The Issue The issue is whether the Agency should approve the Certificate of Need applications filed by Select-Marion and/or Kindred, each of which proposes to establish a new long-term care hospital in Marion County.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Parties Select-Marion is a recently-created subsidiary of Select Medical Corporation (Select). Select has its corporate headquarters in Pennsylvania. Select operates 79 LTCHs in 24 states, including two in Florida. Select’s Florida LTCHs are located in Jacksonville and Miami. Another Select LTCH has been approved in Orlando, but that facility has not yet opened. Kindred is a subsidiary of Kindred Healthcare, Inc., which has its corporate headquarters in Kentucky. Kindred Healthcare operates 72 LTCHs in 26 states, including seven in Florida. Kindred operates 17 of those LTCHs, including six of the seven Florida LTCHs. Kindred’s Florida LTCHs are located in Green Cove Springs, St. Petersburg, Hollywood, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami, and Tampa. Another subsidiary of Kindred Healthcare operates a second LTCH in Tampa. Select and Kindred Healthcare have each been in the business of operating LTCHs since the 1980’s. The Agency is the state agency responsible for administering the CON program and licensing LTCHs and other health care facilities. Relevant Demographics of Marion County The LTCHs proposed by Select-Marion and Kindred are to be located in Ocala, which is in Marion County. Marion County is in District 3 for health planning purposes. District 3 is a geographically large district. It includes 16 counties: Marion, Hamilton, Suwannee, Columbia, Lafayette, Dixie, Gilchrist, Union, Bradford, Alachua, Putnam, Levy, Citrus, Sumter, Lake, and Hernando. Marion County is the most populous county in District The 2003 population of Marion County was approximately 275,000, which represented approximately 20 percent of the total population of District 3. Approximately 25 percent of Marion County’s 2003 population was in the 65 and older (65+) age cohort, and approximately 23 percent of the population of the respective primary service areas defined by Select-Marion and Kindred (see Part D(3) below) was in that age cohort. Those percentages are higher than the statewide average of 17.5 percent in the 65+ age cohort. The population of Marion County is projected to increase approximately 8.9 percent by January 2007, and during that same period, the population of the 65+ age cohort in the county is projected to increase approximately 11.3 percent. Similar relative growth rates are projected in the primary service area defined by Kindred through July 2005, which was to be the beginning of the facility's second year of operation.4 Marion County has a higher percentage of persons in the 65+ age cohort than do any of the counties that currently have an LTCH except for Sarasota County, which has 31.2 percent of its population in the 65+ age cohort. There are 40 approved but not yet operational LTCH beds in Sarasota County. Hospitals in Marion County and the Surrounding Areas There are three acute care hospitals in Marion County: Munroe Regional Medical Center (Munroe), Ocala Regional Medical Center (Ocala Regional), and West Marion Community Hospital (West Marion). Each of those hospitals is in Ocala. Munroe is a not-for-profit hospital. It is the oldest and largest acute care hospital in Marion County. Munroe currently has 323 beds, and it is in the midst of a $78 million expansion that will increase its capacity to 421 beds. Ocala Regional and West Marion are for-profit hospitals owned by HCA, Inc. Ocala Regional, which has more than 200 beds, is located directly across the street from Munroe. West Marion, which opened in 2002 and has approximately 70 beds, is a satellite facility of Ocala Regional. There is very little in-migration to the Marion County hospitals. For fiscal year 2002, approximately 83 percent of Munroe’s discharges were residents of Marion County. A similar percentage of the discharges from Ocala Regional were Marion County residents. In addition to the three hospitals in Marion County, there are nine more acute care hospitals in District 3 within a 40-mile radius of the parties’ proposed Ocala LTCHs. Those facilities include Shands Hospital (Shands) at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Leesburg Regional Medical Center (Leesburg Regional), and The Villages Regional Hospital (Villages Regional). Shands is located to the north of Marion County in Alachua County. Leesburg Regional and Villages Regional are located to the south of Marion County in Lake County and Sumter County, respectively. The record does not reflect how many total acute care beds are in the hospitals outside of Marion County within the 40-mile radius, nor does it reflect whether any of those hospitals (other than Shands) are trauma centers or have other specialty programs that might impact, either positively or negatively, the potential patient pool for the parties’ proposed LTCHs. The record does not reflect the number, type, quality of care, or utilization at the nursing homes and other traditional post-acute care facilities in Marion County or District 3. The Parties’ Proposed LTCHs Select-Marion and Kindred each submitted timely letters of intent and CON applications for their proposed LTCHs in the first “hospital beds and facilities” batching cycle of 2003. Kindred Kindred’s proposed LTCH is a 31-bed “hospital-within- a-hospital” (HIH). Kindred's proposed LTCH will be located on a wing of the fifth floor of Munroe’s existing hospital. The wing includes 11,606 square feet of contiguous space that Kindred is leasing from Munroe. Kindred is renovating the leased space to include 15 semi-private (i.e., double-occupancy) rooms and one “isolation room.” The total project cost of Kindred’s proposed LTCH is approximately $1.4 million, or approximately $45,300 per bed. That cost will be funded by Kindred Healthcare’s “cash on hand.” The lease agreement between Kindred and Monroe has been executed. The terms of the executed lease are slightly different than the terms of the draft lease included in Kindred’s CON application. The lease is for an initial term of seven years with two five-year renewal periods upon the agreement of the parties. The draft lease included in the CON application contained a 10- year initial term with the two five-year renewals at Kindred’s option. Because renewal of the lease will require the mutual agreement of Kindred and Munroe, there is no guarantee that the lease will be renewed at the end of the seven-year initial term. However, Kindred’s expert in LTCH business development testified that HIH leases typically are renewed. There is also no guarantee that space will be made available within Munroe for future expansions