstated to some degree because it is based on the patient revenues generated by a 60-bed LTCH operating at an average utilization rate of 68 percent in the second year of operation, which translates into an ADC of approximately 41. That ADC is higher than the ADC projected through the need methodology that was found to be the most reasonable and reliable. See Part G(3) above. Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes (Fostering Competition that Promotes Cost-effectiveness) Competition for LTCH services in District 3 will not be fostered by the approval of only one of the applications, and need has not been established for two LTCHs. The approved applicant would be the sole provider of such services in District 3, and there would likely not be any significant overlap in and competition for the patients served by the LTCH in Ocala and the existing LTCHs in Green Cove Springs, Jacksonville, and Tampa. Accordingly, the criterion in Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes, does not materially weigh in favor of the approval of either application. Section 408.035(11), Florida Statutes (Medicaid and Indigent Care) Kindred and Select-Marion stipulated that their applications were conditioned on the provision of Medicaid and charity care at levels consistent with the statewide average. However, the Agency took the position in the SAAR and in the Joint Pre-hearing Statement that the conditions offered by each applicant were lower than the statewide average. Kindred conditioned its application on a combined two percent of its total patient days being provided to Medicaid and charity patients. Schedule 7A of Kindred’s application reflects only 0.4 percent of the patient days being Medicaid patients and 0.3 percent of the patient days being charity patients for the first year of operation. In the second year of operation, Schedule 7A reflects 1.6 percent of the patient days being Medicaid patients and 1.2 percent of the patient days being charity patients, for a total of 2.8 percent. Select-Marion conditioned its application on a combined 2.8 percent of its patient days being provided to Medicaid and charity patients. Schedule 7A of Select-Marion’s application projects two percent of its patient days being charity patients and 0.8 percent of the patient days being Medicaid patients in each of the first two years of operation. The SAAR states that the statewide averages for Medicaid and charity patient days are two percent and 1.7 percent, respectively, for a total of 3.7 percent. There is no credible evidence in the record to corroborate those figures. Even if those percentages were assumed to accurately reflect the data reported to the Agency, the evidence establishes that the Medicaid percentage is skewed based upon the pediatric program in Kindred’s St. Petersburg LTCH, which attracts an inordinately high level of Medicaid patients. The St. Petersburg facility is the only LTCH in Florida that has such a program. Neither of the proposed LTCHs at issue in this proceeding will have a pediatric program. As a result, it is not reasonable to compare the skewed statewide average to the Medicaid and charity care commitments proposed by the applicants in this case. If the Medicaid patient days from the St. Petersburg LTCH are removed from the calculation of the statewide average, the “adjusted” statewide average for Medicaid patient days would between 1.2 and 1.5 percent. That range is comparable to the levels projected by the applicants in this case by the second year of operation of their respective LTCHs. Select-Marion projects that it will provide a higher percentage of patient days for Medicaid and charity care in the first year of operation than does Kindred; however, by the second year of operation, the total percentage of patient days for Medicaid and charity care projected for each facility is the same. The Agency recognizes that an LTCH may not meet its Medicaid and charity care conditions in the first year of the facility’s operation because the facility must control its admissions during a portion of that year in order to ensure that its ALOS is long enough to obtain certification from CMS. In sum, Select-Marion and Kindred both satisfy the criterion in Section 408.035(11), Florida Statutes, when their projected Medicaid and charity care commitments are compared to the statewide average that is adjusted to exclude pediatric patient days; and, because the Medicaid and charity care commitments by the Select-Marion and Kindred are materially the same by the second year of the facilities’ operation, this criterion does not favor either applicant over the other. Ultimate Findings Based upon Comparative Analysis On balance, Kindred’s application satisfies the applicable criteria in Section 408.035, Florida Statutes. On balance, Select-Marion’s application satisfies the applicable criteria in Section 408.035, Florida Statutes. Neither application is materially superior to the other in relation to the statutory criteria. Faced with two comparatively equal applications, it is not unreasonable for the Agency to view the more conservative application more favorably. In this case, the more conservative application is Kindred’s because it is proposing to establish only 31 beds in existing, unused hospital space with a cost of only $1.4 million (or $45,300 per bed), as compared to Select- Marion’s 60 beds in a newly-constructed facility