The Issue Whether a need exists for an additional hospice in Agency for Health Care Administration service area 1. Whether the certificate of need application of Bay Medical Center to establish the hospice, on balance, meets the criteria for approval.
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) is the state agency which administers the certificate of need (“CON”) program for health care facilities and services in the state. AHCA published a need for one additional hospice program in service area 1, in Volume 22, Number 5 of the Florida Administrative Weekly (February 2, 1996). Bay Medical Center (“BMC”), which currently operates a hospice in service area 2A, is the applicant for CON 8377 to establish the additional hospice program in service area 1. Hospice of Northwest Florida, Inc. (“HNWF”) is an existing provider of hospice services in both service areas 1 and 2A. Service area 1 encompasses Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties. Adjacent service area 2A includes Bay, Holmes, Washington, Jackson, Calhoun and Gulf Counties. Hospice care is provided to terminally ill persons, defined as those with a life expectancy of six months or less if their disease runs its normal course. It is palliative and comfort-oriented, rather than curative. Clinical, pschosocial, and spiritual services are provided by an interdisciplinary team, which includes a physician, nurses, social workers, home health aides, chaplains, and bereavement counselors. In addition to paid staff, hospices also use volunteers. Social workers, chaplains, and bereavement counselors work with patients' families for up to a year following death. Services are provided in patients' homes, nursing homes, or acute care hospitals. Hospice care is less expensive than aggressive acute care for the terminally ill. It is estimated that every dollar of hospice care saves a dollar and a half in Florida. Hospice services began in the United States in the 1970’s and were approved for government reimbursement in the 1980’s. Routine home hospice care is reimbursed at a per diem rate, for which the hospice provides care, and pharmaceutical drugs and supplies. Hospices also receive financial support from fund raising activities, and typically provide substantial community services which are otherwise unfunded and not reimbursed. These include community outreach programs in churches and schools, and services to families in which a death was accidental. In 1985, the national hospice penetration rate or P Factor (the percentage of total deaths in which patients received hospice care) was approximately 8 percent. By 1995, the P Factor had increased to 17 percent, with the greatest rate of growth in the most recent five years. In Florida, approximately 29.6 percent of all deaths occur after a person has been admitted to a hospice program. In service area 1, the P Factor is 21 percent. Bay Medical Center BMC is a legislatively - created independent special governmental district, authorized initially to provide health care services to Bay County, but now also to surrounding areas. It operates a 353-bed public, not-for-profit full service hospital in Panama City, Florida, but does not receive tax support. Over 190 physicians staff BMC’s hospital with every specialty, except rheumatology, endocrinology, and neonatology. BMC’s tertiary services include an open heart surgery program. BMC also provides ambulatory or outpatient services. Since 1992, BMC has operated a hospice program in service area 2A, with offices in Panama City (on the campus of the BMC hospital) and in Marianna. The Marianna office opened in February 1997, as a result of the Florida Legislature's 1995 amendment to the enabling legislation allowing BMC to offer services beyond Bay County. The 1995 legislation also expressly authorizes BMC to provide hospice services and to create other organizations to further its mission. The Board of Directors of BMC created the Bay Medical Center Hospice (BMCH). BMCH is governed by a board of directors which is separate and distinct from the board of BMC, although BMC is the entity licensed to operate the hospice program in service area 2A. The BMCH board members live and work in each of the six counties of service area 2A. BMC, which holds the existing license, is the applicant in this proceeding. The board of BMC met on the day that the letter of intent was due, February 19, 1996. A few days prior to the meeting the Chairman of the Board executed the letter of intent, and sent it to a health planning consultant in Tallahassee. After the Board met and passed the resolution authorizing the filing of the letter of intent, the consultant filed the letter of intent with AHCA in Tallahassee. In service area 2A, BMCH has an average daily census of 58-64 patients. BMC projected and HNWF stipulated that BMC can reasonably attain 250 admissions for a total of 12,471 patient days in year one, and 300 admissions for 18,706 patient days in year two of operation in service area 1. BMCH currently advertises its hospice services on television and radio stations, and in newspapers with coverage extending into service area 1. Fund-raising events, including the holiday tree lighting program, are used to market hospice services. Hospice services are also explained in newsletters which reach 27,000 households and all physicians in the area. BMC purchased over 100 sixty-second radio spots, which aired on three stations over a two month period in 1996. The hospice radio spots reached an estimated 87,000 people an average of five times each. BMC estimates a total project cost of $129,591, if CON 8377 is approved, to extend hospice services into service area 1. BMC proposes to condition CON 8377 on the provision of a minimum of 12.8 percent Medicaid and 3.65 percent charity care by the end of the second year of operation, and the care of 7 AIDS patients (with a minimum of 350 total visits) each year. Hospice of Northwest Florida HNWF is an existing provider of hospice services in AHCA service areas 1 and 2A. It is the only licensed hospice in service area 1 and competes with only BMC in 2A. HNWF, organized by hospitals in Pensacola, was issued a CON in December 1982 and a license in 1983, to operate a hospice in Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Holmes, Washington and Jackson Counties. The home office of HNWF is located in Pensacola. HNWF admitted its first patients and families in January 1984. In 1987, HNWF opened a branch office in Fort Walton Beach, later apparently consolidated with a Niceville office, to serve Okaloosa and Walton Counties. An additional branch office was opened in Marianna in 1991. An adjunct medical director for the Marianna and Niceville offices was hired in 1996. In December 1995, HNWF received a CON waiver and its license was amended to allow it to operate in the remainder of service area 2A, in Bay, Gulf, and Calhoun Counties. HNWF then opened a branch office in Panama City, in August 1996. HNWF also operates, and is expanding from six to eight beds, a residential facility in Pensacola, to house hospice patients without homes or without at-home caregivers. Prior to opening the Panama City office, HNWF historically served Holmes, Washington, and Jackson Counties, while BMCH served patients in Bay, Gulf, Washington, and Calhoun Counties. From 1993 to the present time, HNWF has increased its contracts or agreements from the Pensacola hospital to all of the hospitals in the service areas, including two military hospitals, from none to virtually all assisted living facilities, and from five to all except two or three nursing homes. HNWF operates an extensive outreach and educational effort, including a monthly half-hour television show, which is estimated to reach over 200,000 people in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Other efforts include radio talk show appearances, speaking engagements reaching over 5,000 people in 1996, and extensive direct physician contact. HNWF also relies on it chaplaincy and bereavement programs to extend information about hospice care, particularly to culturally diverse groups of people. Despite these efforts, the number of hospice patients in service area 1 has remained relatively constant. HNWF served 969 patients in calendar year (CY) 1995, and 963 in CY1996. HNWF contends that its lack of growth is due, in part, to declining referrals from nursing homes despite increased referrals from other sources. HNWF attributes the nursing home decline to government investigations of suspected excessive nursing home reimbursements. There is no waiting list for HNWF's services, and its goal is to admit patients within 24 hours of referral. HNWF criticized BMCH’s outreach efforts as inadequate and misdirected, attracting only “easy” patients, those easily diagnosed as qualified for hospice care by well-informed referral sources. On this basis, HNWF expects BMC to take hospice patients from HNWF and not from any growth in hospice patients. HNWF also expects competition from BMC to adversely affect its ability to provide enhanced and unfunded services, including bereavement services in schools, on military bases, and in work- places, and its ability to operate satellite offices and the residential facility. Revenues from patient care are supplemented by donations and grants. In 1992, HNWF established a foundation to coordinate fund raising efforts. The approval of the BMC application, according to HNWF, will also affect the types of hospice services available in the area. In general, more sophisticated hospice services can be provided by larger hospices, including palliative chemotherapy and radiation. BMC’s expert testified that HNWF will continue to be a large hospice with or without the approval of a CON for BMC, and that the additional program will create additional demand for the service. The parties stipulated that subsections 408.035(1)(m) and (3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59C-1.0355(7) and (8), Florida Administrative Code, are not applicable to this proceeding. At hearing, the parties also stipulated that BMC's list of capital projects meets the requirements of subsection 408.037(2)(a). Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(a) - Numeric Need; Subsections 408.035(1)(b) - like and existing services; (d) - available alternatives Rule 59C-1.0355, the hospice rule, includes the formula for calculating the numeric need for hospice programs. Numeric need exists if the projected total number of hospice patients in service area one for the planning horizon (1400 for July 1997) minus the actual number of hospice patients in the base year (969 in calendar year 1995) is equal to or greater than 350 (in this case, 431). The statewide P Factor, 29.6 percent, is used in the formula to calculate the ratio of projected hospice patients to projected total deaths. The statewide rate represents the normative minimum applied to each service area by operation of the formula in the rule. In service area 1, the P Factor in the base year was 21 percent. The statewide P Factor is an average of rates for various disease categories and ages. Those rates range from a high of hospice care for 70.9 percent of deaths due to cancer in people 65 and over, to a low of 14.1 percent for people under 65 with all other diseases. BMC cites HNWF's relatively low hospice penetration rate as proof of the need for an additional hospice program to create and accommodate additional potential demand. HNWF asserts, however, that certain local circumstances cause the deviation from the statewide P Factor. HNWF also contends that more people received hospice services than the number used in the formula for the base year. The result, according to HNWF is an excess projected demand for hospice services by the July 1997 planning horizon. The extenuating local circumstances cited by HNWF, are the sizable active duty military population, the strong Medicaid AIDs program, the aggressiveness of home health agencies, the prevalence of cancer centers, and the established practice parameters of medical doctors in the service area. The number of active duty military in service area 1 is 23,162. The number of those who die from terminal illnesses is statistically insignificant, because it is military policy to retire personnel who are diagnosed with terminal illnesses, which enhances death benefits to survivors. BMC's expert confirmed that policy and the improbability of serving military patients, although HNWF has served military base families after active duty casualties. Military families represent some of those served by HNWF in the base year, who are not included in the numeric need formula as hospice admissions. In the numeric need formula, according to BMC's expert, military personnel are included in projected deaths to younger age cohorts from causes other than cancer. Of the 431 projected additional hospice admissions, BMC’s expert calculated that, at most, 3 projected hospice deaths of those result from including the active duty military population. By contrast, HNWF's expert testified that the military population of 23,162 multiplied by the statewide death rate of .008 results in an estimated 186 deaths, or approximately 62 hospice patients. The background information in support of the fixed need pool, prepared by AHCA, shows that AHCA calculates projected hospice patients by age and disease. The actual base year service area non-cancer deaths under 65 (1010) divided by the actual service area total deaths (4562), times total projected deaths (4816) gives the total projected deaths non-cancer under 65 (1066). Of the 1066 deaths, 150 are expected to be hospice patients. It is not reasonable to assume that 186 deaths will occur among active duty military, or that 62 of the 150 non- cancer hospice patients under 65 will be in that group. It is more reasonable to assume, as BMC's expert did and as the state numeric need methodology does, that the age cohort of that group has and will continue to have a significantly lower death rate and lower hospice admissions than the 65 and over population. HNWF's expert health planner was unable to distinguish service area 1 from the rest of the state in terms of the strength of the Medicaid AIDs waiver program, the presence of prisons, the existence of home health agencies, the presence of cancer centers, or physicians' practice patterns. Similarly, BMC's expert found no statistical relationship between home health agency visits and hospice utilization. BMC's expert also noted that some hospices provide services to prisoners. HNWF's expert agreed that there is no prohibition to providing hospice services to prisoners. In some areas of the state, such as Gainesville and Tampa, cancer centers co-exist with high levels of hospice utilization. There was no evidence to distinguish physicians' practice patterns in service area 1 from the areas of the state. The argument that HNWF served more than the reported 969 in the base year, through it AIDs support groups, in schools, and for families in which deaths were accidental also does not distinguish HNWF. The evidence shows that hospices typically provide services to persons other than patients and their families, and benefit in terms of marketing and fund-raising. The incidence of AIDS in service area 1 is below that of the state. That could affect the gap between 21 percent and 29 percent, by approximately 3 or 4 percent. Late referrals to hospice services can adversely affect utilization rates. The federal government program, Restore Trust, initiated a HCFA Inspector General's investigation into charges of waste, fraud, and abuse in nursing homes and home health agencies. The decline in referrals to hospice programs coincided with the investigation, while hospice referrals and admissions in non-nursing home settings increased. There is no evidence, however, that service area 1 nursing homes were subject to more intense scrutiny than any others in the state. In fact, the Executive Director of HNWF testified that the effects of Restore Trust were national. The active duty military population difference of 3 fewer projected hospice deaths, and the 3 or 4 percent gap in