of Kindred’s LTCH. However, Munroe’s Chief Operating Officer testified that Munroe would “entertain whatever discussions that would facilitate the expansion.” Kindred's application states that its proposed LTCH will include the same types of services that are provided at Kindred’s other Florida LTCHs, including respiratory/life support, wound care, and neurological. Kindred’s proposed LTCH will not include an intensive care unit (ICU) or a pediatric program. Kindred will contract with Munroe for services such as laboratory, radiology, surgery/operating room, physical and speech therapy, and cardiology. An “ancillary services agreement” for these services has been executed by Kindred and Munroe. A patient transfer agreement between Munroe and Kindred has been negotiated. The agreement cannot be formally executed until Kindred’s LTCH is approved. Kindred projected that its proposed LTCH would begin operating in June 2004, which is one year after the “initial decision deadline date” for the applicable batching cycle. The need projections in Kindred’s application were based upon July 2005 population figures, and the utilization and financial projections in Kindred’s application were for the first two years of operation ending May 31, 2005 and 2006. Select-Marion Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH is a 60-bed freestanding facility to be located in Ocala. The precise site of the facility has not yet been determined by Select-Marion. The application identifies a “top priority location” east of Interstate 75 on State Road 200 in the general vicinity of Central Florida Community College. Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH will consist of 44,434 square feet of new construction. The bed complement at the facility will be 47 private (i.e., single-occupancy) rooms, five semi-private rooms, and three “isolation rooms.” The total project cost of Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH is approximately $12.2 million, or approximately $204,100 per bed. That cost will be funded by Select from its cash flow from operations and/or through borrowings from Select’s line of credit with its bank. The services at Select-Marion's proposed LTCH will include the same "core" services found at other Select LTCHs. Those services include the treatment of pulmonary and ventilator patients, neuro-trauma and stroke patients, medically complex patients, and wound care. Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH will include a “step down” unit where ICU-level care will be provided. The facility will not include a pediatric program. Select-Marion has not negotiated patient transfer agreements with any of the area hospitals. Select-Marion’s application includes a letter from West Marion’s Administrator, which states that West Marion “anticipates implementing a transfer agreement with [Select- Marion’s] facility” in the event that the LTCH “achieves appropriate licensure and certification.” No weight is given to that letter because, as discussed below, West Marion did not have any potential LTCH patients and it is a satellite facility of Ocala Regional, which provided a letter of support to Kindred. Select-Marion projected that its proposed LTCH would begin operating in June 2005, which is one year later than Kindred's proposed LTCH was projected to open. The delay is a result of Select-Marion's proposed LTCH being a new freestanding facility, which has a longer construction period than does the renovation of the existing hospital space for Kindred's HIH LTCH. The need projections in Select-Marion’s application were focused on the facility’s third year of operation, which is the 12-month period ending June 2008. The utilization and financial projections in Select-Marion’s application were for the first two years of operation ending May 31, 2006 and 2007. Proposed Service Areas Kindred’s application defines the primary service area (PSA) for its proposed LTCH as Marion, Alachua, Levy, Citrus, Sumter, and Lake Counties. The secondary service area is defined as the remaining 10 counties in District 3. Select-Marion’s application defines the PSA for its proposed LTCH as Marion County and a 40-mile radius around the proposed facility. A secondary service area is not specifically defined, but the application states that Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH will serve the entire district “to the degree possible.” The geographic scope of the PSA proposed by Select- Marion is similar to the geographic scope of the PSA proposed by Kindred; the 40-mile radius defined by Select-Marion includes all of Marion County and substantial portions of the remaining five counties included in Kindred’s PSA. It is not reasonable to expect that a material number of the admissions to either of the proposed LTCHs would come from outside of the PSAs defined in the applications. On this issue, the undersigned accepts the expert testimony of Select- Marion’s health planner that a realistic PSA for an LTCH in Ocala would be Marion County, and based upon the limited in-migration to Marion County hospitals and the testimony of Kindred's expert health planner that patients generally prefer to receive their long-term care close to their homes, the undersigned draws the inference and finds that realistic secondary service area for an LTCH in Ocala would be the remainder of the PSAs defined by the parties. It is also not reasonable to expect that either of the proposed LTCHs will serve District 3 in its entirety despite the parties’ expressed intentions and desire to do so. Indeed, Kindred’s application states that it expects that residents of District 3 who are geographically closer to the existing LTCHs in Green Cove Springs and Tampa -– which would include a number of the counties in Kindred’s proposed secondary service area -- will continue to leave the district for LTCH services. Similar statements are included in Select-Marion’s application as part of its explanation of the proposed 40-mile PSA. Letters of Support Select-Marion’s application included only one letter of support, which was from West Marion. Although the letter represented that “[m]any of our long-stay acute patients are candidates for care in [an LTCH,]” the evidence establishes that West Marion did not have any long-stay patients that would be potential LTCH patients. Moreover, West Marion is a satellite facility of Ocala Regional, which is located across the street from Munroe and provided a letter of support for Kindred’s proposed LTCH. Kindred’s application included 13 letters of support, including letters from five hospitals in District 3 (i.e., Munroe, Ocala Regional, Leesburg Regional, Villages Regional, and Citrus Memorial Hospital), a nursing home in Ocala, a home health care organization affiliated with Munroe, a local physician, and