with a cost of $12.2 million (or $204,100 per bed). The higher costs associated with Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH will be borne primarily by Select, not the facility’s patients or the general public because approximately 75 percent of the facility’s revenues will come from Medicare reimbursements, which are made under a PPS rather than a cost- based system. The same is true for the costs of Kindred’s LTCH; it will just take Kindred Healthcare less time to recoup its investment than it will for Select to recoup its investment. The applicants also bear the primary financial risk if the Medicare reimbursement system for LTCHs becomes less favorable. However, as Mr. Gregg pointed out in his deposition, there is also a risk to the health care system in those circumstances because the approved LTCH would have an incentive to serve patients who might also be equally well-served in an another, less expensive post-acute care setting in order to recoup its capital investment. This consideration weighs in favor of approval of Kindred’s LTCH, which has less of a capital investment to be recouped. Other considerations also weigh in favor of the approval of Kindred’s application over Select-Marion’s application. Specifically, Kindred garnered more community support for its proposed LTCH, including support from the two largest acute care hospitals in Ocala from which most of the admissions to a proposed LTCH in Ocala would come, and Kindred has also already negotiated a transfer agreement with one of the hospitals, making it more likely that Kindred’s LTCH would actually receive the admissions that it has projected. Additionally, Kindred’s LTCH will be operational approximately a year sooner than Select-Marion’s LTCH.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order approving Kindred’s application (CON 9648) and denying Select-Marion’s application (CON 9647). DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2004, 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 14th day of July, 2004.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed as a physician in the State of Florida having been issued license number ME0040318. Respondent completed a residency in internal medicine and later was a nephrology fellow at Mayo Clinic. He was recruited to Florida in 1952 by Humana. In 1984 he became associated with a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in an administrative position but took over treating patients when the owner became ill. This HMO was affiliated with IMC who assimilated it when the HMO had financial difficulties. At all times relevant hereto Respondent was a salaried employee of IMC and served as Assistant Medical DIRECTOR in charge of the South Pasadena Clinic. On October 17, 1985, Alexander Stroganow, an 84 year old Russian immigrant and former cossack, who spoke and understood only what English he wanted to, suffered a fall and was taken to the emergency Room at a nearby hospital. He was examined and released without being admitted for inpatient treatment. Later that evening his landlady thought Stroganow needed medical attention and again called the Emergency Medical Service. When the ambulance with EMS personnel arrived they examined Stroganow, and concluded Stroganow was no worse than earlier when he was transported to the emergency Room, and refused to again take Stroganow to the emergency Room. The landlady then called the HRS hotline to report abuse of the elderly. The following morning, October 18, 1985, an HRS case worker was dispatched to check on Stroganow. Upon arrival, she was admitted by the landlady and found an 84 year old man who was incontinent, incoherent, and apparently paralyzed from the waist down, with whom she could not engage in conversation to determine his condition. She called for a Cares Unit team to come and evaluate Stroganow. An HRS Cares Unit is a two person team consisting of a social worker and nurse whose primary function is to screen clients for admission to nursing homes and adult congregate living facilities (ACLF). The nurse on the team carries no medical equipment such as stethoscope, blood pressure cuff, or thermometer, but makes her evaluation on visual examination. Upon arrival of the Cares Unit, and, after examining Stroganow, both members of the team agreed he needed to be placed where he could be attended. A review of his personal effects produced by his landlady revealed his income to be above that for which he could qualify for medicaid placement in a nursing home; that he was a member of IMC's Gold-Plus HMO; his social security card; and several medications, some of which had been prescribed by Dr. Dayton, Respondent, a physician employed by IMC at the South Pasadena Clinic. The Cares team ruled out ACLF placement because Stroganow was not ambulatory, but felt he needed to be placed in a hospital or nursing home and not left alone with the weekend approaching. To accomplish this, they proceeded to the South Pasadena HMO clinic of IMC to lay the problem on Dr. Dayton, who was in charge of the South Pasadena Clinic, and, they thought, was Stroganow's doctor. Stroganow had been a client of the South Pasadena HMO for some time and was well known at the clinic as well as by EMS personnel. There were always two, and occasionally three, doctors on duty at South Pasadena Clinic between 8:00 and 5:00 daily and, unless the patient requested a