the P Factor due to the lower incidence of AIDs are insufficient to explain the gap between P Factors of 21 and 29 percent. BMC's expert's estimate that ninety percent of the gap results from the lower than average P Factor is, at most, reduced to eighty-six percent. From 1994 to 1996, as the hospice utilization statewide reached 27.7 percent, the rate increased from 22 to 27 percent in service area 2A. By contrast, the rate increased from 17 to 22 percent in service area 1. For the six months ending December 31, 1996, the rate in service area 1 declined to 18 percent, while that in service area 2A increased to 24 percent. One of the highest rates in service area 2A is in relatively rural Washington County, in which BMC and HNWF have the greatest overlap in services. HNWF has approximately 60 percent and BMC has 40 percent of the hospice market in Washington County. In western Washington County, hospice rates range from 27 to 100 percent, with the remainder of the county in the 18 to 27 percent range. In service area 2A, there has been a steady increase in hospice admissions for HNWF and BMC, except for a decline at BMC immediately after HNWF opened an office in Panama City. Subsection 408.035(1)(a) - need in relation to district and state health plans; Rule 59C- 1.0355(5) and (4)(e) District health plan allocation factor one favors applicants having hospice services available seven days a week, district-wide for 24 hours a day as needed, regardless of a client’s ability to pay. BMCH currently complies with the requirement in service area 2A and can do so in service area 1. By carefully selecting patients, hiring staff in appropriate locations to serve the patients, and expanding slowly geographically, as HNWF has done, BMC can meet the requirements. Initially, BMC will focus on adjacent Okaloosa and Walton Counties. District allocation factor two, for proposals to add beds or use existing inpatient facilities rather than construct new facilities, is met by BMC. By proposing to contract with existing hospitals and nursing homes, BMC also meets the preference in Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(e)2. State health plan preference one, for applicants who seek Medicare certification, is consistent with BMC’s current and proposed operations. State health plan preference two favors members of the National Hospice Organization ("NHO") and applicants accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations ("JCAHO"). BMCH is a member of the NHO. BMC is JCAHO-accredited, after receiving a rating of ninety-six of a possible one hundred in the scoring system in December 1996. Recently, BMCH was separately surveyed by the JCAHO, and received favorable exit comments. BMCH is also annually surveyed by AHCA, which identified no deficiencies in its January 1996 report. BMCH and HNWF each had one complaint regarding practices and procedures in 1996. A BMCH nurse disposed of controlled drugs when no longer needed in the patient's home, without the required signature of the patient's family representative on the disposal record. HNWF received a complaint and disciplined the responsible admitting nurse who failed to convene the appropriate staff to timely prepare an Interdisciplinary Care Plan. Neither incident indicates that the hospices are not providing a high quality of care. It is reasonable to expect BMC hospice to meet the requirements of the preference and to provide appropriate hospice care. See, also, subsection 408.035(1)(b) and (c), on the quality of care of the existing hospice and the applicant’s ability to provide quality of care. In proposing to establish a physical presence in rural, underserved Walton County, BMC meets state preference three and the preference in Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(e)4. State health plan preference four for applicants proposing to meet unmet needs of specific groups, such as children, is consistent with BMC's current and proposed operations. The same preference is also a requirement of Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(e)1. State health plan preference five favors applicants proposing residential services to patients without at-home assistance. BMC proposes to provide caregivers or to use existing inpatient facilities to provide residential services. The proposal is, therefore, also consistent with Rule 59C- 1.0355(4)(e)3 as it relates to those who are without primary caregivers at home or who are homeless. The sixth and final state health plan preference, for hospices proposing to use additional beds in existing facilities rather than new construction, is not applicable to the BMC proposal. On balance, the BMC application meets the preferences in the rule, and in state and district health plans. Subsection 408.035(1)(b) and (1)(d) - availability and quality of like and existing services; other alternatives Alternatives to hospice care include home health, acute, and nursing home care, all of which are available. The state policy, as reflected in numeric need methodology, encourages the use of hospice services until every service area achieves the state norm. Consistent with that policy, theoretically, HNWF could be even more aggressive in marketing and outreach than it has been. Historically, for BMC and HNWF, however, hospice services are more available, more accessible, better utilized, and higher in quality of care in areas in which they compete. Subsection 408.035(1)(c) - economics and improvements of joint, cooperative or shared resources Because BMC operates an existing hospice, it is reasonable to expect economics of scale and improvements based on its experience, if it establishes a second hospice. BMC expects to use existing human resources and billing departments. Subsection 408.035(1)(f) - need for special equipment or services not available in adjoining areas The statutory criterion is inapplicable to the case. Subsection 408.035(1)(g) and (h) - need for research, educational, health professional training BMC's is not a proposal which is intended to assist a research or educational program. In-service and volunteer training programs are proposed for the benefit of its staff and to assure the quality of its own services. Subsection 408.035(1)(h) - available manpower, management personnel; (1)(i) - immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal BMC has over $21 million in cash, and revenues and gains in excess of $4 million for the year ending September 30, 1995. BMC has and continues to generate sufficient funds to provide over $24 million for planned capital projects over the next two years, including $129,591 in costs for the additional hospice program. BMC’s proposal is financially feasible in the short term. HNWF claims that the BMC proposal is not financially feasible in the long term, based on understated salaries, wages, and benefits, travel expenses, depreciation, and interest. Salaries, wages, and benefits are based on the staffing ratios at BMCH, which, according to HNWF, serves a more concentrated population in Panama City. Initially, BMC plans to serve Okaloosa and Walton Counties from a Destin office, with staff appropriately located throughout the areas to timely and efficiently serve patients. BMC plans to hire 6.6 full time equivalent (FTEs) administrative staff and 11.4 FTEs patient care staff. HNWF asserts that BMC will need an additional 1.7 FTEs for nurses, 2.6 for home health aides, and 1 FTE for a social worker. HNWF also questioned the ability of BMC to implement its proposed children's programs without a registered nurse with pediatric experience. HNWF asserted that .4 FTE for a chaplain was inadequate, as is reliance primarily on volunteer chaplains. The adequacy of the proposed staffing is supported by calculating the 50 day average length of stay times the annual volume of 250 patients, times 1.6 (the projected worked hours per patient day), which equals 10.85 FTEs for patient care. BMC's 11.4 FTEs for patient care in year one is a reasonable, conservative complement of staff. In addition, HNWF received 19 percent of its 1996 hours worked from volunteers, and has a history of hiring specialized staff and establishing specialized programs and departments when justified by the demand for those services. For its first seven or eight years, HNWF was well- served by a volunteer medical director. The bereavement coordinator was hired in 1990. The children's bereavement specialist was hired in 1993, when bereavement and social services became separate departments. Travel expenses, projected by BMC, were also criticized by HNWF. HNWF would increase miles for each visit from 13.9, as estimated in BMC’s CON application, to 18.3 miles per visit as experienced by HNWF. One assumption, which invalidates HNWF’s projection of travel distances, is that each separate visit will originate and end at the Destin office, not that BMC staff would make some visits going directly from their residences to the patient's home, or that they would arrange schedules to make several visits without returning to the office between each visit. In addition, BMCH will initially cover two counties rather than the entire service area. As a result of a mathematical error in the BMC CON application, the depreciation expense for year one of operations is $25,578, not $21,962. HNWF's expert's adjustments to interest expenses assumed that any additional expenses would require additional borrowing. BMC, however, has not materially underestimated expenses, considering the $3,616 difference in depreciation. The pro forma is conservatively based on revenues and expenses without reliance on charitable donations, although hospices typically depend on donations to break-even financially. In 1996, HNWF received a total of $339,780 in contributions. To estimate what BMC might expect in District 1, it is reasonable to exclude from HNWF's experience, approximately $80,000 in interest on reserve invested income (used by HNWF in 1996) and $90,000 in grants, since BMC has not applied for any grants. The balance, representing memorials and fund-raising of $240,000 reasonably indicates the level of contributions which a new BMC hospice might expect in service area 1. That level, for BMC, is proportionately half that projected by BMC, or $60,000 to $80,000 in year one, and $130,00 to $185,000 in year two of operations. With a projected loss in income of $28,091 in year one, a projected profit of $74,054 in year two, and considering historical hospice fund-raising, BMC's operation of a hospice in service area 1 is reasonably expected to be financially feasible in the long term. Adverse Impact Subsection 408.035(1)(l) - probable impact on costs, effects of competition. Using BMC's experts' utilization projections for service area 1, HNWF projects that its net operating income will decline from a negative $408,070 to a negative $655,712 in year one, and from a negative $355,404 to a negative $612,696 in year two. Approximately $420,000 in total contributions to HNWF is expected each year, although that number has increased annually since 1993, from 183,750, to $224,415 in 1994, to $282,368 in 1995, and $339,780 in 1996. BMC suggests that the adverse impact analysis should consider HNWF's total operations in service areas 1 and 2A to determine financial feasibility. Health planning experts for both BMC and HNWF acknowledge that there are up to 431 more people available for hospice admissions than are currently receiving hospice services. They also agree that number will increase by approximately 100 a year as the population increases, and that the presence of a new hospice provider will increase hospice penetration rates. In addition, as HNWF's witnesses emphasized, nursing home hospice admissions were depressed temporarily due to a government investigation. BMC’s expert also noted that, as long as available admissions exist, increasing hospice utilization is largely a function of how the hospice delivers its services. For example, the historic requirement that patients have a caregiver at home has adversely affected HNWF’s penetration rate. As recently as November 1996, at least one referral source, Sacred Heart Hospital, in Pensacola was distributing an HNWF brochure which specifically required an eligible hospice patient to have “[a] capable caregiver in the home to meet the patient’s day-to-day basic needs." Essentially, the same requirement is included in a list of admissions criteria on page 49 of BMC's CON application. HNWF and BMC have both changed their policies and now admit patients without caregivers, which is reasonably expected to increase admissions of patients. With competition to identify and alleviate access barriers, HNWF and BMC are better able to increase hospice utilization rates by eliminating self-imposed constraints. Based on the rapid increase in hospice utilization in service area 2A after HNWF began to compete with BMC, it is reasonable to assume the same effect of competition in service area 1. By the year 2000, BMC's expert reasonably projects hospice penetration rates of 29 percent in service area 1, equaling the current statewide average. As the late entrant into a limited geographical area within the market, BMC is projected to capture approximately one-third of that market by the years 2000 to 2001, leaving two thirds for HNWF. At the same time BMC and HNWF are reasonably expected to divide in half the market in service area 2A. At those levels, HNWF will range, in total projected admissions for both service areas, from 1,186 to 1,400, from 1997 to 2001. The evidence that a BMC hospice in service area 1 will not adversely impact HNWF is more persuasive. The suggestion that health care providers or the public will be confused by the presence of BMCH in service area 1 is rejected. Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - The applicant’s past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. BMC is a disproportionate share Medicaid provider, having historically provided over 97 percent of all indigent care in Bay County. In 1995, the charity care write-off was over $8.5 million. The effect of approving BMC’s CON is increased hospice penetration in service area 1, caused by an expanding market for hospice services. As a disproportionate share provider of inpatient acute care services, BMC is uniquely capable of identifying and referring low income patients for hospice care. Subsection 408.035(1)(0) - The applicant’s past and proposed provision of services which promote a continuum of care in a multilevel health care system, which may include, but is not limited to, acute care, skilled nursing care, home health care, and assisted living facilities. BMCH is a part of a multilevel system with levels of care ranging from a 353-bed acute care tertiary hospital to a home health agency. Because of 1995 legislation, these services are available to persons beyond the boundaries of Bay County. Consistent with this statutory criterion, hospice services should also be extended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency For Health Care Administration enter a Final Order issuing CON 8377 to Bay Medical Center to establish a hospice program in service area 1, conditioned on providing annually a minimum of 12.8 percent Medicaid care, 3.65 percent charity care, and service to a minimum of 7 AIDs patients with a minimum of 350 visits. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of May, 1997. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Ellis, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Darrell White, Esquire William B. Wiley, Esquire McFarlain, Wiley, Cassedy & Jones, P.A. Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-2174 J. Robert Griffin, Esquire J. Robert Griffin & Associates, P.A. 2559 Shiloh Way Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency For Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency For Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Which of two competing applications for nursing home beds better meets the statutory and rule criteria to satisfy the numeric need for 79 additional beds in Agency for Health Care Administration District 7, Subdistrict 1, Brevard County.