several local and state politicians. The support expressed in the letters included in Kindred’s application was general in nature. Indeed, many of the letters, including the letters from Ocala Regional and several of the other hospitals, appeared to be form letters. Other than the letter from Monroe’s director of case management, the letters included in Kindred’s application did not attempt to quantify the number of LTCH patients that would likely be generated for Kindred’s proposed LTCH. Nor did the letters detail access or other problems for potential LTCH patients that would help to demonstrate need for an LTCH in Marion County. General letters of support typically carry little weight with the Agency in its evaluation of need for a new health care facility. Indeed, the Bureau Chief of the Agency’s CON program, Jeffrey Gregg, testified that general letters of support are only significant to the Agency where one applicant has received a number of such letters and the other applicant has not received any letters of support.5 Because of their general nature, the letters of support included in Kindred’s application do not in and of themselves demonstrate need for a proposed LTCH in Marion County, nor do they validate the numeric bed need projected in either of the applications. However, the volume of the letters included in Kindred’s application from hospitals and health care providers as compared to the single letter included in Select- Marion’s application demonstrates that there is greater support from the relevant community for Kindred’s proposed LTCH than there is for Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH. Application Review and Preliminary Agency Action The applications filed by Select-Marion (CON 9647) and Kindred (CON 9648) complied with all of the application content and submittal requirements in the governing statutes and the Agency’s rules. The required filing fees were paid, and the local health council submittal requirements were met. The applications were comparatively reviewed by the Agency in accordance with the Agency’s rules and standard procedures. On June 11, 2003, the Agency issued its State Agency Action Report (SAAR) based upon its comparative review of the applications. The SAAR recommended denial of both applications based primarily on the Agency’s determination that neither applicant had adequately demonstrated need for its proposed LTCH. The Agency’s decision to deny the applications was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly as required by statute and Agency rule, and Select-Marion and Kindred each timely requested a hearing on the Agency’s decision. This consolidated proceeding followed. In March 2004, the Agency changed its position with respect to Kindred’s application and provided timely notice of that change in position to the parties. The Agency now supports approval of Kindred’s application, even though it continued to maintain at the hearing that need has not been adequately demonstrated by either applicant. LTCHs Generally LTCHs are health care facilities that provide extended medical and rehabilitative care to patients with multiple, chronic, and/or clinically complex acute medical conditions. To qualify as an LTCH, the facility must serve a patient population whose average length of stay (ALOS) exceeds 25 days. LTCHs fit into the continuum of care between traditional, “short-term” acute care hospitals and traditional post-acute care facilities such as nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), skilled nursing units (SNUs), or comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR) facilities. LTCHs are designed to serve patients that would otherwise have to be maintained in a traditional acute care hospital where the reimbursement rates may be insufficient to cover the costs associated with a lengthy stay, or be moved to a traditional post-acute care facility where the patient may not receive the level of curative care needed. LTCH services are most highly utilized by persons in the 65+ age cohort because those persons are more likely to have complex and/or co-morbid medical conditions that require long- term acute care. The typical LTCH patient is still in need of considerable acute care, but a traditional acute care hospital may no longer be the most appropriate or lowest cost setting for that care. Most LTCH admissions are patients transferred directly from a traditional acute care hospital. It is not uncommon for an LTCH patient to be transferred on life support from a critical care unit or ICU after the patient has been diagnosed and stabilized. Nursing homes, SNFs, SNUs, CMR facilities, and home health care are not appropriate for the typical LTCH patient because the patient's acuity level and medical/therapeutic needs are higher than those generally treated in those settings. Indeed, unlike traditional post-acute care settings, which typically do not admit patients who still require acute care, the core patient-group served by LTCHs are patients who require considerable acute care through daily physician visits and intensive nursing care in excess of eight hours of direct patient care per day. LTCH patients are often discharged to a traditional post-acute care facility such as a nursing home, SNF, SNU, CMR facility, or home health care. Thus, those facilities cannot be considered as "substitutes" for LTCHs, even though there is some overlap between the services provided to lower acuity LTCH patients and higher acuity patients in those traditional post- acute care facilities. The family of a patient in an LTCH is generally encouraged to be more involved in the patient’s care than it would be if the patient was in the ICU of a traditional acute care hospital. For example, the visiting hours at LTCHs are typically more liberal than the visiting hours at a traditional acute care hospital for the ICU and, in some cases, the general medical/surgery floor. Medicare reimbursements are the primary source of revenue for LTCHs because on average 75 to 85 percent of LTCH patients are covered by Medicare. In this case, Kindred projected that approximately 91 percent of the patient days and 86 percent of the net patient revenues for its proposed LTCH would be generated by Medicare patients, and Select-Marion projected that approximately 76 percent of its patient days and approximately 71 percent of its net patient revenue at its proposed LTCH would be generated by Medicare patients. In 2002, CMS adopted a Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) specifically for LTCHs. That system recognizes the LTCH patient population as being distinct from the patient populations treated by traditional acute care hospitals and post-acute care facilities such as nursing homes, SNFs, SNUs, and CMR facilities, even though there may be some