specific doctor he was treated by the first available doctor. Stroganow had not specifically requested to be treated by Respondent. When the Cares unit met with Respondent they advised him that Stroganow had been taken to Metropolitan General Hospital Emergency Room the previous evening but did not advise Respondent that the EMS squad had refused to return Stroganow to the emergency Room when they were recalled for Stroganow the same evening. Respondent telephoned the Metropolitan General Emergency Room and had the emergency Room medical report on Stroganow read to him. With the information provided by the Cares unit and the hospital report, Respondent concluded that Stroganow needed emergency medical treatment and the quickest way to obtain such treatment would be to call the EMS and have Stroganow taken to an emergency Room for evaluation. When the Cares unit arrived, Respondent was treating patients at the clinic. A clinic, or doctors office, is not a desirable or practical place to have an incontinent, incoherent, and non-ambulatory patient brought to wait with other patients until a doctor is free to see him. Nor is the clinic equipped to perform certain procedures that may be required for emergency evaluation of an ill patient. At a hospital emergency Room such equipment is available. EMS squads usually arrive within minutes of a call being placed to 911 for emergency medical treatment and it was necessary that someone be with Stroganow when the EMS squad arrived. Accordingly, Respondent suggested that the Cares team return to Stroganow and call 911 to transport Stroganow to an emergency Room for an evaluation. Upon leaving the South Pasadena clinic the Cares team returned to Stroganow. Enroute they stopped to call a supervisor at HRS to report that the HMO had not solved their problem with Stroganow. The supervisor then called the Administrator at IMC Tampa Office to tell them that one of their Gold-Plus HMO patients had an emergency situation which was not being property handled. Respondent left the South Pasadena Clinic around noon and went to IMC's Tampa Office where he was available for the balance of the afternoon. There he spoke with Dr. Sanchez, the INC Regional Medical Director, but Stroganow was not deemed to be a continuing problem. By 2:00 p.m. when no ambulance had arrived the Cares Unit called 911 for EMS to take Stroganow to an emergency Room. Upon arrival shortly thereafter the EMS squad again refused to transport Stroganow. The Cares team communicated this to their supervisor who contacted IMC Regional Office to so advise. At this time Dr. Sanchez authorized the transportation of Stroganow to Lake Seminole Hospital for admission. Although neither Respondent nor Sanchez had privileges at Lake Seminole Hospital, IMC had contracted with Lake Seminole Hospital to have IMC patients admitted by a staff doctor at Lake Seminole Hospital. Subsequent to his meeting with the Cares team Respondent received no further information regarding Stroganow until well after Stroganow was admitted to Lake Seminole Hospital. No entry was made on Stroganow's medical record at IMC of the meeting between Respondent and the Cares Unit. Respondent was a salaried employee whose compensation was not affected by whether or not he admitted an IMC Gold-Plus patient to a hospital.
The Issue 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 The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), should grant the application of the Petitioner, RHPC, Inc., d/b/a Riverside Hospital (Riverside), for a certificate of need, CON Action No. 6582, for the addition of 31 acute care beds.
Findings Of Fact The Applicant and the Application. The applicant, the Petitioner, RHPC, Inc., d/b/a Riverside Hospital (Riverside), is a 102 bed acute care hospital 1/ located at 6600 Madison Street, New Port Richey, Florida, in the West Pasco County Subdistrict of HRS Service District 5, which also includes Pinellas County and East Pasco County. Included among its complement of beds are 14 obstetrical (OB) beds. There are no existing pediatric beds. Riverside's application is for a certificate of need to spend approximately $2,000,000 to renovate its existing OB unit, add 14 beds to the OB unit, add 11 medical/surgical beds and add six pediatric beds. The addition of the pediatric unit will be accomplished by relatively minor alterations to existing space and existing beds, and the cost attributable to this phase of the application is negligible. Similarly, the 11 additional med/surg beds will be accomplished by adding beds to existing private rooms, to create semi-private rooms, at a cost of only approximately $44,000. (Gas and electric lines for the additional beds already have been run to the headwall of these rooms and can be connected without difficulty or much expense.) Most of the $2 million total capital expenditure proposed in the application is attributable to the cost of modernizing the OB unit, with the addition of 14 beds in the process. The addition of 14 beds to the unit does not add significantly to what the modernization effort would cost without the addition of the 14 beds. The proposed new OB unit would include private rooms, to go along with the semi-private rooms that make up the existing 14-bed unit. In addition, the proposed modernized 28-bed OB unit would consist of the combined labor/delivery/recovery/post-partum (LDRP) rooms now preferred by most