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the single agency responsible for the administration of certificate of need ("CON") laws in Florida. AHCA published a numeric need for an additional 79 beds in District 7, Subdistrict 1, for Brevard County for the July 1996 planning horizon. There was no challenge to the numeric need determination. After reviewing the applications of Holmes/VHA Long Term Care Joint Venture ("Holmes/VHA") and National Health Corporation d/b/a NHC of Merritt Island ("NHC"), among others, AHCA published its intent to approve the application of NHC and to deny that of Holmes/VHA. The State Agency Action Report ("SAAR") issued on March 13, 1994, for the July 1996 Planning Horizon, summarizes AHCA's review of the applications and the reasons for its decision. Holmes/VHA timely challenged AHCA's preliminary approval of CON 7527 to NHC and denial of CON 7539 to Holmes/VHA. In a pre-hearing stipulation, the parties agreed that the specific statutory criteria at issue, related to the contents of the letter of intent and application are subsections 408.037(2)(a), (2)(c), (4) and 408.039(2)(c), Florida Statutes. The parties also agreed that the CON review criteria at issue are subsections 408.035(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (h), (i), (l), (m), (n) and (0), and 408.035(2)(e), Florida Statutes. The parties stipulated to the need for 79 additional community nursing home beds in the subdistrict. At the formal hearing the parties also agreed that quality of care is not at issue and that staffing schedules and proposals to fund or finance both projects are reasonable, thereby removing from consideration subsections 408.035(1)(c) and portions of (1)(h). HOLMES/VHA Holmes/VHA, the applicant for CON 7539, is a Florida general partnership formed between Holmes Regional Enterprises, Inc. ("Holmes Enterprises"), a Florida not-for-profit corporation, in Brevard County, Florida, and Vantage Health Systems, Inc., d/b/a VHA Long Term Care ("VHA"). The partnership, Holmes/VHA, owns and operates an existing 120-bed nursing home, Holmes Regional Nursing Center ("Holmes Nursing Center") in Melbourne. VHA is a division of Service Master Diversified Health Services of Memphis, Tennessee, which manages 106 facilities in 30 states. Holmes Enterprises operates Holmes Regional Medical Center ("Holmes Regional"), a 528-bed acute care hospital, with open heart surgery and neonatal intensive care services and approval for 30 skilled nursing beds. Sixty of Holmes Regional's licensed beds are located at Palm Bay Community Hospital in Palm Bay, approximately 8 to 15 miles south of Holmes Regional. Although it is a separate municipality, Palm Bay was described as a suburb of and contiguous to Melbourne. The site for the Palm Bay Center, which is across the street from Palm Bay Community Hospital, is in another community known as Mallibar. VHA has entered into similar partnerships with acute care hospitals in Jacksonville, Florida, and Greensboro, North Carolina, to operate nursing homes in those areas. The Service Master organization provides management and support services, including data processing, legal, personnel, dietary, and architectural and design services for nursing homes. Holmes/VHA, the joint venture general partnership, has a management committee of four people, two from the hospital and two from the VHA company. The management committee, functioning like a board of directors, adopted a resolution authorizing Holmes/VHA to file the Con application. When formed, the joint venture obtained an older 60-bed facility, and then constructed a replacement facility. During the construction, it obtained a 60-bed CON from another company and combined beds to build its existing 120-bed nursing home, Holmes Nursing Center. Holmes Nursing Center is rated superior and offers inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative and restorative services, including a head and spinal cord injury program. The rehabilitative services are directed by Holmes Regional, which is located a block and a half from the nursing home. The original CON for Holmes Nursing Center required that 35 percent of total patient days be provided to Medicaid. The requirement was increased to 45 percent with the 60-bed addition, which Holmes Nursing Center has exceeded. The 120 beds are divided into 20 percent Medicare certified, 50 percent Medicaid certified and 30 percent non-certified or private pay. Holmes Nursing Center also operates a 24-bed subacute unit for persons qualifying under Medicare criteria for skilled nursing care. Patients in the unit receive intensive assessments on each nursing shift and services which include pain, respiratory, and wound management. Holmes Regional Hospice, Inc. ("the hospice") is an affiliate of Holmes Enterprises, for which Holmes Regional holds the CON to take care of hospitalized hospice patients The current hospice census of over 200 patients includes 70 percent cancer, 9 percent AIDS, and 21 percent other terminal illnesses, such as heart disease and Alzheimers. Holmes/VHA applied for a CON to construct the 79-bed Palm Bay Nursing and Rehabilitation Center ("Palm Bay Center") conditioned on the provision of 61 percent of total patient days to Medicaid and the establishment of a 12-bed sub- acute unit, one room for hospice patients, inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative therapy, and respite care. The total gross square footage is 42,691 square feet. The Holmes Enterprises affiliates propose to provide support services for the Palm Bay Center, as they do for Holmes Nursing Center. The estimated total project cost for the Palm Bay Center is $4,732,790, of which the construction cost is $82,720,000 or $63.71 a square foot. An equity contribution of land valued at $420,000, will be provided by the hospital. Service Master will provide the funds or obtain financing for the project. The assumptions in the pro forma, including the expectation that interest may be due for a commercial loan, are reasonable. AHCA's expert's conclusion that the project is financially feasible is accepted. The financing by Service Master can be structured to avoid being treated as a related party transaction, which would adversely affect Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements. Holmes/VHA listed as capital projects three other pending CON and an additional $25,000 in annual capitalized routine expenses for furniture, fixtures and equipment attributable to Holmes Regional Nursing Center. The total of the capital projects listed on Schedule 2 of the application is $13,256,701. NHC National HealthCorp, L.P. ("NHC"), the applicant for CON 7527, began operations in 1986, with 14 nursing homes. Currently, NHC owns or manages 96 nursing homes primarily in the southeast United States. It manages 36 nursing homes in Florida, 6 of which are also owned by NHC. NHC proposes to add 60 beds to National Healthcare Center of Merritt Island ("NHC-Merritt Island"), a superior rated, 120-bed community nursing home on a 7 acre site in Merritt Island, Brevard County. NHC-Merritt Island has a 22-bed Alzheimers' unit. NHC's regional office provides support services, including speech, occupational, and physical therapies, nursing, dietary, and administrative services to NHC-Merritt Island. With the addition of 60 beds, NHC intends to provide respite care, a dedicated 20-bed subacute unit, and an additional 16-bed Alzheimers' unit. Without a subacute unit, NHC already has an average census of 9 subacute patients. NHC will triple the size of the therapy space and more than double the size of the building. The projected total capital expenditure is $3,891,850, with construction costs of $2,955,000, or $85.00 a square foot. To accommodate the addition, NHC has entered into a contract to purchase an additional 1.3 acres, adjacent to the current 7 acres, for a cost of $175,000. For the past few years, NHC has experienced 94 to 100 percent occupancy. Fifty-four people are on NHC's waiting list and an additional 16 are on the waiting list for the Alzheimers' unit. The projected annual fill-up rates for NHC's additional beds are supported by the demand for its service and its historical experience, even though the monthly fill-up rates in the application are not adjusted to reflect the specific number of days in each month. Medicaid resident days are 55 percent to 57 percent of the total at present, below the 60.31 percent average in the subdistrict and the current 60 percent CON condition. If the expansion CON is approved, NHC will commit to providing 60.31 percent Medicaid patient days and will increase the number of Medicaid certified beds from 77 to 108. NHC was profitable in 1992 and 1993, by approximately $100,000 and $250,000, respectively, but currently is not profitable, with an approximate deficit of $8,000. The deficit is attributable to (1) a decline in the Medicaid reimbursement rate, which was initially higher due to start up costs, (2) the expiration of a new provider exemption from Medicare cost limits, and (3) the transfer of assets by NHC, in exchange for stock, to a newly formed subsidiary, from which NHC-Merritt Island is now leased. Lease payments are $517,000 a year whether the facility has 120 or 180 beds, and profits are returned to stockholders, including NHC. Using Medicaid rates, calculated by the state, as inflated forward, and Medicare rates in excess of routine cost limits, based on the current experience of NHC-Merritt Island, NHC reasonably projected its costs and profit margin. NHC-Merritt Island has a positive cash flow and its expenses and revenues are at the goal set by NHC. With a total of 180 beds, the projections are reasonable that NHC-Merritt Island will be profitable. As AHCA's expert opined, NHC's proposal is financially feasible. Subsection 408.035(1)(a) - need in relation to district and state health plans The 1991 District 7 health plan has three preferences related to nursing homes, one favoring a section of Orange County, is inapplicable to the Brevard County applications. A second, for applicants proposing pediatric services, is inapplicable because both proposals in this batch are to provide adult services. The third preference favors applicants proposing to establish units providing psychiatric or subacute services, with emphasis on treating medically complex patients and AIDS/HIV positive patients. Holmes/VHA's health planner considers the subacute care and AIDS/HIV services proposed by Holmes/VHA superior to those proposed by NHC. NHC, however, proposes to provide specialized care in designated units for both subacute and Alzheimers's patients. Although Holmes/VHA argues that Alzheimers' care is required in every nursing home and is, therefore, not a specialized program, the physical design of a separate unit for such patients was shown to enhance their comfort. No AIDS/HIV positive patient has been treated at either Holmes Nusing Center or at NHC-Merritt Island. NHC-Merritt Island has accepted AIDS/HIV positive patients who did not come to the facility. The state health plan has twelve allocation factors for use in comparing nursing home applications. Both applicants comply with the factors favoring locations in a subdistrict in which occupancy levels exceed 90 percent, proposals to meet or exceed that average subdistrict Medicaid occupancy of 60.31 percent, proposals with respite care and innovative therapies, multi- disciplinary staffing, for staffing in excess of minimum state requirements, and which document means to protect residents' rights and privacy. Both Holmes/VHA and NHC also meet the preference for proposing charges that do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem in the subdistrict. NHC asserted, but failed to demonstrate that its therapy services with in-house staff are superior to those provided to Holmes/VHA by contract staff from Holmes Regional. The state health plan factor number 3, for specialized services, is largely duplicative of district health plan preferences. Neither applicant meets the part of one preference for providing adult day care, or the preference for proposing lower than average administrative costs and higher than average resident care costs. The fifth state allocation factor, for maximizing resident comfort and the criterion of subsection 408.035(1)(m), Florida Statutes, related to the cost and methods of construction, are at issue. NHC questions the adequacy of three acres for the building proposed by Holmes/VHA and the design of the building. Holmes Regional Nursing Center has 120 beds and approximately the same building area as that proposed for Palm Bay Center. The architects of the building have constructed a 163-bed facility on four acres in Jacksonville, and a 240-bed facility in Memphis, Tennessee on approximately six acres. Homes/VHA expects to construct the building in half the time required for completion of NHC's proposed addition. AHCA's architect noted, however, that Holmes/VHA has no Alzheimers unit and that its subacute area is not separated from the areas used by other patients and their families. Holmes/VHA has showers only in the 13 private rooms. By contrast, NHC has an Alzheimers unit with its own lounge and courtyard and a subacute unit at the end of a wing with a separate waiting room. NHC's rooms are larger, with larger windows. NHC's costs are higher than Holmes/VHA's, but not above the high average cost guidelines for construction used by AHCA. NHC has one nursing station for 60 beds, which meets the state requirement while Holmes/VHA is better equipped with two nurses stations for 79 beds. In general, Holmes/VHA established that its building could be built on 3 acres, and that its interior spaces exceed the requirements to be licensed. NHC established that its building and grounds will be larger, higher quality construction with more non-combustible materials, and better meet the preference for maximizing resident comfort. The preference for superior resident care is met by both Holmes/VHA and NHC-Merritt Island. An NHC facility in Stuart was rated conditional for 80 days of the 36 months, prior to the filing of the application. NHC had just purchased the Stuart facility at the time of the conditional rating, and had, in total, many more months of superior operations. In addition, the parties stipulated to quality of care issues at the hearing. Subsection 408.035(1)(b) and (1)(d) - availability, accessibility, efficiency, extent of utilization of like and existing services; alternatives to the applicants' proposals Brevard County is 80 miles long from north to south, 22 miles wide at its widest point, with 62 percent of its population in the southern area of the county. Holmes/VHA contends that its application should be approved based on the greater need for nursing home beds in southern Brevard County. Using ratios of beds in existing or approved nursing homes as compared to the population ages 65 and older, and 75 and older, a need is shown for more beds in the southern area, including Palm Bay. In the central area, there are 31.52 beds per 1000 people over 65, as compared to 26.53 in the southern area of Brevard County. For the population over 75, the ratios are 82.53 in the central and 68.47 in the southern area. The over 75 population is also projected to increase by a greater percentage in the southern as contrasted to the central areas of the county. AHCA claims to reject the use of any "sub-subdistrict" analysis of need, other than the test for geographically underserved areas, as defined by Rule 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code. That test which applies to proposed sites more than 20 miles from a nursing home, is not met by Holmes/VHA or NHC. However, AHCA has, in at least one other case, considered geographic accessibility within the planning area in determining which applicant should be approved, without the applicants having to demonstrate that the proposed sites are geographically underserved areas. NHC takes issue with Holmes/VHA's data on bed availability in the southern and central portions of the county. NHC maintains that its central location better serves the entire county. NHC's expert also criticized the methodology used by Holmes/VHA for demonstrating need in the southern area. The comparison of existing beds to population, shows a lack of county-wide parity, but not necessarily need. Other factors related to the need for nursing homes were not presented, such as poverty, migration, mortality and occupancy rates. In addition, NHC's expert questioned Holmes/VHA's experts calculations of bed- to-population ratios. The ratios arguably were skewed by using beds for Wuesthoff Hospital Progressive Care in the central area data, but including the population of the zip code in which Wuesthoff is located in the southern area. Holmes/VHA noted that the majority of the population in the zip code is in the southern area. Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - past and proposed Medicaid/indigent care Holmes/VHA's expert criticized NHC because two of its facilities, Merritt Island and Stuart, have been below the subdistrict average for Medicaid occupancy. For 3 six month periods during the last 4 years, they also were below their CON Medicaid commitments. One other NHC facility, in Hudson, has been below the subdistrict average, but significantly above its CON condition. NHC claims that it treats its Medicaid condition as a minimum, while Holmes/VHA uses its conditions as an artificial ceiling or maximum. Subsection 408.035(1)(e),(1)(o) - cooperative or shared health care resources; continuum of care Holmes/VHA has established linkages to its various related companies to provide cooperative care and shared resources. Palm Bay Nursing Center would enhance the multi-level care provided by the Holmes Enterprises group and provide another integral step in the continuum, particularly in rehabilitative therapies. NHC, however, as an existing provider, is part of a well-established network of health care providers in the community. NHC has also purchased land to build an adult congregate living facility near or adjacent to NHC-Merritt Island. Subsections 408.039(2)(a), (2)(c) and 408.037(4), and Rule 59C-1.008, Florida Administrative Code - capital projects list; board resolutions; and impacts on costs AHCA interprets the requirements for the submission of a board resolution to allow an original resolution accompanying the letter of intent to be treated as a part of the complete application. A board resolution with an application, which the statute requires "if applicable," applies to expedited applications for which a letter of intent would not have been received, according to AHCA. NHC submitted an original board resolution with its letter of intent, and a copy of that resolution with its application for CON 7527. The authority of Holmes/VHA's management committee to authorize the construction of a new nursing home, and the authority to operate a nursing home outside the city of Melbourne was questioned. The testimony that the joint venture agreement authorizes the management committee to adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of CON 7539 was not refuted. In addition, the testimony that operations are restricted to the "Melbourne area" as opposed to some more specifically defined geographic area was not refuted. Repeatedly, witnesses described Palm Bay, although a separate municipal corporation, as a suburb of Melbourne. Holmes/VHA claims that NHC failed to disclose certain capital equipment leases from its schedule 2 list of capital projects and failed to evaluate the impact on costs, as required by subsection 408.037, Florida Statutes. In NHC's annual reports, the costs of capital equipment leases were $204,000 in 1991, $43,000 in 1992, and $88,000 in 1993. In fact, the NHC witness who prepared schedule 2 included a total of $21,653,468 for the category "Renovations (Including Furnishings and Equipment) 1994", taken from the capital expenditure budget of each NHC facility. The listing is consistent with the footnote indicating the budget items "are subject to final approval and cash reserves availability." In addition, $100,000 is also listed under "Other Capitalization" for equipment, for which a footnote explains "[a]mount included in an abundance of caution to cover any items unknown at the time of filing." NHC, according to Holmes/VHA, also failed to provide a detailed evaluation of the impact of the proposed project on the cost of other services it provides, as required by subsection 408.037(2)(c), Florida Statutes. NHC merely states that the impact is "nominal" and "negligible." NHC satisfied the impact analysis requirement in the notes to schedule 2 and in schedules 11, 13 and 14 of the application. The incremental pro forma analysis of the effect on costs with or without the proposed project, and projected financial ratios and costs, give detail support for the statements in the application. Assuming, arguendo, that Holmes/VHA omitted $50,000 in capital costs from schedule 2, the omission is not material or fatal to consideration of the application on the merits. Holmes/VHA's financial expert testified that $50,000 is less than on-half of one percent of the total project expenditures listed on schedule 2 and is, therefore, immaterial. As AHCA concedes, Holmes/VHA and NHC have the resources to establish their projects and to provide the services described in their applications. On balance, the demand for additional beds, the enhancement of a superior, existing physical plant and the expansion of specialized services at NHC outweigh the community linkages demonstrated by Holmes/VHA and the desirability of county- wide parity in the distribution of nursing homes beds, at this time.