overlap between the patient populations served by LTCHs and those other types of facilities. Under the LTCH PPS, services are reimbursed by Medicare at a predetermined rate that is weighted based upon the patient's diagnosis and acuity, regardless of the cost of care. This reimbursement system is similar to, but uses Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) that are different than the DRGs used in the PPS for traditional acute care hospitals. The Medicare reimbursement rates for services to long- stay patients in an LTCH are generally higher than the reimbursement rates for the same services to long-stay patients at a traditional acute care hospital. As a result, there is a financial incentive for hospitals to transfer their long-stay patients to an LTCH. It takes approximately six months for a new LTCH to receive its Medicare certification from CMS. During that period, the LTCH is reimbursed by Medicare at the lower rates applicable to traditional acute care hospitals, and, there is a financial incentive for the LTCH to keep its patient census as low as possible while still meeting the 25-day minimum ALOS. Accordingly, the first year of operation of an LTCH is not necessarily representative of the facility’s utilization, patient mix, or payor-source mix over time. The Agency has concerns about the long-term viability of the LTCH industry because it is largely dependent upon CMS's continuing the LTCH PPS with its higher Medicare reimbursement rates. The Agency’s concerns have caused it to take a very conservative approach in evaluating CON applications for new LTCHs so as not to allow the LTCH market to over-develop in the same way that freestanding psychiatric hospitals were over- developed at a time when the reimbursement rate for those facilities was favorable, which is no longer the case. HIH Verses Freestanding LTCHs There are two distinct types of LTCHs: HIHs and freestanding facilities. Both types are accepted in the industry, and both types are found nationwide. Almost all of Select’s LTCHs (i.e., 76 out of 79) are HIHs. Approximately 80 percent of Kindred Healthcare’s LTCHs, including all of its Florida LTCHs, are freestanding facilities. Initially, all of the LTCHs approved in Florida were freestanding facilities because of the Agency’s concern that the applicable building codes precluded HIHs and/or because the Agency’s interpretation of the building codes made the development of HIH LTCHs cost-prohibitive. The Agency no longer has concerns about the building code issue and, as reflected by its change in position in this case, it is willing to approve HIH LTCHs. Indeed, the two recently-approved Orlando LTCHs are HIHs. The Agency does not have a formal preference for HIHs over freestanding LTCHs, or vice versa. There are no material operational differences between HIH LTCHs and freestanding LTCHs, except that HIHs typically contract with the “host hospital” (i.e., the hospital in which the LTCH is located) for ancillary services such as laboratory, radiology, and operating room. The acuity level and mix of patients is materially the same at HIHs and freestanding LTCHs. The ALOS at HIH LTCHs is slightly less than the ALOS at freestanding LTCHs, but the difference is not material. HIH LTCHs draw the largest percentage of their admissions from the host hospital. That percentage is typically at least 25 percent, and it is not uncommon for the percentage to range from 50 to 90 percent. Typically, HIH LTCHs are less expensive to operate than freestanding LTCHs because of lower overhead and the ability to obtain ancillary services from the host hospital; however, both types of LTCHs can be financially viable. Currently, the Medicare reimbursement rates under the LTCH PPS are the same at HIH LTCHs and freestanding LTCHs. LTCHs in Florida At the time Select-Marion’s and Kindred’s applications were filed, there were only nine LTCHs operating in Florida with a total of 683 licensed beds. Those facilities were concentrated in six counties – Dade, Broward, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Duval, and Clay – and five of the State’s 11 heath planning districts – Districts 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11. There were an additional 182 LTCH beds that had been approved by the Agency but which were not operational at the time that Kindred’s and Select-Marion’s applications were filed, including new facilities in Panama City (District 2), Orlando (District 7), and Sarasota (District 8). Those 182 beds do not include Select’s recently-approved 40-bed LTCH in Orlando. There are no licensed or approved LTCHs in District 3. The closest operational LTCH to Ocala is Kindred’s 60-bed facility in Green Cove Springs, which is 50 to 75 miles away. The approved but not yet operational Orlando LTCHs will be approximately 75 miles from Ocala. The Florida LTCHs are generally well utilized; the occupancy rates at the facilities range from 54.6 percent to 99.2 percent. Four of the nine facilities, including Kindred’s LTCH in Green Cove Springs, have occupancy rates higher than 80 percent, and the average occupancy rate for all of the Florida LTCHs is 76.6 percent. Data reported to the Agency reflects that counties and districts where LTCHs are located have considerably more LTCH admissions (both in number and as a percentage of total patients whose length of stay was greater than 25 days) than do counties and districts where there is no LTCH. See Exhibit S-4, at 5-6, 8-9. This data indicates that patients generally remain closer to home for their long-term care, which is consistent with the expert testimony of the health planners in this case. During calendar year 2002, a total of 202 District 3 residents were admitted to a Florida LTCH. Over half of those admissions were residents of the District 3 counties that are closer to an existing LTCH, which indicates that residents of those counties have better access to LTCH services than do residents of the other counties in the district.6 By contrast, only 20 Marion County residents were admitted to a Florida LTCH in calendar year 2002. The admission experience at Kindred’s Green Cove Springs LTCH is consistent with that data. Between 20 and 25 percent of the admissions at that facility are District 3 residents, most of whom come from Putnam, Bradford, and other northern counties in District 3. The ALOS for all patients discharged from Florida LTCHs between July 2001 and June 2002 was 42.2 days. The 65+ age cohort accounted for approximately 77 percent of the LTCH discharges in Florida for that period. The ALOS for Florida LTCHs is considerably higher than the ALOS experienced nationwide by either Select or Kindred Healthcare. The ALOS at Select’s LTCHs is between 25 and 30 days; the ALOS at Kindred Healthcare’s LTCHs is in the low 30's. The