patients. Pertinent State Health Plan Provision. The 1989 State of Florida Health Plan states at the outset of a list of preferences to be utilized in comparing applications for additional acute care beds: No additional acute care beds should generally be approved unless the subdistrict occupancy rate is at or exceeds 75 percent, or, in the event of an existing facility, an applicant shall demonstrate that the occupancy rate for the most recent 12 months is at or exceeds 80 percent. The Need Methodology. Using the F.A.C. Rule 10-5.038 methodology, the district and subdistrict would show numeric need of approximately 201 and 230, respectively. See F.A.C. Rule 10-5.038(5). Regardless of the calculated bed need, HRS does not normally approve additional beds in a subdistrict unless the annual average acute care bed occupancy rate is 75 percent or higher during the 12-month base period of July, 1989, through June, 1990. See F.A.C. Rule 10-5.038(7)(d). The 670 licensed beds in the West Pasco Subdistrict reported only 68.92% occupancy during the 12- month base period, resulting in no projected need for additional acute care beds in the subdistrict for the applicable 1996 planning horizon. Even when a subdistricts's need for additional acute care beds projected by the methodology is zero, an application by an existing hospital still may be approved where that hospital's annual average occupancy rate exceeds 75 percent for the 12-month base period (again, in this case, from July, 1989, through June, 1990.) See F.A.C. Rule 10-5.038(7)(e). During the 12-month base period from July, 1989, through June, 1990, Riverside's occupancy averaged 72.40%, not high enough to be approved under F.A.C. Rule 10-5.038(7)(e). Observation Bed Days. Three types of beds days are included in a category of so-called "outpatient observation bed days." First, "twenty-three hour patients" are patients who are not eligible for inpatient services under the Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) criteria for the Medicare program. Second, "observation patients" are similar non-Medicare patients. Third, some outpatients (or ambulatory surgery patients) also use beds for part of a day. With new cost containment and review/regulation developments in hospital care, more patients are spending up to 23 hours in the hospital before a decision is made that further hospitalization in not needed. As a result, "observation" bed use has increased. Outpatient observation services have been recognized and defined by HCFA. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida (the Medicare intermediary) and the Health Care Cost Containment Board (HCCCB) have addressed issues such as reimbursement, billing and reporting of observation beds. Services are provided to "observation bed" patients under doctor's orders, including diagnostic services, observation and monitoring by nursing personnel and/or medical intervention or treatment. Calculation of occupancy rates under the HRS need methodology does not take into account the so-called "observation bed days." 2/ There was no evidence that any part of District V or the West Pasco Subdistrict are inaccessible geographically. Other Need Factors. The evidence showed that there is a seasonal peak utilization and occupancy of acute care beds in District V and in the West Pasco Subdistrict during approximately October or November through March or April each year. This seasonal peak is reflected by the statistics. As previously stated, Riverside's occupancy averaged 72.40% during the period from July, 1989, through June, 1990. During the first quarter of 1990, occupancy was 86.83%. Riverside's average occupancy for calendar year 1990 was 73.87%. For the period from March, 1990, through February, 1991, average occupancy for Riverside's acute care beds was 71.2%. 3/ For the period from March, 1990, through February, 1991, occupancy for Riverside's obstetrics beds was 92.9%. There is no acute care pediatric unit in the West Pasco subdistrict. Subdistrict residents (as well as others in Riverside's general service area) needing level II pediatric services generally go to a Pinellas County or East Pasco County hospital for them. Given the choice, some but not all of these patients likely would prefer to get these services at Riverside, depending primarily on the severity of the particular medical needs. But the evidence did not quantify the number predicted to switch to Riverside. Also, occupancy of pediatric beds in Pasco county was less than 15% during 1987 and 1988. Medical Care for the Poor. The State Health Plan also notes that the uncompensated care burden on hospitals has grown during the 1980s because of a growing number of low-income persons; simultaneously, the proportion of persons covered by Medicaid has dropped. Numerous statewide studies, moreover, have shown that hospitals' uncompensated care is increasing at the same time that their ability to absorb the cost of care is decreasing. Riverside's predecessor bought the hospital from Pasco County in 1982. As a condition to the purchase, Riverside's predecessor agreed to provide Medicaid and indigent care for Pasco County in perpetuity. When Riverside purchased the hospital on December 29, 1983, it assumed the contractual obligation to provide Medicaid and indigent care in perpetuity. Riverside is a disproportionate share provider within the meaning of the State and local health