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 approving CON No. 7527 for the construction of an additional 60 community nursing home beds by National Healthcorp, L.P., conditioned on the provision of 60.31 percent of total patient days to Medicaid patients. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2393 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner NHC's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-18. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-18, except last phrase. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 6 and 10. 6-17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30 and conclusions of law. 18-21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. 23-30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 and 31. Rejected in Findings of Fact 6 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 1. 35-36. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 21-25. 37-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 39. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 20, 23 and 34. 40. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 23. 41. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. 42. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 43. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 44-45. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 46-48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 25. 49. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25. 50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 51. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. 52. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. 56-57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27 and 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19, 26 and 27. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26-27 and conclusions of law. Rejected in Findings of Fact 26-27 and conclusions of law. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 68-77. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9, 10 and 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 84-88. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10, and 20. 89-95. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, and 20. 96-97. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10, 15, and 21. 98-100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21-22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, 16 and 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8 and 15. 104-108. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 14. 109-110. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 4. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 34. 113-117. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11, 18 and 34. 120-123. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 11. 124-130. Rejected in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 18. 131. Accepted in Findings of Fact 32. 132. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 133. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 134-136. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 137. Rejected first sentence in Findings of Fact 24. 138. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 139. Rejected as subordinate to Finding of Fact 24. 140. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 24. 141-150. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 151. Rejected as not entirely supported by the record. 152-162. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 163-172. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 28. 173-175. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 176. Rejected conclusion that "NHC better . . ." in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. 177. Accepted. Petitioner Holmes/VHA's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3.. 4. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 4. 5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 6-8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10 and 31. 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30 and 31. 12. Rejected in Findings of Fact 30 and 32. 13. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 30 and conclusions of law 37-40. 14. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 31. 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 17-21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 22. Accepted, except last sentence, in Findings of Fact 27. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 25. Conclusions cannot be reached in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. 26-29. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 30-36. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11, 12, 33 and 34. Rejected in Findings of Fact 18 and 34. Rejected in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40. Rejected in Findings of Fact 16. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 18. 43-44. Rejected in Findings of Fact 18. 45-48. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 18. 49-51. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3-10 and 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. 58-59. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 63-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Accepted, except conclusion, in Findings of Fact 21 and 28. Rejected conclusions in Findings of Fact 20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. 70-71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 72. Accepted as corrected in Findings of Fact 25. 73-74. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10 and 21. 77-78. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. 81-89. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10, 21 and 29. 90-96. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. 97. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 98. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21. 99. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. 101. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 102. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. 103-105. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 106. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 10 and 21. 107-108. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 109. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4. 110-112. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 25. 113-115. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 116-118. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. 119-136. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. 137. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. 138-143. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11 and 24. COPIES FURNISHED: P. Timothy Howard, Esquire John F. Gilroy, Esquire Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Darrell White, Esquire Charles Stampelos, Esquire MCFARLAIN, WILEY, CASSEDY & JONES, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Tower 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert M. Simmons, Esquire 5050 Poplar Avenue 18th Floor Memphis, Tennessee 38157 Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Frank P. Rainer, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, et al. Monroe-Park Tower, Suite 815 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency For Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue for resolution is which of two competing certificate of need applications should be approved for nursing home beds in District 6, Subdistrict 2, Manatee County, Florida. Other ancillary issues are whether Mediplex timely filed a letter of intent to apply for a certificate of need, whether Mediplex impermissibly amended its application at hearing and whether Beverly impermissibly is proposing two projects (delicensure and creation of beds in addition to those in the fixed need pool).
Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is responsible for the administration of the certificate of need (CON) program pursuant to section 408.034, Florida Statutes. Vantage Healthcare Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc., which is itself a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Beverly Enterprises, Inc. is the largest provider of nursing home services in the nation. Vantage operates four nursing homes in the State of Florida, and has no facilities outside of Florida. The Beverly family of nursing homes comprises 67 nursing homes in Florida, with just under 8,000 nursing home beds. Mediplex is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mediplex Group which, in turn, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sun Healthcare Group. The Sun Healthcare Group operates primarily in the northeast U.S. (Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) and the west (Denver and Seattle). Mediplex operates two facilities in Florida, one in Bradenton and another in West Palm Beach. Mediplex's Bradenton facility, the applicant in this proceeding, is an existing 120-bed nursing home located at 5627 Ninth Street East, Bradenton, Florida. Stipulations of the Parties Through their joint prehearing stipulation the parties stipulated to the following matters: Applications and Omission Responses may be placed into evidence without first having been proven, but the contents of those documents shall be hearsay, except as otherwise provided herein, until properly corroborated. Audited financial statements contained in the Application and/or Omissions Responses shall be admissible into evidence without a foundation witness and the information contained therein shall not be considered hearsay. Each of the applicants has access to sufficient financial resources to be able to construct and implement its proposed project; i.e. the proposals are financially feasible in the short term. Each of the applicants' dietary plans is adequate, meets regulatory requirements and does not afford the basis for comparative review between the parties. Each applicants' Letter of Intent, Corporate Resolution, newspaper publication and Schedule 2 are adequate and correct in form and content and comply with applicable statutes and rules except to the extent disputed by Mediplex in its Motion for Summary Recommended Order Against Vantage Healthcare Corporation. Newspaper publications were timely made by all applicants. Applications and Omissions Responses of all parties were timely filed. It remains at issue whether all Letters of Intent were timely filed. The fixed bed need pool available to applicants in this application cycle was 63 beds. Like and existing health care facilities in District 6 generally provide quality care, are efficient, and are adequate. However, up to 63 additional nursing home beds are required because the high utilization of the like and existing services renders them, or will render them, unavailable and inaccessible. By entering into this stipulation, the parties are not stating that the particular facilities owned or operated by Beverly Enterprises, Inc., or any of its subsidiaries, or Mediplex, necessarily provide quality care, are efficient or are adequate and reserve the right to present evidence on these issues related to these facilities. There are no appropriate alternatives to nursing care for those persons who, because of physical and/or social conditions require nursing care. No applicant is proposing joint, shared or cooperative health care resources. Section 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes, is not applicable to this proceeding. No applicant is proposing special equipment or services not accessible in adjoining areas. Mediplex, however, currently provides special equipment and/or services which may not be available in adjoining service areas. Section 408.035(1)(f) is not applicable to this proceeding. No applicant is proposing to provide a substantial portion of their proposed services to persons who do not reside in the service area. Mediplex, however, currently serves a number of patients from outside the service area in its existing facility. Section 408.035(1)(k) is not applicable to this proceeding. Existing inpatient facilities generally are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. By so stipulating, the parties are not stating that existing facilities, particularly those operated by Beverly Enterprises, Inc., or its subsidiaries, and the Mediplex cannot be used in a more appropriate or efficient manner or are currently being used appropriately or efficiently. Patients in Manatee County will experience serious problems in accessing nursing care without the addition of additional nursing care beds. Each of the parties can hire the staff listed on Schedule 6 of their applications at the salary listed therein. The parties are not stipulating that the levels of staffing proposed on Schedule 6 are adequate. Additionally, at hearing, the parties stipulated to the following matters: Neither party has ever turned in a certificate of need for failure to complete a project. Neither Mediplex nor any Beverly entity has ever failed to obtain financing for an approved project. The proposed projects are consistent with the strategic development plans of the respective applications. Both applicants have true and accurate certification pages and corporate resolutions in their applications. Both applicants will go forth with the conditions which are stated in their applications. The applicants' cover pages are true and accurate. Each applicant paid an appropriate application fee to AHCA. Each applicant has operated in Florida for the years reflected in its application. Each applicant's project development and financing costs as reflected in its application is reasonable and accurate. Each applicant's proposed project completion forecast is reasonable. Beverly's Proposal Beverly is proposing to construct a 105-bed freestanding nursing home in Manatee County to be comprised of 63 beds from the fixed need pool and 42 beds to be delicensed from a related facility, the Manatee Health Care and Rehabilitation Center. The proposed facility will consist of 53,310 gross square feet and have a total project cost of $7,363,760. Beverly's facility will be conditioned upon providing 50.2 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients, having a 20-bed Medicare-certified skilled nursing and subacute care unit with the capacity to treat ventilator patients, having an adult day care program, providing respite care, and treating persons with associated mental health disorders, Alzheimer's disease, and persons who are HIV positive. Beverly will also contribute $10,000 to a gerontological research fund at Florida A & M University upon approval of this project. Manatee Health Care and Rehabilitation Center is a three-story, 147-bed nursing home in Bradenton, Florida. It was constructed approximately thirty years ago and contains 3-bed wards on the second and third floors. Because of its age, the Manatee Health Care and Rehabilitation Center has very limited space for the provision of therapy. Three-bed wards are not considered state of the art and are difficult to manage. Residents prefer private and semiprivate rooms to three-bed wards. Gender separation and smoking preferences are much harder to accommodate with larger wards. Infection control problems are increased with larger residential units. In spite of these drawbacks, the facility has a superior license and enjoys continuous occupancy of over 90 percent. Beverly has filed a certificate of need application to delicense 42 beds at Manatee Health Care and Rehabilitation Center. Those 42 beds would be used in conjunction with 63 beds from the available fixed need pool to allow for the construction of a new Beverly facility at an undetermined site in Manatee County. If both applications are approved (the one at issue and the delicensure application), Beverly will remove all patient rooms from the first floor of Manatee Health Care and convert that space to therapy treatment rooms and office space. The additional therapy space will allow Beverly to purchase and install additional therapy equipment. All of the three-bed wards on the second floor of Manatee Health Care will be converted to semiprivate rooms. Beverly's proposal is intended to benefit residents at the proposed facility and the residents at the existing Manatee Health Care and Rehabilitation Center. Beverly's proposed new facility is designed in a "reverse T" configuration to minimize the distance from the resident rooms to the nursing stations, with each nursing station having direct visual control over all patient rooms on that station. It will have 36 semiprivate rooms and 33 private rooms. Designed to minimize an institutional effect and provide for a home-like setting, the proposal includes two large day rooms, four activity rooms, and five enclosed courtyards. The central courtyard has a solarium/greenhouse and a screened gazebo. Separate areas are designated for the adult day care program and the Alzheimer's treatment unit. There are a large occupational and physical therapy gym and dedicated treatment areas for speech therapy and activities of daily living therapy. There is also a central ambulation court for use in physical rehabilitation. In a prehearing motion for summary recommended order and throughout the proceeding, Mediplex has contended that Beverly's application for delicensure and approval of new beds is technically defective as the proposal described in its letter of intent is really two projects, rather than the required single project. The letter of intent describes the new facility to be comprised of 63 beds from the fixed need pool and 42 beds to be delicensed from the existing facility. The new facility is the subject of CON application number 7938, at issue in this proceeding. On January 20, 1995, subsequent to the application omissions filing deadline for CON number 7938, Beverly filed its application for CON number 7998 for delicensure of 42 beds at the existing facility. This latter application was denied and the proceeding to challenge that proposed agency action is in abeyance pending the outcome here. (Vantage Healthcare Corporation v. Agency for Health Care Administration; DOAH case number 95-3891) Beverly will not delicense its beds at the existing facility unless its application for CON for the new facility is approved. The two applications are essential elements in a single expansion scheme. Beverly made full disclosure of its intent to AHCA and confirmed with AHCA the process it should follow to present its proposal within the formal regulatory framework. The process of creating a new facility with beds from the fixed need pool combined with delicensed beds from a separate facility has been approved by AHCA in the recent past in Clearwater Land Company v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 17 FALR 3817 (AHCA 1995, DOAH Case No. 94-2404/94-2972). In the Clearwater case, however, the project involved delicensure of the entire old facility, a distinction that is significant with regard to financial projections as discussed below, but a distinction that is not fatal to the single project issue. Mediplex's Proposal Mediplex proposes a 60-bed addition to its existing 120-bed facility, for an additional 14,984 gross square feet at the cost of $2,019,972. Mediplex's Manatee Springs Nursing Center is located in the southeastern corner of Manatee County, in close proximity to hospitals in Manatee County and Sarasota. Eighty beds are active rehabilitation, sometimes called "subacute" beds, which are Medicare certified. Forty beds are long term, less intensive care beds. Mediplex has a superior license and is accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Facilities (JCAHO). These accreditations are evidence of extraordinary commitment to quality of care. The 60 beds sought by Mediplex are intended to be long term care beds, as the census in the facility's existing long term beds remains stable, with a 98 to 100 percent occupancy on a day to day basis. Occupancy of the subacute care beds fluctuates, but generally more of these beds are empty. Mediplex provides amenities that contribute to a home-like non- institutional environment, with design features to promote the privacy, individual choice and comfort of its residents. Design and location of the proposed addition will facilitate access to all services and amenities offered at the existing facility. Mediplex residents, existing and future, will benefit from staffing levels and ancillary services that are unique in a nursing home setting. The facility has three full-time physicians, including the medical director, a full- time psychologist, case managers and numerous contract therapists. Mediplex's Letter of Intent On October 31, 1994, Beverly filed its letter of intent for its proposed 105-bed facility. Consequently, pursuant to Rule 59C-1.008, Florida Administrative Code, a grace period was triggered for the filing of additional letters of intent. The deadline for the filing of grace period letters of intent was November 16, 1994. On November 15, 1994, Mediplex delivered its letter of intent to an overnight