higher ALOS at the Florida LTCHs is due, at least in part, to the limited number of LTCHs in Florida and their tendency to treat only the “sickest of the sick,” which are the patients that generally have longest lengths of stay. The ALOS at the Florida LTCHs is expected to become lower as the number of LTCHs in Florida increases and as medical technology improves such that the more complex cases can be better managed. Determination of Need for LTCH Beds in District 3 and Marion County Generally Select-Marion and Kindred have the burden to demonstrate need for their proposed LTCHs. The Agency does not publish a fixed-need pool for LTCHs, nor is there an Agency rule which provides a specific formula or methodology for determining numeric need for LTCH beds.7 Indeed, it was clear from Mr. Gregg’s testimony at the hearing and in his deposition that the Agency’s policy toward LTCHs and, more specifically, need projections for LTCHs is still evolving. The criteria that must be addressed by the applicant to demonstrate need are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2.a. through d. The criteria are population demographics and dynamics; availability, utilization and quality of "like services" in the district; medical treatment trends; and market conditions. In addition to or as part of the demonstration of need based upon the rule criteria, the applicant must demonstrate that there is numeric need for at least the number of beds that it is proposing. Kindred and Select-Marion stipulated that there is a numeric need for at least 31 LTCH beds in District 3. The Agency did not join that stipulation, and even though Mr. Gregg testified at the hearing and in his deposition that the Agency “presumes” that there is some level of need for LTCH beds in District 3, the Agency continued to take the position that neither applicant demonstrated need for its proposed LTCH.8 Methodologies Used by Kindred and Select-Marion to Project Numeric Need Kindred and Select-Marion each used a “use rate” methodology and a “length of stay” methodology to project numeric need for their proposed LTCHs. “Use Rate” Methodologies Use rate methodologies are commonly used by health planners to project need for acute care hospital beds and other types of services. However, use rate methodologies do not produce reliable projections of bed need in the LTCH context because the existing LTCHs are not evenly distributed statewide and the utilization rates for the existing LTCHs vary significantly.9 The use rate methodologies used by Kindred and Select-Marion each projected the number of LTCH patient days that will likely be generated for their proposed LTCHs based upon the utilization rates at the existing LTCHs in Florida. Those patient days were then converted into an average daily census (ADC) and, in the case of Select-Marion, a bed need based upon a presumed occupancy rate. The use rate methodology used by Kindred calculated the average utilization rate of the existing Florida LTCHs for both the population as a whole and for the 65+ age cohort. Those use rates were then applied to the respective 2005 populations of the primary and secondary service areas for Kindred’s proposed LTCH. Kindred’s use rate methodology projected an ADC of 79 applying the use rate for the total population and an ADC of 109 applying the use rate for the 65+ age cohort. The ADCs projected for the PSA, which as noted above is a more reasonable geographic scope from which Kindred’s proposed LTCH will likely draw its patients, were 56 applying the use rate for the total population and 80 applying the use rate for the 65+ age cohort. Select-Marion’s use rate methodology calculated separate “statewide” utilization rates for the 0-44, 45-64, 65- 74, 75-84, and 85+ age cohorts. Those rates were then applied to the projected 2008 population of Marion County in the respective age cohorts in order to calculate a projected number of patient days that will be generated by Marion County residents in the third year of operation at Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH. Those patient days were then "grossed up” by an occupancy standard of 80 percent and then "grossed up" by an additional 44.5 percent to account for patients coming to the facility from outside of Marion County. Select-Marion’s use rate methodology projected that Marion County residents would generate an ADC of 55 in 2008, which resulted in a projected need for 123 LTCH beds when the ADC was “grossed up” to account for the 44.5 percent of out-of- county patients and to reflect the 80 percent occupancy standard. The use of age cohort-specific utilization rates is generally more reliable than the use of a utilization rate for the total population or only the 65+ age cohort. Kindred’s failure to use age cohort-specific utilization rates causes the bed need projections based upon its use rate methodology to be unreliable. The age cohort-specific utilization rates used by Select-Marion in this case are unreliable because the LTCHs in Miami-Dade and Pinellas Counties were excluded from the calculations because their utilization rates were, according to Select-Marion’s application, “misleadingly conservative.” The effect of excluding those counties is that the utilization rates applied by Select-Marion were inflated. The 44.5 percent out-of-county rate was purportedly derived from the experience of the other LTCHs operating in Florida, but there is no evidence in the record to corroborate that rate. Moreover, Select-Marion’s own health planning expert testified that the 44.5 percent rate was too high; she testified that a more appropriate out-of-county rate would have been 20 to 25 percent, which is more consistent with the in-migration rate experienced by existing hospitals in Marion County. Based upon the general unreliability of use rate methodologies in the LTCH context and the specific flaws in the use rate methodologies applied by Kindred and Select-Marion, the ADC and bed need projected under those methodologies are not reliable or reasonable. “Length of Stay” Methodologies The length of stay methodologies used by Kindred and Select-Marion each attempted to quantify the need for LTCH beds in their respective service areas by analyzing discharges from the hospitals in those areas. The methodologies each focused on “long-stay patients” discharged from those hospitals with “LTCH- appropriate DRGs” as the potential patient population for the proposed LTCHs. This general approach is reasonable from a health planning perspective. The lists of LTCH-appropriate DRGs used by Kindred and Select-Marion in their respective methodologies were generally consistent. Although Select-Marion’s list included a greater number of DRGs than did Kindred’s, both lists are reasonable. The parties’ respective methodologies each used