plans. Approximately, 13% of Riverside's total annual patient days are for Medicaid patients. In 1990, 2,647 of Riverside's obstetrical, and 4,272 of its non-obstetrical patient days, were Medicaid. Riverside's charity care deduction from gross patient revenue for fiscal year 1990 was 1.07% of gross patient revenue. Riverside's Medicaid deduction from gross patient revenue for fiscal year 1990 was 5.96% of gross patient revenue. Approximately, 14.8% of Riversides's services go to Medicaid and indigent patients. Although Riverside has only 14% of the beds in the West Pasco subdistrict, it does more than 90% of the non-emergency, non-OB Medicaid care. Approval of the Riverside application would enable Riverside to spread its administrative and overhead costs over a larger base, thereby reducing average charges. Approval of the Riverside application also would make Riverside more profitable and thereby better able to absorb the cost of the Medicaid and indigent care it provides. If Riverside converts existing acute care beds to pediatric or OB beds, it probably would have to squeeze out paying patients during seasonal occupancy peaks, thereby losing more revenue and profits. Competition. If the Riverside application is approved, Riverside's share of the market represented by the West Pasco subdistrict will rise from approximately 14% to approximately 18%. HCA controls the rest of the market. There are no existing OB beds in the West Pasco subdistrict other than at Riverside. The HCA hospital in New Port Richey had an OB unit which it recently abandoned. As a result of the grant of Bayonet Point's application, CON Action No. 6583, with which Riverside had been in direct competition in this application review cycle, Bayonet Point now is approved for a seven-bed OB unit as part of its bed complement. Upgrading its existing OB unit and adding 14 more OB beds will enable Riverside to capture more private paying patients, which will better enable it to compete with the HCA hospitals. At present, Riverside's OB unit is utilized almost exclusively by indigent and Medicaid patients because of the hospital's contract with Pasco County. This unit now is operating at close to absolute capacity. With the upgrades and additional beds, Riverside can work to capture some private pay patients; without them, Bayonet Point will capture the private pay patients. Financial Feasibility. Riverside operated at a deficit from 1983 essentially to the present. By the end of 1990, Riverside had accumulated a deficit of $8.8 million. Riverside's corporate parent, American Healthcare Management, Inc. (AHM), was funding the deficit. From 1985 through December, 1989, AHM was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. During that time period, there was legitimate concern whether AHM would be able to continue to fund Riverside deficits. AHM emerged from bankruptcy in December, 1989, stronger financially. It has since become stronger still. AHM reduced its debt by approximately $88 million. Part of the debt reduction was achieved by the sale of $43 million of underperforming assets. In addition, $45 million of bond debt was exchanged for common stock on September 30, 1991. The interest savings on the bond-for-stock exchange is $6 million a year. As a result, AHM's current debt-to-equity ratio is approximately $160 million to $130 million. AHM's corporate staff has been reduced from about 102 to 65. Its corporate office were transferred from expensive quarters in Dallas, Texas, to less expensive quarters in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Corporate expenses have been greatly reduced as a result. Accounts receivable have been reduced by better collection methods, and the $43 million of assets sold to reduce corporate debt had been underperforming. AHM had $21 million cash and short-term investments as of December 31, 1989. As of the date of the final hearing, it had $18 million cash and short- term investments. Riverside's gross margin (profit) for the first nine months of 1991 was $4 million. After depreciation, amortization, and interest and home office costs, Riverside generated approximately $1.2 million for the first nine months of 1991. Internal cash flow generated by AHM and Riverside would be sufficient to finance Riverside's application project. Since the capital costs of Riverside's proposed project are relatively small, financial feasibility is relatively easy to achieve. Besides costing relatively little, the 31 new beds will not increase intercompany interest or management fees significantly. In addition, the 31 new beds would enable Riverside to better compete for private pay patients. Given the expected utilization of the new beds, the proposed project will be to the financial benefit of the applicant. The pro forma bears this out. It projects 75.11% occupancy for the 31 new beds in the second year of operation (July, 1994, to June, 1995). (This projection does not include expected "observation bed days.") A profit of $2,477,199 for the 31 beds is projected for the second year of operation (not counting any portion of the preexisting intercompany interest or management fees).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that HRS enter a final order denying the Riverside application for a certificate of need, CON Action No. 6582, for the addition of 31 acute care beds. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1992.