carrier, Airborne Express, for guaranteed delivery the following day to AHCA in Tallahassee and to the Local Health Council, the Health Council of West Florida, Inc. On November 17, 1994, AHCA advised Mediplex that AHCA and the local health council did not receive Mediplex's letter of intent until that same day. AHCA also advised that it would accept the letter of intent if Mediplex could obtain correspondence from the overnight carrier explaining that the late delivery was the fault of the overnight carrier and not the fault of Mediplex. Despite the fact that Mediplex's letter of intent was delivered to AHCA and the local health council one day following the grace period letter of intent deadline, AHCA determined that the letter of intent should be accepted because the late delivery was the fault of the overnight carrier and Mediplex had delivered the letter of intent in a timely manner to the overnight carrier. AHCA has previously accepted items from certificate of need applicants which were delivered one day late when late delivery was the result of an overnight carrier failing to follow through on its guarantee. This policy has developed in the eleven years that Liz Dudek, Bureau Chief for Certificate of Need and Budget Review, has been involved in the program. It is common and reasonable for applicants to rely on next-day delivery services and it is reasonable for AHCA to accept filings in the unusual event that the carrier fails to timely deliver through no fault of the applicant. Relevant Preferences in the Local Health Plan The August 1994 CON Allocation Factors Report for District VI identifies three allocation factors that are relevant to these nursing home applicants. Both Beverly's and Mediplex's proposals include agreed conditions for Medicaid utilization that meet or exceed the percentage of persons below 125 percent of the federal poverty level (15 percent in Manatee County) and the average number of Medicaid residents in existing nursing homes in the county (50.09 percent). Beverly commits to 50.2 percent for its new facility and is already achieving 72.4 percent at the facility from whence 42 beds will be derived. Although its commitment meets the criteria, it arguably represents a decline from Beverly's current outstanding Medicaid service. Uncertainty regarding the siting of the new facility affects Beverly's assurance that 50.2 percent is merely a minimum and that it expects to achieve a higher percentage. Depending upon the geographical location of the new facility in Manatee County, it may or may not attract the same level of Medicaid residents as now benefit from the existing facility. Mediplex commits to serve 51 percent Medicaid residents in 100 long- term beds. The second allocation factor in the District VI Plan relates to proposals of specialized services (for example, adult day care) to meet identified unmet needs. Both applicants propose an array of services. Beverly's application includes specific plans for adult day care; Mediplex's application does not. Both applicants are entitled to the preference in the third allocation factor, regarding demonstrated intent to serve HIV infected persons. Beverly has identified 3,400 patient days of nursing home care to patients with HIV/AIDS in all of its Florida facilities in 1994 and projected a substantial increase in 1995. Mediplex has served, and will continue to serve these patients, but does not maintain statistics on patient days. Mediplex's unique staffing, specifically including its full-time physicians, makes it ideally prepared to care for terminally ill patients. The State Health Plan The first allocation factor under the State Health Plan provides a preference to applicants proposing to locate nursing homes in subdistricts with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. The occupancy rate in Manatee County for the applicable planning horizon is 94.63 percent, and both Beverly and Mediplex qualify for this preference. The second State Health Plan factor, regarding service to Medicaid residents, is the same as the local health plan factor discussed in paragraphs 23 - 25, above, and both applicants qualify. Preference under the third factor is given to applicants proposing to provide specialized services to special needs residents, including AIDS and Alzheimer's residents and the mentally ill. Beverly has agreed to condition approval of its application on services to these special needs persons. Mediplex does not include such agreement in its application, but provides the services and plainly has the will and the means to continue to do so. State Health Plan allocation factor four is similar to the local plan allocation factor discussed in paragraph 26, above. Beverly describes and intends to implement a specific program for adult day care and includes a dedicated unit in its architectural plans; it also conditions award of its CON on the provision of respite care. Mediplex's application does not address day care, but states that the addition of 60 long term care beds will make it possible to implement a respite care program. Its existing 40 long term beds have been fully utilized, with no space to accommodate respite care which by its nature is short term. Allocation factor five gives preference to applicants proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum resident comfort and quality of care. Both applicants are entitled to this preference with outstanding designs and programs. Beverly's new facility will provide more space per patient overall than Mediplex's addition, but the room sizes are approximately equal. During the hearing, issues were raised with regard to whether portions of both Mediplex's and Beverly's designs met the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Credible conclusions by experts for both parties established that the apparent deficiencies were in the rough designs and that ADA requirements could be met by both facilities within their proposed spaces and costs. Allocation factor six provides a preference for proposals of innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven to be effective in enhancing residents' physical and mental functioning level. Beverly proposes, and Mediplex already provides, a full range of high quality therapy services. While these services may be more extensive or intensive than those offered in other older nursing homes, the services are not novel or "innovative." Further, Mediplex's application for 60 new long term care beds does not contemplate intensive therapeutic services to the residents of those new beds, which services are already being provided in its existing program. Beverly's proposal more effectively advances the goal reflected in this factor since its new facility would substantially improve the rehabilitation services it now offers. Preference in allocation factor seven is given to applicants proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. Exceptions are considered for facilities proposing to serve upper income residents. Mediplex has now, and will have in the projected future, the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. It failed to prove at hearing its statement in its CON application that approval of the 60-bed addition would result in a lower Medicaid per diem rate for the facility. Beverly's current and projected rates are substantially lower than Mediplex's. Beverly argues that Mediplex impermissibly amended its application at hearing when its expert testified that the projected Medicaid rate is $126 per day. While the financial data, as well as other parts of the application, included careless errors, the testimony explained the data provided and did not change the revenue and expense projections on Mediplex's Schedule Eleven. Allocation factor eight provides a preference to applicants with a history of superior resident care in existing facilities, considering, among other circumstances, the current licensure ratings of facilities located in Florida. Both applicants have a history of providing superior resident care. Approximately 75 percent of Beverly's many facilities in Florida enjoy a superior license rating. Of the four facilities owned by wholly-owned subsidiary, Vantage, two are superior, including the facility from which beds will be delicensed. Deficiencies have been quickly corrected when identified. Mediplex has consistently maintained a superior rating at the facility it seeks to expand. Its ability to withstand rigorous accreditation scrutiny by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations and by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, and its designation as a Head Injury Rehabilitation Care Center by the Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation further attest to its unique quality. State Health Plan allocation factor nine gives preference to applicants proposing staffing levels which exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Preference is also given in allocation factor ten to applicants who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet residents' needs including social services, recreation, nutrition, physical and specialized therapy, mental health and spiritual guidance. Beverly and Mediplex both clearly are entitled to these preferences as they both propose staffing levels which exceed the minimum standards of the agency's administrative rules. Both describe a multidisciplinary approach in serving residents; both employ or will contract with a full array of health care and geriatric care professionals. Entitlement by both applicants to the preference in allocation factor eleven is similarly uncontested. This preference relates to a respect for residents' rights and privacy and well-designed quality assurance and discharge plans. State Health Plan allocation factor twelve gives preference to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs than the average costs in nursing homes in the district. Only Beverly achieves this. The average administrative cost per patient day in District VI in 1993 was $24.74, and the average patient care cost per day was $47.48. To arrive at a reasonable comparison, the agency applies a five percent per year inflation factor through the applicants' second year of operation (here, 1998). This results in mid-year 1998 average patient care costs of $60.60 per day and administrative costs of $31.56 per day. For the target year Beverly proposes $22.27 administrative costs and $67.72 patient care costs. Mediplex's projected resident care cost of $118.43 and administrative cost of $59.73, per day, are both almost twice the district averages. As described by Mediplex's consultant, these costs are reflective of the high level of patient care provided in its facility. Approval of the additional 60 long term care beds, which beds will ordinarily generate less costs, will spread the subacute beds' costs over a wider base, thereby benefiting those patients. The high level of care will also be available to the long term care patients. Balancing Criteria: Need and Financial Feasibility As reflected above, there is little to recommend one application over the other when the criteria in the local and state health plans are considered. Beverly's new physical plant is preferable and its projected Medicaid rate and administrative costs (but patient costs, as well) are lower. Mediplex, however, enjoys an impeccable reputation for quality of care and provides the unique staffing to insure that its high level and quality of care are maintained. Both applicants reasonably propose to meet the identified for additional community nursing home beds in Manatee County, Florida. There is a difference in how each proposes to meet that need. Beverly suggests there is a need for subacute care beds and proposes to provide twenty such beds in its new facility. It is undisputed that patients are being discharged from acute care hospitals "quicker and sicker" and they sometimes require "step-down" or subacute level of care before returning to their homes or long term living arrangements. There is a trend in nursing homes to staff and equip facilities to meet this need. Beverly projected the need for additional subacute beds in Manatee County based on a flawed analysis of existing inventory. It considered only fifteen of Mediplex's eighty subacute beds and failed to include subacute beds recently approved in two hospitals in Manatee County, Blake and Manatee Memorial. These hospitals, without their own subacute beds, would be actively referring patients to community nursing homes with subacute care capability. There is no established definition of "subacute" and consequently no clear basis to establish an inventory of those beds in existing facilities. The facilities themselves define and identify them based on the acuity of services provided. A basic precursory step to establishing a subacute care bed is obtaining Medicare certification for that bed. There are approximately 400 Medicare-certified beds in Manatee County. Although subacute care services may not be currently provided in each of those 400 beds, their Medicare certification provides the potential for such services. There is an intuitive presumption of need for adult day care services, respite care services, services to Alzheimer's and HIV/AIDS patients, all services firmly committed to by Beverly. The state and local health plans address that need generally with the preferences described above. In this proceeding, however, no empirical data was presented to justify this basis for favoring Beverly's application over Mediplex's. It is not known, for example, whether the services are already being provided in other facilities or through alternative programs less costly than nursing homes. Mediplex established that its proposal for long term care beds more effectively meets existing need in Manatee County. Mediplex's proposal is also substantially less costly: approximately $2 million versus Beverly's $7 million, for the net addition of approximately the same number of beds. It is reasonable to expect that the $5 million difference will impact the system at some point in time when the investment is recouped either from government reimbursement systems or from the total charge structure. In reality, Beverly's project is more than $7 million when $442,000 is added for the delicensure application. And that delicensure process appears to cast a cloud on the validity of Beverly's financial feasibility projections. The projections contemplate a net loss ($42,184) for the first year's operation of the new 105-bed facility, and net income of $211,779 for the second year of operations. Standing alone, these are reasonable and suggest the long term financial feasibility of the new facility. The projections do not reflect the effect of delicensure of the beds in the existing facility, however. The projections related to the existing facility are found in the delicensure application, reviewed and analyzed in CON application number 7998. After delicensure, the existing facility will still generate a smaller, but positive net income. Both facilities will make money, but not as much as the existing facility without delicensure. This underscores the concern that somewhere in the system the $7.5 million investment will be recouped. That is, it is not reasonable to expect that $7.5 million is being spent to make less profit than would have been made without the investment. It is easier to establish the long term financial feasibility of Mediplex's project. It is an existing facility with robust financial performance and reasonable projections in the future. On balance, the Mediplex proposal better fulfills the statutory and regulatory criteria for a certificate of need.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the agency enter its final order awarding CON number 7939 to Mediplex (Manatee Springs Nursing Center, Incorporated). RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY W. CLARK, 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 22nd day of January, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Beverly's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-3. Adopted in paragraphs 1 - 3, respectively. 4. Adopted in paragraph 6. 5&6. Adopted in paragraph 9. Addressed generally in Paragraphs 33 and 34. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraphs 10 - 12. Adopted in paragraphs 13 and 25. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraphs 23 - 25. Adopted in substance in paragraph 26. 16&17. Rejected as unnecessary. 18&19. Adopted in paragraph 27, except for finding of "greater commitment", which is unsubstantiated or unsupported argument. 20&21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 29. 24-25. Adopted in paragraph 30, except that Mediplex did present evidence of services to patients suffering from dementia. 26. Rejected as unsupported argument. 27-28. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 31 and 32. 29. Addressed, but rejected, in paragraphs 53 and 54. 30-34. Adopted in summary in paragraph 33. 35&36. Adopted in summary in paragraph 35. 37-39. Adopted in summary in paragraph 36. 40&41. Adopted in paragraphs 38 - 40. 42&43. Adopted in paragraphs 41 and 42. 44-46. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 44 - 46, except that the high acuity services will be available to all Mediplex residents. 47. Adopted in paragraph 4. 48-54. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in summary in paragraph 58. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 46, in summary but Beverly's own projections are suspect since construction costs will be recouped through the health care system somehow. Rejected as unnecessary. See paragraph 58, above. The "no free lunch" argument has been credited. 61-70. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. 71. Rejected as argument that is unsupported by the weight of evidence. 72&73. Addressed in paragraphs 19 - 22. Addressed in paragraphs 10 - 12. Addressed in paragraphs 37 and 69, with the argument rejected. Mediplex's and AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 3. Addressed in preliminary statement. 3-5. Adopted in paragraph 11. 6. Adopted in paragraph 2. 7&8. Adopted in paragraph 12. 9-11. Addressed in preliminary statement. 12&13. Adopted in paragraphs 4 and 5, respectively. 14&15. Adopted in paragraph 19. 16&17. Adopted in paragraph 20. 18. Adopted in paragraph 21. 19&20. Adopted in paragraph 22. 21-42. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 49 - 52 and 55. 43-49. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 56 - 58. 50-108. The findings of unusually high quality of care and level of services at Mediplex's existing facility are accepted generally and are adopted in summary in paragraphs 15 - 18, 35, 40, 42, 43 and 46. 109-115. Adopted generally in paragraph 7 (final sentence). 116-122. Rejected as unnecessary. 123-128. Rejected as argument that is unsubstantiated or unsupported (that Beverly's Medicaid utilization will drop), although the undetermined site may affect the utilization as found in paragraph 24. 129-136. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (as to larger rooms); adopted in substance in paragraph 34 (as to ADA compliance). Adopted in paragraph 27. 143&144. Rejected as unnecessary or cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in paragraph 4. 147-186. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 37, 56 and 59. 187-194. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire Jay Adams, Esquire BROAD & CASSEL Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David C. Ashburn, Esquire Michael Cherniga, Esquire GREENBERG, TRAURIG, HOFFMAN, LIPOFF, ROSEN AND QUENTEL Post Office Box 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James H. Peterson Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether the application of Petitioner, University Medical Park, for a certificate of need to construct a 130-bed acute care hospital in northern Hillsborough County, Florida should be approved. The factual issues are whether a need exists for the proposed facility under the Department's need rule and, if not, are there any special circumstances which would demonstrate the reasonableness and appropriateness of the application notwithstanding lack of need. The petitioner, while not agreeing with the methodology, conceded that under the DHRS rule as applied there is no need because there is an excess of acute care beds projected for 1989, the applicable planning horizon. The only real factual issue is whether there are any special circumstances which warrant issuance of a CON. The parties filed post-hearing findings of fact and conclusions of law by March 18, 1985, which were read and considered. Many of those proposals are incorporated in the following findings. As indicated some were irrelevant, however, those not included on pertinent issues were rejected because the more credible evidence precluded the proposed finding. Having heard the testimony and carefully considered the Proposed Findings of Fact, there is no evidence which would demonstrate the reasonableness and appropriateness of the application. It is recommended that the application be denied.