the geometric mean length of stay (GMLOS) as the starting point for defining long-stay patients, which is reasonable and appropriate.10 The GMLOS is calculated by CMS. It is a statistically-adjusted value for all cases within a DRG that takes into account certain types of cases that could skew an arithmetic average length of stay. Patients who have lengths of stay substantially longer than the GMLOS due to co-morbidities, complex medical conditions, or frailties due to age are typically appropriate LTCH patients, particularly if the patient would otherwise remain in the ICU of a traditional acute care hospital. In such circumstances, an LTCH would likely be the more appropriate setting for the patient from both a financial and patient-care standpoint. Kindred defined long-stay patients as adult patients who were residents of District 3 and whose length of stay was at least 17 days longer than the GMLOS. Select-Marion’s definition of long-stay patients included adult patients whose length of stay was at least 15 days longer than the GMLOS, and was not limited to District 3 residents. Kindred’s definition of long-stay patients produced a more conservative (and more reasonable) estimate of potential LTCH patient days than did Select-Marion’s definition, primarily because Kindred’s definition included only District 3 residents. In this regard, Kindred’s methodology appropriately recognizes and takes into account the fact that patients discharged from District 3 hospitals who are not residents of the district are less likely to stay in the district for long-term acute care. Kindred’s methodology was also more conservative (and more reasonable) in the manner that it calculated the number of potential LTCH patient days generated by the identified long- stay patients. Kindred calculated the potential LTCH patient days starting seven days after the GMLOS, whereas Select-Marion calculated the potential LTCH patient days starting at the GMLOS. In this regard, Kindred’s methodology appropriately recognizes and takes into account the fact that hospitals typically do not consider the transfer of patients to an LTCH until after the GMLOS and that it typically takes several days for the transfer to be coordinated once the patient has been identified as a potential LTCH patient. Both parties’ methodologies assumed a 100 percent capture rate of the potential LTCH patients identified through their respective definitions of long-stay patients with LTCH- appropriate discharges. The assumed 100 percent capture rate is not realistic, particularly when applied to the potential LTCH patients outside of the PSAs defined by the parties in the northernmost and southernmost counties in District 3. The evidence establishes that those patients will likely continue to leave the district for LTCH services, and as a result, a considerably lower capture rate would be expected from those counties. The assumed 100 percent capture rate within the PSAs is more reasonable for Kindred’s methodology than it is for Select-Marion’s methodology because Kindred’s methodology includes only District 3 residents in the pool of potential LTCH patients whereas Select-Marion’s methodology also includes non- District 3 residents. The result of Kindred’s length of stay methodology was an estimate of 14,269 potential LTCH patient days generated by residents of its PSA and 4,762 potential LTCH patient days generated by residents of its secondary service area. Those patient days translated into an ADC of 39 from the PSA and an ADC of 13 from the secondary service area. The result of Select-Marion’s length of stay methodology was an estimate of 51,221 potential LTCH patient days generated by discharges from hospitals within the 40-mile radius around Ocala. Those patient days translated into an ADC of 140 and a bed need of 175 based upon an 80 percent occupancy standard. Kindred’s length of stay methodology is, on balance, more reasonable than Select-Marion’s, and as a result, its projection of need is more reliable than the projection based upon Select-Marion’s methodology. Specifically, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that Select-Marion’s methodology overstates need by including patient days generated by non-residents of District 3 (who would not be as likely to use an LTCH in Marion County, and would certainly not use the facility at the assumed 100 percent capture rate) and by calculating the potential LTCH patient days starting at the GMLOS, rather than the seven days after the GMLOS which reasonably reflects the period of time necessary to identify, assess, and discharge a patient to the LTCH. Ultimate Findings Related to Numeric Need There was no credible evidence that there is a need for more than 91 LTCH beds so as to allow for the approval of both applications. As discussed above, the parties' use rate methodologies and Select-Marion’s length-of-stay methodology, which all projected need for more than 91 LTCH beds, were not reliable. The most reliable projection of need for a proposed LTCH in Marion County is the ADC of 39 projected by Kindred’s length of stay methodology for its PSA.11 The assumptions underlying that methodology are more reasonable than the assumptions underlying the length-of-stay methodology used by Select-Marion, and Kindred’s PSA, which is essentially the same as Select-Marion’s proposed 40-mile service area, is the most reasonable projection of the area from which an LTCH in Ocala could expect to draw virtually all of its patients. See Part of D(3) above. An 80 percent occupancy standard is reasonable and appropriate because it is conservative figure and better reflects the lower bed turn-over by LTCH patients than does the 75 percent occupancy standard typically applied to traditional, “short-term” acute care hospitals. Applying the 80 percent occupancy standard to an ADC of 39 results in a numeric need for 49 LTCH beds in the service area from which an LTCH in Ocala could reasonably be expected to draw its patients. Ultimate Findings Related to Need Based Upon the Criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. The population demographics and dynamics of Marion County and the PSAs support the establishment of an LTCH in Ocala. The 65+ age cohort, which is the group that most highly utilizes LTCH services, represents approximately 25 percent of Marion County’s population and approximately 23 percent of the population of the parties' proposed PSAs. That age cohort is projected to grow at a higher rate than the overall population of the county and the PSAs over the planning horizons of the proposed LTCHs. There are no LTCHs in District 3, and there are no LTCHs reasonably accessible to the residents of Marion County. The closest LTCH is more than 50 miles away in Green Cove Springs, and the occupancy/utilization