Findings Of Fact General Petitioner is a limited partnership composed almost entirely of physicians, including obstetricians/gynecologists (OB/GYN) and specialists providing ancillary care, who practice in the metropolitan Tampa area. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 103-104). Petitioner's managing general partner is Dr. Robert Withers, a doctor specializing in OB/GYN who has practiced in Hillsborough County for over thirty years. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 24- 26, 28-29.) Dr. Withers was a prime moving force in the founding, planning and development of University Community Hospital and Women's Hospital. (Tr. Vo1. 1, pp. 26-28, 73; Vol. 4, pp. 547-548.) Petitioner seeks to construct in DHRS District VI a specialty "women's" hospital providing obstetrical and gynecological services at the corner of 30th Street and Fletcher Avenue in northern Hillsborough County and having 130 acute care beds. 1/ (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 34, 74-75, Vol. 5, pp. 678-679, Northside Ex.-1, pp. 1-2, Ex.-4A.) The proposed hospital is to have 60 obstetrical, 66 gynecological and 4 intensive care beds. (Tr. Vol. 8, P. 1297, Northside Ex.-1 Table 17, Ex.-B.) DHRS District VI is composed of Hardy, Highlands, Hillsborough, Manatee and Polk counties. Each county is designated a subdistrict by the Local Health Council of District VI. Pasco County, immediately north of Hillsborough, is located in DHRS District V and is divided into two subdistricts, east Pasco and west Pasco. If built, Northside would be located in the immediate vicinity of University Community Hospital (UCH) in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Less than 5 percent of the total surgical procedures at UCH are gynecologically related, and little or no nonsurgical gynecological procedures arc performed there. (Tr. Vol. 4, p. 550.) There is no obstetrical practice at UCH, although it has the capacity to handle obstetric emergencies. The primary existing providers of obstetrical services to the metropolitan Tampa area are Tampa General Hospital (TGH) and Women's Hospital (Women's). (Tr. Vol. 1, p. 79, Northside Ex.-4, Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1074-1075.) TGH is a large public hospital located on Davis Islands near downtown Tampa. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 47-48, Vol. 8, pp. 1356, 1358.) TGH currently has a 35 bed obstetrical unit, but is currently expanding to 70 beds as part of a major renovation and expansion program scheduled for completion in late 1985. (Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1049, 1095, Vol. 8, pp. 1367-1368, Vol. 10, P. 1674, Northside Ex.- 2, P. 3.) In recent years, the overwhelming majority of Tampa General's admissions in obstetrics at TGH have been indigent patients. (Tr. Vol. 1, P. 61, Vol. 8, pp. 1375- 1379; Vol. 9, P. 1451; TGH Ex.-3.) Tampa General's internal records reflect that it had approximately 2,100 patient days of gynecological care compared with over 38,000 patient days in combined obstetrical care during a recent eleven month period. (TGH Ex.-3..) Women's is a 192 bed "specialty" hospital located in the west central portion of the City of Tampa near Tampa Stadium. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 63-64, 66-67; Vol. 10 P. 1564; Northside Ex.-4.) Women's Hospital serves primarily private-pay female patients. (Vol. 1, pp. 79, 88-89; Vol. 6, pp. 892-893.) Humana Brandon Hospital, which has a 16 bed obstetrics unit, and South Florida Baptist Hospital in Plant City, which has 12 obstetric beds, served eastern Hillsborough County. (Tr. Vol. 7, P. 1075; Northside Ex.-2, P. 3; Northside Ex.-4 and Tr. Vol. 1, P. 79; Northside Ex.-4.) There are two hospitals in eastern Pasco County, which is in DHRS District V. Humana Hospital, Pasco and East Pasco Medical Center, each of which has a six bed obstetric unit. Both hospitals are currently located in Dade City, but the East Pasco Medical Center will soon move to Zephyrhills and expand its obstetrics unit to nine beds. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 108- 109; Tr. Vol. 7, P. 1075; Vol. 8, pp. 1278-1281; Northside Ex.-4.) There are no hospitals in central Pasco County, DHRS District V. Residents of that area currently travel south to greater Tampa, or, to a lesser extent, go to Dade City for their medical services. (Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 266-267, 271-272; Vol. 7, p. 1038.) Bed Need There are currently 6,564 existing and CON approved acute care beds in DHRS District VI, compared with an overall bed need of 5,718 acute care beds. An excess of 846 beds exist in District VI in 1989, the year which is the planning horizon use by DHRS in determining bed need applicable to this application. (Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1046-1047, 1163, 1165-66; DHRS Ex.-1.) There is a net need for five acute care beds in DHRS District V according to the Department's methodology. (Tr. Yolk. 7, pp. 1066, 1165; DHRS Ex.-1.) The figures for District VI include Carrollwood Community Hospital which is an osteopathic facility which does not provide obstetrical services. (Tr. Vol. 1, P. 158; Vol. 7, p. 1138; Vol. 8, P. 1291.) However, these osteopathic beds are considered as meeting the total bed need when computing a11 opathic bed need. DHRS has not formally adopted the subdistrict designations of allocations as part of its rules. (Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1017-1017, 1019; Vol. 8, pp. 1176, 1187.) Consideration of the adoption of subdistricts by the Local Health Council is irrelevant to this application. 2/ Areas of Consideration in Addition to Bed Need Availability Availability is deemed the number of beds available. As set forth above, there is an excess of beds. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1192.) Tampa General Hospital and Humana Women's Hospital offer all of the OB related services which UMP proposes to offer in its application. These and a number of other hospitals to include UCH, offer all of the GYN related services proposed by Northside. University Community Hospital is located 300 yards away from the proposed site of Northside. UCH is fully equipped to perform virtually any kind of GYN/OB procedure. Humana and UCH take indigent patients only on an emergency basis, as would the proposed facility. GYN/OB services are accessible to all residents of Hillsborough County regardless of their ability to pay for such services at TGH. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1469; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1596; Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 582; Hyatt, TGH Exhibit 19, P. 21.) Utilization Utilization is impacted by the number of available beds and the number of days patients stay in the hospital. According to the most recent Local Health Council hospital utilization statistics, the acute care occupancy rate for 14 acute care hospitals in Hillsborough County for the most recent six months was 65 percent. This occupancy rate is based on licensed beds and does not include CON approved beds which are not yet on line. This occupancy rate is substantially below the optimal occupancies determined by DHRS in the Rule. (DHRS Exhibit 4; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1069.) Utilization of obstetric beds is higher than general acute care beds; however, the rules do not differentiate between general and obstetric beds. 3/ Five Hillsborough County hospitals, Humana Women's, St. Joseph's, Tampa General, Humana Brandon, and South Florida Baptist, offer obstetric services. The most recent Local Health Council utilization reports indicate that overall OB occupancy for these facilities was 82 percent for the past 6 months. However, these computations do not include the 35 C0N-approved beds which will soon be available at Tampa General Hospital. (DHRS Exhibit 4). There will be a substantial excess of acute care beds to include OB beds in Hillsborough County for the foreseeable future. (Baehr, Tr.w Vol. X, pp. 1568, 1594, 1597.) The substantial excess of beds projected will result in lower utilization. In addition to excess beds, utilization is lowered by shorter hospital stays by patients. The nationwide average length of stay has been reduced by almost two days for Medicare patients and one day for all other patients due to a variety of contributing circumstances. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1192; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1102; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, pp. 1583-84; etc.) This dramatic decline in length of hospital stay is the result of many influences, the most prominent among which are: (1) a change in Medicare reimbursement to a system which rewards prompt discharges of patients and penalizes overutilization ("DGRs"), (2) the adaptation by private payers (insurance companies, etc.) of Medicare type reimbursement, (3) the growing availability and acceptance of alternatives to hospitalization such as ambulatory surgical centers, labor/delivery/recovery suites, etc. and (4) the growing popularity of health care insurance/delivery mechanisms such as health maintenance organizations ("HMOs"), preferred provider organizations ("PPOs"), and similar entities which offer direct or indirect financial incentives for avoiding or reducing hospital utilization. The trend toward declining hospital utilization will continue. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1192-98; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, pp. 1584-86; etc.) There has been a significant and progressive decrease in hospital stays for obstetrics over the last five years. During this time, a typical average length of stay has been reduced from three days to two and, in some instances, one day. In addition, there is a growing trend towards facilities (such as LDRs) which provide obstetrics on virtually an outpatient basis. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1456; Hyatt, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 644.) The average length of stay for GYN procedures is also decreasing. In addition, high percentage of GYN procedures are now being performed on an outpatient, as opposed to inpatient, basis. (Hyatt, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 644, etc.) The reduction in hospital stays and excess of acute care beds will lower utilization of acute care hospitals, including their OB components, enough to offset the projected population growth in Hillsborough County. The hospitals in District VI will not achieve the optimal occupancy rates for acute care beds or OB beds in particular by 1989. The 130 additional beds proposed by UMP would lower utilization further. (Paragraphs 7, 14, and 18 above; DHRS Exhibit 1, Humana Exhibit 1.) Geographic Accessibility Ninety percent of the population of Hillsborough County is within 30 minutes of an acute care hospital offering, at least, OB emergency services. TGH 20, overlay 6, shows that essentially all persons living in Hillsborough County are within 30 minutes normal driving time not only to an existing, acute care hospital, but a hospital offering OB services. Petitioner's service area is alleged to include central Pasco County. Although Pasco County is in District V, to the extent the proposed facility might serve central Pasco County, from a planning standpoint it is preferable to have that population in central Paso served by expansion of facilities closer to them. Hospitals in Tampa will become increasingly less accessible with increases in traffic volume over the years. The proposed location of the UMP hospital is across the street from an existing acute care hospital, University Community Hospital ("UCH"). (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 542.) Geographic accessibility is the same to the proposed UMP hospital and UCH. (Smith, Tr. Vol. III, P. 350; Wentzel, Tr. Vol. IV, p. 486; Peters, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1532.) UCH provides gynecological services but does not provide obstetrical services. However, UCH is capable of delivering babies in emergencies. (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, p. 563.) The gynecological services and OB capabilities at UCH are located at essentially the same location as Northside's proposed site. Geographic accessibility of OB/GYN services is not enhanced by UMP's proposed 66 medical-surgical beds. The accessibility of acute care beds, which under the rule are all that is considered, is essentially the same for UCH as for the proposed facility. As to geographic accessibility, the residents of Hillsborough and Pasco Counties now have reasonable access to acute care services, including OB services. The UMP project would not increase accessibility to these services by any significant decrease. C. Economic Accessibility Petitioner offered no competent, credible evidence that it would expand services to underserved portions of the community. Demographer Smith did not study income levels or socioeconomic data for the UMP service area. (Smith, TR. Vol. III, pp. 388, 389.) However, Mr. Margolis testified that 24 percent of Tampa General's OB patients, at least 90 percent of who are indigents, came from the UMP service area. (Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1695.) The patients proposed to be served at the Northside Hospital are not different than those already served in the community. (Withers, Tr. Vol. II, P. 344.) As a result, Northside Hospital would not increase the number of underserved patients. Availability of Health Care Alternative An increasing number of GYN procedures are being performed by hospitals on an outpatient basis and in freestanding ambulatory-surgical centers. An ambulatory-surgical center is already in operation at a location which is near the proposed UMP site. In fact, Dr. Hyatt, a UMP general partner, currently performs GYN procedures at that surgical center. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 150; Hyatt, Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 644, 646. Ambulatory surgical centers, birthing centers and similar alternative delivery systems offer alternatives to the proposed facility. Existing hospitals are moving to supply such alternatives which, with the excess beds and lower utilization, arc more than adequate to preclude the need for the UMP proposal. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1204, 1205, 1206; Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1453, 1469; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1154; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1151, 1154.) Need for Special Equipment & Services DHRS does not consider obstetrics or gynecology to be "special services" for purposes of Section 381.494(6)(c)6, Florida Statutes. In addition, the services proposed by UMP are already available in Hillsborough and Pasco Counties. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1162, 1210.) Need for Research & Educational Facilities USF currently uses Tampa General as a training facility for its OB residents. TCH offered evidence that the new OB facilities being constructed at Tampa General were designed with assistance from USF and were funded by the Florida Legislature, in part, as an educational facility. (Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1391; Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1453-1455.) The educational objectives of USF for OB residents at Tampa General are undermined by a disproportionately high indigent load. Residents need a cross section of patients. The UMP project will further detract from a well rounded OB residency program at Tampa General by causing Tampa General's OB Patient mix to remain unbalanced. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1458; Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1695.) UMP offered no evidence of arrangements to further medical research or educational needs in the community. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1213. UMP's proposed facility will not contribute to research and education in District VI. Availability of Resources Management UMP will not manage its hospital. It has not secured a management contract nor entered into any type of arrangement to insure that its proposed facility will be managed by knowledgeable and competent personnel. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, p. 142.) However, there is no alleged or demonstrated shortage of management personnel available. Availability of Funds For Capital and Operating Expenditures The matter of capital funding was a "de novo issue," i.e., evidence was presented which was in addition to different from its application. In its application, Northside stated that its project will be funded through 100 percent debt. Its principal general partner, Dr. Withers, states that this "figure is not correct." However, neither Dr. Withers nor any other Northside witness ever identified the percentage of the project, if any, which is to be funded through equity contributions except the property upon which it would be located. (UMP Exhibit 1, p. 26; Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 134.) The UMP application contained a letter from Landmark Bank of Tampa which indicates an interest on the part of that institution in providing funding to Northside in the event that its application is approved. This one and one half year year old letter falls short of a binding commitment on the part of Landmark Bank to lend UMP the necessary funds to complete and operate its project and is stale. Dr. Withers admitted that Northside had no firm commitment as of the date of the hearing to finance its facility, or any commitment to provide 1196 financing as stated in its application. (UMP Exhibit I/Exhibit Dr. Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 138.) Contribution to Education No evidence was introduced to support the assertion in the application of teaching research interaction between UMP and USF. USF presented evidence that no such interaction would occur. (Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1329.) The duplication of services and competition for patients and staff created by UMP's facility would adversely impact the health professional training programs of USF, the state's primary representative of health professional training programs in District VI. (Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1314-19; 1322-24; 1331-1336.) Financial Feasibility The pro forma statement of income and expenses for the first two years of operation (1987 and 1988) contained in the UMP application projects a small operating loss during the first year and a substantial profit by the end of the second year. These pro formas are predicated on the assumption that the facility will achieve a utilization rate of 61 percent in Year 1 and 78 percent in its second year. To achieve these projected utilization levels, Northside would have to capture a market share of 75-80 percent of all OB patient days and over 75% of all GYN patient days generated by females in its service area. (UMP, Exhibit 1; Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 145, Dacus; Tr. Vol. V, P. 750-755.) These projected market shares and resulting utilization levels are very optimistic. It is unlikely that Northside could achieve these market shares simply by making its services available to the public. More reasonable utilization assumptions for purposes of projecting financial feasibility would be 40-50 percent during the first year and 65 percent in the second year. (Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1700; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, pp. 1578, 1579, 1601.) UMP omitted the cost of the land on which its facility is to be constructed from its total project cost and thus understates the income necessary to sustain its project. Dr. Withers stated the purchase price of this land was approximately $1.5 million and it has a current market value in excess of $5 million. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, pp. 139, 140.) Dr. Withers admitted that the purchase price of the land would be included in formulating patient charges. As a matter of DHRS interpretation, the cost of land should be included as part of the capital cost of the project even if donated or leased and, as such, should be added into the pro formas. UMP's financial expert, Barbara Turner, testified that she would normally include land costs in determining financial feasibility of a project, otherwise total project costs would be understated (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 141; Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1215, 1216; Turner, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1714.) In addition, the pro formas failed to include any amount for management expenses associated with the new facility. Dr. Withers admitted UMP does not intend to manage Northside and he anticipates that the management fee would be considerably higher than the $75,000 in administrator salaries included in the application. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, pp. 143, 144.) Barbara Turner, UMP's financial expert, conceded that the reasonableness of the percent UMP pro formas is predicated on the reasonableness of its projected market share and concomitant utilization assumptions. These projections are rejected as being inconsistent with evidence presented by more credible witnesses. The UMP project, as stated in its application or as presented at hearing, is not financially feasible on the assumption Petitioner projected. VIII. Impact on Existing Facilities Approval of the UMP application would result in a harmful impact on the costs of providing OB/GYN services at existing facilities. The new facility would be utilized by patients who would otherwise utilize existing facilities, hospitals would be serving fewer patients than they are now. This would necessarily increase capital and operating costs on a per patient basis which, in turn, would necessitate increases in patient charges. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1217-1219; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1587.) Existing facilities are operating below optimal occupancy levels. See DHRS Exhibit 4. The Northside project would have an adverse financial impact on Humana, Tampa General Hospital, and other facilities regardless of whether Northside actually makes a profit. See next subheading below. The Northside project would draw away a substantial number of potential private-pay patients from TGH. Residents of the proposed Northside service area constitute approximately 24 percent of the total number of OB patients served by TGH. The Northside project poses a threat to TGH's plans to increase its non- indigent OB patient mix which is the key to its plans to provide a quality, competitive OB service to the residents of Hillsborough County. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VIII, P. 1225; Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1695.) Impact Upon Costs and Competition Competition via a new entrant in a health care market can be good or bad in terms of both the costs and the quality of care rendered, depending on the existing availability of competition in that market at the time. Competition has a positive effect when the market is not being adequately or efficiently served. In a situation where adequate and efficient service exists, competition can have an adverse impact on costs and on quality because a new facility is simply adding expense to the system without a concomitant benefit. (Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, p. 1650.) Competition among hospitals in Hillsborough County is now "intense and accelerating." (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, p. 558.) Tampa General is at a competitive disadvantage because of its indigent case load and its inability to offer equity interests to physicians in its hospital. (Blair, Tr. Vol. VI, pp. 945, 947-948); Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1405.) Tampa General Hospital is intensifying its marketing effort, a physician office building under construction now at Tampa General is an illustration of Tampa General's effort to compete for private physicians and patients. (Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1405-1406.) The whole thrust of Tampa General's construction program is to increase its ability to compete for physicians. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1224; Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, p. 1442.) The Tampa General construction will create new competition for physicians and patients. (Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, p. 1099.) Patients go to hospitals where their doctors practice, therefore, hospitals generally compete for physicians. (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 563; Blair, Tr. Vol. VI, pp. 898, 928.) Because many of the UMP partners are obstetricians who plan to use Northside exclusively, approval of the Northside project would lessen competition. (Popp, TGH Exhibit 18, P. 11.) It is feasible for Tampa General to attract more private pay OB patients. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1460- 1461.) At its recently opened rehabilitation center, Tampa General has attracted more private pay patients. (Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1393-1396.) USF OB residents at Tampa General are planning to practice at Tampa General. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1460-1461.) The state-of-the-art labor, delivery, recovery room to be used at Tampa General will be an attractive alternative to OB patients. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1460- 1461); Popp, TGH Exhibit 18, p.26) IX. Capital Expenditure Proposals The proposed Northside hospital will not offer any service not now available in Tampa. (Hyatt, TGH Exhibit 19, p. 21).
Recommendation Petitioner having failed to prove the need for additional acute care beds to include OB beds or some special circumstance which would warrant approval of the proposed project, it is recommended that its application for a CON be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1985.
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent. (Ex. 1) The Election of Rights form advised of the right to an administrative hearing. 3. The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Respondent shall pay the Agency $2,000.00. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of the Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit case number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 1 Filed July 12, 2011 1:26 PM Division of Administrative Hearings ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this_|_! day of Tied ,2011. DL
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this _/ any of Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Finance & Accounting Facilities Intake Unit Revenue Management Unit (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) _ Suzanne Suarez Hurley, Attorney Sue G. Brody 2 Office of the General Counsel Chief Executive Officer Agency for Health Care Administration Bayfront Medical Center, Inc. (Electronic Mail) 701 — 6" Street South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 (U.S. Mail) Jon M. Pellett, Esq. Barr, Murman & Tonelli 201 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1700 Tampa, FL 33602-5865 (U.S. Mail) Elizabeth W. McArthur Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail)
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations 3/ and admissions of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence, and the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact: FIRST HOSPITAL's address is the World Trade Center, Suite 870, Norfolk, Virginia 23510. CHARTER GLADE HOSPITAL is a freestanding psychiatric hospital located in Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. CHARTER GLADE has (80) licensed psychiatric beds, and twenty-four (24) licensed substance-abuse beds. The service area served by CHARTER GLADE includes Collier, Lee, and Charlotte Counties. The address of HRS is 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. HRS is responsible for the administration of the "Health Facilities and Health Services Planning Act," Section 381.493, et seq., Florida Statutes (the Act), and has implemented its provisions through the adoption of rules set forth in Chapter 10, Florida Administrative Code. FIRST HOSPITAL applied to HRS for a certificate of need (CON) for the establishment of a freestanding specialty hospital in Naples, Florida. Pursuant to the Act, a CON is required before FIRST HOSPITAL can establish its specialty hospital. FIRST HOSPITAL's application was denied by HRS. FIRST HOSPITAL appealed the denial of its application to the Division of Administrative Hearings, DOAH Case No. 84-1835. CHARTER GLADE has intervened in DOAH Case No. 84-1835. In this proceeding, Petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 10- 5.11(25) and (26), Florida Administrative Code, asserting that the rule is arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, invalid. By virtue of the fact that CHARTER GLADE is an existing facility located in the same service area in which Petitioner proposes to construct and operate its facility, and further by virtue of its participation in DOAH Case No. 84-1835, at least in part, on the basis of the provisions of Rule 10 15.11(25) and (26), Florida Administrative Code, CHARTER GLADE is substantially affected by the issues presented for determination in this cause and should be allowed to participate as a party. The Act contemplates rule adoption by HRS of specialty bed-need methodologies for psychiatric services. See, e.g., Subsection 381.494(8)(g), Florida Statutes (1983). Toward this end, HRS has adopted Rules 10-5.11(25) and (26), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10-5.11(25), cited as the basis for denying FIRST HOSPITAL's CON application, addresses need for short-term psychiatric beds; Rule 10-5.11(26) purports to address need for long-term psychiatric beds. FIRST HOSPITAL's substantial interest in establishing its proposed specialty hospital has been determined by both of these rules. In particular, Rule 10-5.11(25), Florida Administrative Code, was applied by HRS in the denial of FIRST HOSPITAL's CON application. In addition, FIRST HOSPITAL alleges that Rules 10-5.11(25) and (26) combined fail to assess the need for intermediate inpatient specialty psychiatric services, one of the types of psychiatric services proposed by FIRST HOSPITAL. FIRST HOSPITAL's CON application proposes intermediate inpatient specialty psychiatric services. Rules 10-5.11(25) and (26), Florida Administrative Code, were adopted in early 1983. The adoption process began in the summer of 1982 when HRS assigned to one of its employees, Elfie Stamm, the task of developing a bed-need rule for psychiatric services. Ms. Stamm, at that time, was a planner in the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning of HRS. Ms. Stamm has been a planner with HRS for several years and had been responsible for the development of the State Health Plan and for the development of various rules used in the CON process. She had also been employed in the Mental Health Program Office of HRS, where her responsibilities included the development of a state plan with regard to alcoholism and mental health. She was also responsible for monitoring statewide mental health programs. Upon being assigned the task of developing the subject rules, Ms. Stamm made a thorough review of all information available to HRS with regard to the number of existing psychiatric beds and programs throughout Florida. She also evaluated all available local health plans and spoke with various individuals who had been involved in health planning, particularly those with interest in mental health planning. Ms. Stamm surveyed the available literature on health planning emphasizing mental health planning and bed-need methodologies for psychiatric beds. Ms. Stamm wrote the initial draft of Rule 10-5.11(25) based upon her collection and evaluation of data regarding existing and approved psychiatric beds in Florida and her review of literature, both Florida specific and national. A primary feature of the drafts, as well as of the adopted version, of Rule 10-5.11(25) is a fixed bed-to-population ratio of .35/1000, meaning that normally there should be no more than .35 short-term psychiatric beds for each 1,000 persons. Ms. Stamm was instructed to develop rules to assess the need for inpatient psychiatric services. As finally adopted, short-term care is defined in Rule 10-5.11(25) as care not exceeding three months and averaging a length of stay of 30 days or less for adults and 60 days or less for children and adolescents, and long-term care is defined in Rule 10-5.11(26) as care averaging a length of stay of 90 days. Neither rule defines the term "intermediate care." The documents contained in HRS Composite Exhibit IX and reviewed by Ms. Stamm are a representative sample of the literature available in the field and the level of knowledge among health planners as of the date of the promulgation of the subject rules. The documents are a reasonable cross-section of the literature available in the area of psychiatric bed-need assessment. In terms of the literature that was available at the time of the rule adoption in the area of psychiatric bed-need assessment, there is nothing missing from these documents which would have been important to a health planner in developing a psychiatric bed-need methodology. There is discussion in those documents of all the basic methodologies for determining psychiatric bed need. After reviewing all of the available materials, the HRS established a range of from .35 to .37 beds per 1,000 population and from that point made a policy decision to establish a figure of .35 to use in the bed-need formula. In promulgating the subject rules HRS invited and received comment from a broad cross-section of the public, with particular emphasis on those persons and organizations with special knowledge and interest in the provision of mental health services and the determination of psychiatric bed need. HRS conducted a workshop to which it invited a broad cross-section of individuals and organizations with particular knowledge about psychiatric bed need, including representatives of the Florida Hospital Association, Florida Psychiatric Association, Florida Council for Community Mental Health, Florida State Association of District Mental Health Boards, Florida League of Hospitals, Florida Association of Voluntary Hospitals, and the Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association. The comments and results of the workshop were considered by Ms. Stamm and HRS in the promulgation of the subject rules. In response to several requests, HRS conducted a public hearing in accordance with Section 120.54(3), Florida Statutes, to receive comments from interested persons on the subject rules. More than fifteen (15) people representing various hospitals and organizations concerned with psychiatric services entered appearances and made comments at the public hearing. In addition to the oral comment presented at the public hearing, various persons and organizations submitted numerous written comments expressing their opinion with regard to the proposed rules. The comments, both oral and written, were all considered by Ms. Stamm and HRS prior to the promulgation of the subject rules. The process engaged in by HRS, primarily through Ms. Stamm, in the development of the subject rules was extensive and reasonably calculated to invite substantive public comment and to procure the knowledge on the part of HRS necessary to write workable and rational rules concerning psychiatric bed need. The knowledge acquired by HRS through this process with regard to the assessment of psychiatric bed-need methodologies was reasonably sufficient to allow it to knowledgeably draft and promulgate the subject rules. Consideration of this substantive public comment led to several changes in the subject rules as originally drafted. As originally promulgated, Rules 10-5.11(25) and (26) were challenged pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, in various petitions filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. In settling these proposed rule challenges, HRS modified the rules to provide for even greater flexibility in their application. HRS Composite Exhibits I through XII constitute all written matters considered or produced by HRS in the rule adoption process with regard to the subject rules. All of those documents and papers have been maintained in the records of HRS since the promulgation of the subject rules. The statutory criteria for reviewing CON applications are set out in Sections 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes. Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the rule criteria against which CON applications are evaluated. Subsections (1) through (12) and (25) of Rule 10-5.11 are the rule criteria against which applications for CONs for short-term hospital inpatient psychiatric services are to be evaluated. Subsections (1) through and (26) of Rule 10-5.11 are rule criteria against which applications for CONs for long-term psychiatric services are to be evaluated. Rule 10-5.11(25) sets forth certain criteria specifically for the evaluation of CON applications for short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services. Short-term services are in part defined as services averaging a length of stay of thirty (30) days or less for adults and a stay of sixty (60) days or less for children and adolescents under eighteen (18) years. Rule 10- 5.11(25) in its adopted form provides in relevant part as follows: Short Term Hospital Inpatient Psychiatric Services. Short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services means a category of services which provides a 24-hour a day therapeutic milieu for persons suffering from mental health problems which are so severe and acute that they need intensive, full-time care. Acute psychiatric inpatient care is defined as a service not exceeding three months and averaging a length of stay of 30 days or less for adults and a stay of 60 days or less for children and adolescents under 18 years. Short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services may be provided in specifically designated beds in a hospital holding a general license, or in a facility holding a specialty hospital license. Applications for proposed short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services will be reviewed according to relevant statutory and rule criteria. A favorable need determination for proposed general acute care psychiatric inpatient services will not normally be given to an applicant unless a bed need exists according to paragraph (25)(d) of this rule. A favorable Certificate of Need determination may be made when the criteria, other than as specified in (25)(d), as provided for in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, and paragraph (25)(e) of this rule, demonstrate need. Bed allocations for acute care short term general psychiatric services shall be based on the following standards: A minimum of .15 beds per 1,000 population should be located in hospitals holding a general license to ensure access to needed services for persons with multiple health problems. These beds shall be designated as short term inpatient hospital psychiatric beds. .20 short term inpatient hospital beds per 1,000 population may be located in specialty hospitals, or hospitals holding a general license. The distribution of these beds shall be based on local need, cost effectiveness, and quality of care considerations. The short term inpatient psychiatric bed need for a Department service district five years into the future shall be calculated by subtracting the number of existing and approved beds from the number of beds calculated for year x based on a bed need ratio of .35 beds per 1,000 population projected for year and based on latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida. These beds are allocated in addition to the total number of general and acute care hospital beds allocated to each Department District established in Rule 10-5.11(23). Occupancy Standards. New facilities must be able to project an average 70 percent occupancy rate for adult psychiatric beds and 60 percent for children and adolescent beds in the second year of operation, and must be able to project an average 80 percent occupancy rate for adult beds and 70 percent for children and adolescent short term psychiatric inpatient hospital beds for the third year of operation. No additional short term inpatient hospital adult psychiatric beds shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing adult short term inpatient psychiatric beds in a service district is at or exceeds 75 percent for the preceding 12 month period. No additional beds for adolescents and children under 18 years of age shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing adolescent and children short term hospital inpatient psychiatric beds in the Department district is at or exceeds 70 percent for the preceding 12 2 month period. Hospitals seeking additional short term inpatient psychiatric beds must show evidence that the occupancy standard defined in paragraph six is met and that the number of designated short term psychiatric beds have had an occupancy rate of 75 percent or greater for the preceding year. Unit size. In order to assure specialized staff and services at a reasonable cost, short term inpatient psychiatric hospital based services should have at least 15 designated beds. Applicants proposing to build a new but separate psychiatric acute care facility and intending to apply for a specialty hospital license should have a minimum of 50 beds. Other standards and criteria to be considered in determining approval of a Certificate of Need application for short term hospital inpatient psychiatric beds are as follows: . . . . 7. Access standard. Short term inpatient hospital psychiatric services should be available within a maximum travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of the service area's population. There are three basic types of methodologies generally accepted in the field of health planning as valid for determining the need for psychiatric hospital beds. The first type is a need-based methodology which evaluates the need for services. The second is a demand or utilization-based method, which utilizes current or projected utilization statistics for a particular service. The third is a fixed-ratio method which involves the use of a ratio, or rate, of service to population to determine projected need for that service in the future. All three of these methodologies are generally accepted and utilized by health planners throughout the United States. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but all are valid. The fixed ratio methodology is that which HRS has employed in Rule 10 5.11(25). The ratio of .35 beds per thousand population is a reasonable ratio with a rational basis in fact. It is not arbitrary and capricious as a measure of short-term psychiatric bed need. The National Institute of Mental Health developed draft guidelines in the late 197Os suggesting a range of .15 beds to .40 beds per thousand population as an appropriate fixed-bed ratio program for psychiatric short-term acute-care programs. At least four other states presently or in the past have utilized a fixed bed-need ratio in planning for health care needs. They are Massachusetts, Indiana, Michigan and Georgia. Some of those states used fixed-bed ratios less than .35 per thousand. Ms. Stamm, in developing this rule methodology for HRS, considered and balanced the different approaches relating to the establishment of need. One of her concerns on behalf of HRS, in developing the methodology was to strike a proper balance between need and demand since not everyone who needs psychiatric care will choose to seek that care or can afford to seek that care. In 1982, during the time of the rule adoption process, the ratio of existing short-term psychiatric beds per thousand population in Florida was .29 per thousand. Ms. Stamm selected .35 per thousand, in part, to allow for growth in the number of psychiatric beds for reasons other than just population growth. The current rate of existing licensed short-term psychiatric beds in Florida in 1985 is .28 beds per thousand. However, the ratio for currently existing short-term psychiatric beds, plus CON approved beds not yet licensed in 1985, is .39 beds per thousand. The fact that the existing and approved inventory of psychiatric beds is greater than the .35 ratio specified in the rule demonstrates that HRS has applied Rule 10-5.11(25) in a flexible manner as envisioned by the "not normally" language in the rule. A theoretically ideal way to determine psychiatric bed need would be for HRS to go into each community and conduct epidemiological surveys to identify the people who actually need mental health care. While such a survey, properly conducted, might produce momentarily reliable date, it is not a realistic method for statewide planning purposes because of several problems attendant to such a methodology. Such a survey would be very expensive and very time-consuming and is not practical for use on a statewide basis in a state the size of Florida. Because of the time-consuming nature of such a methodology, if applied on a statewide basis, some of the data would be stale before all of the data was gathered. Further, the rapidly changing population in Florida would require that such a survey be continually updated. The allocation of short-term beds between general and specialty hospitals set forth in subsections (d)1 and 2 of Rule 10-5.11(25) has a rational basis in fact and is not arbitrary. There are many patients who simultaneously need medical as well as psychiatric care. To have those patients located in a specialty hospital, away from a general hospital, would be inappropriate. There are also patients who have acute episodes of psychiatric illness and who need to be treated very rapidly. Because there are many more general hospitals than there are freestanding psychiatric specialty hospitals, it is appropriate to ensure that psychiatric beds are available to general hospitals to fill the particular episodic acute needs. Further, there are many patients in Florida who can afford health care only through Medicaid. Because Medicaid does not provide funding of mental health inpatient services in psychiatric specialty hospitals, it is appropriate to include in the methodology an incentive for the location of some psychiatric beds in general hospitals where psychiatric services can be funded by Medicaid. The specific allocation of the .35 per thousand bed need ratio set forth in Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)(1) and (2) is that .15 beds per thousand "should" be associated with general hospitals and .20 beds per thousand "may" be associated with specialty hospitals. This allocation was designed to be flexible so that, in any given circumstance, an allocation other than the .15 and .20 guideline could be applied. The occupancy rate standards set forth in Rule 10 5.11(25) specify that normally, additional beds should not be approved unless the average occupancy of all existing beds in a service district exceeds 75 percent for adults and 70 percent for children and adolescents. The occupancy rate standards set forth in Rule 10- 5.11(25) were not arrived at in an arbitrary fashion and are reasonable in themselves. The occupancy rates are designed to ensure that a reasonable number of beds in each facility are filled. Hospitals with a substantial number of empty beds are not cost effective. Therefore, it is reasonable to project occupancy rates in the range of those projected in the subject rule. Indeed, the occupancy rates in the rule are liberal in terms of minimum occupancy levels, compared with those in the past and those recommended by others in the industry. With regard to the travel access standard in the rule, the Task Force for Institutional Care recommended a 60 minute travel standard for 90 percent of the population in the district. The 45 minute standard is reasonable. The rule does not exclude from within the travel standard area other facilities providing the same service. At the time of the final hearing, there were sixty five (65) existing hospital facilities in Florida which had psychiatric bed services. Of those sixty-five (65) facilities, sixty-one (61), or 93 percent, had more than fifteen (15) psychiatric beds, and fifty-five (55), or 84 percent, had more than twenty (20) psychiatric beds. In the exceptional event that the average occupancy rate for a particular district did not accurately reflect the availability of beds, the language of Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)5, which says that no additional beds shall "normally" be approved unless the occupancy rates are met is sufficiently flexible to account for the exceptionality. The methodology set forth in Rule 10-5.11(25) is designed to identify and express a need for short-term psychiatric inpatient beds for the overall population of Florida. The rule was intended to be sufficiently flexible that, when balanced with the other criteria set forth in Rule 10-5.11(1) through (12), it would allow substantive input from the district and community levels with regard to the need for beds by subpopulation groups such as child, adolescent, adult, and geriatric. The "national guidelines" referred to by Ms. Stamm were proposed hut never adopted. They recommended fixed bed ratios between .15/1000 and .40/1000. The guidelines were based on a 1978 survey by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), which indicated that .15/1000 was the 25th percentile and .40/1000 was the 75th percentile of 1978 existing short-term psychiatric beds nationwide. The NIMH report stated that selection of an appropriate ratio for a particular state depended on the development of the state's mental health system and recognized that special consideration was necessary for traditionally underserved groups such as children, adolescents, and geriatrics. In the context of inpatient psychiatric care, there has been a trend over the last twenty years, and more particularly over the last five years, toward the development of specialty treatment programs, separately planned for children, adolescents, adults, and geriatrics. In recent years in Florida there has also been a trend toward the provision of alternatives to inpatient psychiatric services in facilities such as residential care. In 1982, Ms. Stamm considered evidence that children, adolescents, and geriatrics were not being adequately served by Florida's mental health facilities. Nevertheless, she did not plan for these subgroups in the rule because in her judgment decisions about allocation of services to subpopulation groups were best made at the district level by the local health councils.
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