rate at that facility is higher than 80 percent. The absence of an LTCH in District 3 does not mean that there are no “like services” available at the existing hospitals in District 3 and, potentially, at some of the traditional post-acute care facilities in the district. The availability of an LTCH in District 3 would, however, provide an alternative and, in some cases, more appropriate and cost- effective setting for those services to be provided. There is a general trend towards the increased utilization of LTCHs due to higher reimbursement rates available under the relatively new LTCH PPS, but the evidence failed to establish that the trend will, in fact, impact the delivery of health care services in Marion County or District 3. Instead, the evidence establishes that the utilization of a LTCH in Ocala will depend in large part on how well the local physicians are “educated” about the availability of LTCH services and whether the physicians have positive experiences with their patients at the facility. Market conditions in Marion County support the establishment of an LTCH. The favorable market conditions include the size and projected growth of the 65+ age cohort and the letters of support provided by the two largest hospitals in Marion County as well as several of the hospitals in the surrounding counties. The letters demonstrate a general level of support in the community for the establishment of an LTCH in Marion County, even though they do not specifically quantify the number of LTCH patients that would be generated from those hospitals. Given the stage in the process at which the letters were obtained, the level of specificity in the letters is reasonable, at least for purposes of demonstrating market support for the proposed LTCHs. These factors, on balance, demonstrate the need for an LTCH in District 3 and Marion County, and they also support the projection of numeric need set forth above. Comparative Analysis of the CON Applications Based Upon the Criteria in Section 408.035, Florida Statutes (2003)12 Assuming the Agency accepts the foregoing findings that there is a demonstrated need for only 49 LTCH beds, it is not necessary to comparatively evaluate Kindred’s application against Select-Marion’s application, which proposes a 60-bed LTCH; it is only necessary to evaluate Kindred’s application against the applicable statutory criteria. However, in an abundance of caution, a comparative evaluation of the applications is set forth below in the event that the Agency (or an appellate court) determines that the evidence demonstrates a need for more than 60, but less than 91 LTCH beds. Criteria Upon Which All of the Parties Agree The parties stipulated that Kindred’s and Select- Marion’s applications each satisfied the criteria in Subsections 408.035(3), (5), (6), (10), and (12), Florida Statutes, or that the criteria in those subsections are not applicable. See Joint Pre-hearing Statement, at 7. Notably, the parties stipulated that both Kindred and Select have a history of providing high quality of care to their patients. The evidence fails to establish that either of the proposed LTCHs would provide a materially higher quality of care to its patients than would the other facility.13 Criteria That Are in Dispute Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes (Need in Relation to District Health Plan) There are no preferences related to the development of LTCHs in the District 3 health plan; the plan does not even address LTCH services. Accordingly, this criterion is not implicated in this case. Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes (Availability, Quality of Care, etc. of Existing Services) There are no existing LTCHs in District 3. As a result, either of the proposed LTCHs will enhance the availability and accessibility of LTCH services in the district to some degree. That impact will be most significant in Marion County and the adjacent counties because the evidence establishes that residents of the northernmost and southernmost counties in District 3, which are closer to the existing LTCHs in the adjacent districts, already have access to LTCH services. Kindred’s proposed HIH LTCH will primarily serve its host hospital, Munroe. The most persuasive evidence on this issue was that Kindred's LTCH will likely receive 80 to 90 percent of its admissions from Munroe and Ocala Regional, which is across the street from Munroe. That will leave only 10 to 20 percent of its admissions coming from the remainder of District 3, which equates to 3 to 6 of the facility’s beds being available to serve residents of District 3 outside of Marion County. Because Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH is nearly twice the size of Kindred’s proposed LTCH, it would have more beds available to serve residents of District 3 outside of Marion County. However, because it is unreasonable to expect that there will be significant in-migration to Marion County for LTCH services, the evidence does not support the inference that Select-Marion’s larger facility will, in fact, better enhance access to LTCH services for residents of District 3 than will Kindred’s facility. Accordingly, each application satisfies the criterion in Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes, and that criterion does not materially weigh in favor of the approval of one application over the other. Section 408.035(4), Florida Statutes (Special Health Care Services) The phrase “special health care services” in Section 408.035(4), Florida Statutes, is not defined in statute or Agency rule. Kindred and Select-Marion contend that LTCH services are “special health care services”; the Agency contends that they are not. See Joint Pre-hearing Statement, at 10. The health care services that will be provided in the proposed LTCHs are services that are currently being provided in District 3, either at a traditional acute care hospital (with respect to acute-level care) or at a post-acute care facility (with respect to rehabilitative care). The approval of the CON applications at issue in this proceeding would simply provide an alternative, and potentially more cost-effective setting in which those services could be provided. Accordingly, LTCH services are not “special health care services” for purposes of Section 408.035(4), Florida Statutes, and the criterion in that subsection is not implicated in this case. Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes (Enhancing Access) The approval of an LTCH in Ocala will enhance access to LTCH services in Marion County and the immediate surrounding areas; however, access to such services will not be significantly enhanced for residents of District 3 who are closer to and currently have reasonable access to LTCH services in an adjacent district. Moreover, as discussed above in relation to Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes, there is no credible evidence that access would be improved to a greater extent by the approval of Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH over Kindred’s, or vice versa. Accordingly, each application satisfies the criterion in Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes, and that criterion does not materially weigh in favor of the approval of one application over the other. Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes (Financial Feasibility) Issues Upon Which All of the Parties Agree The parties stipulated that both of the proposed LTCHs are financially feasible in the short-term. The parties also stipulated that Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH, which is projected to generate a net profit of approximately $939,000 in its second year of operation is financially feasible in the long-term. Disputed Issues Related to the Long-term Financial Feasibility of Kindred's Proposed LTCH The Agency concluded in the SAAR that Kindred’s proposed LTCH is financially feasible in the long-term, and that position was reaffirmed through Mr. Gregg’s testimony at the hearing. However, Select-Marion disputes the long-term financial feasibility of Kindred’s proposed LTCH. The general rule for assessing the long-term financial feasibility of a CON project is if the project will at least break even by the end of the second year of operation, then the project is financially feasible in the long-term; if, however, the project continues to show a loss in the second year of operations and it is not demonstrated that the project will reach a break-even point within a reasonable period of time, then the project is not financially feasible in the long-term. Schedule 8A in Kindred’s application projects a net profit from operations of $263,134 for Kindred’s proposed LTCH in its second year of the operation. Omission of Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund Assessment Kindred concedes that the net profit from operations is overstated by $117,734 because Schedule 8A did not include a deduction for the Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund assessment in that amount. That assessment is imposed on all hospitals at a rate of 1.5 percent of the facility’s gross revenues. Understatement of Property Taxes The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the net profit from operations is overstated by an additional $92,918 because the taxes shown on Schedule 8A are understated by that amount. The $92,918 represents the difference between the amount of taxes shown on Schedule 8A and the total estimated property taxes on the proposed facility, which according to John Grant, the Kindred witness responsible for calculating the taxes for Schedule 8A, were based upon the average property taxes paid on Kindred’s other Florida LTCHs. There is no competent evidence, such as expert testimony from a property appraiser, to support Kindred’s position that the $32,136 of taxes shown on Schedule 8A is a reasonable estimate of the taxes for its proposed LTCH.14 Alleged Understatements in the Nursing Costs Projected for the Second Year of Operation Select-Marion also contends that Kindred’s net profit from operations is overstated by an additional $191,856, as a result of various understatements in the nursing costs on Schedule 8A, which are based upon the staffing projections on Schedule 6 of Kindred’s application. Specifically, Select- Marion contends that the nursing costs are understated because of an alleged error in the calculation of the nursing salary expense for the second year of the facility’s operation based upon the number of nursing full-time equivalents (FTEs) identified for that period; because of the additional nursing staff (and related costs) that would be necessary to achieve the nursing-hours-per-patient-day figure and the licensed-to- unlicensed-nurse ratio that were referenced in the text of Kindred’s CON application; and because a benefit rate of 17 percent was used instead of 20 percent. Number of FTEs Used in Projecting Staffing Costs Kindred’s CON application does not include staffing projections on Schedule 6 for the second year of operation; however, Mr. Grant, the Kindred employee who developed the assumptions underlying the financial schedules in Kindred’s application testified in his deposition that at the end of the second year of operation, Kindred’s facility would have 41.7 nursing FTEs and 11.8 ancillary FTEs. Those projections were not disputed, and are reasonable. Mr. Grant and other Kindred witnesses testified that the staffing projections shown on Schedule 6 were the number of FTEs at the end of the year, rather than the average number of FTEs during the year. Those witnesses further testified that the nursing costs shown on Schedule 8A are based upon the average number of FTEs during the year, not the year-end FTEs. That testimony is found to be credible. The opinion of Select-Marion’s expert financial witness, Patricia Greenberg, that there is an error in the calculation of the nursing costs shown on Schedule 8A was based upon the incorrect assumption that the nursing costs on Schedule 8A and the staffing projections on Schedule 6 were both based upon the year-end figures. Accordingly, Ms. Greenberg’s opinion on that issue is rejected. Nursing-Hours-Per-Patient-Day Kindred’s application states that Kindred Healthcare's LTCHs currently provide an “average [of] 10.5 nursing hours per patient day.” The financial projections in Kindred’s application used the 10.5-hour figure for the proposed Ocala LTCHs' first year of operation only. The figure used for the second year of operation was approximately 9.6 nursing hours per patient day. Kindred’s application did not represent that 10.5 hours of nursing care per day would actually be provided at the proposed Ocala LTCH. There are no regulations that require that amount (or any amount) of nursing care per day at LTCHs. Kindred’s application refers to the 10.5 hours as an “average.” Kindred’s medical director testified in his deposition that 10.5 hours is “a little on the high side” based upon his experience and another Kindred witness testified that the nursing hours would only be “around that number.” Select- Marion did not offer any credible evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, the net profit from operations for Kindred’s proposed LTCH is not overstated in any amount because of the failure to project nursing costs for the second year of operation based upon the 10.5 hours of nursing care per day, and Ms. Greenberg’s opinion on that issue is rejected. Licensed-to-Unlicensed-Nurse Ratio Kindred’s application states that the ratio of licensed to unlicensed nursing personnel in Kindred Healthcare's LTCHs “averages 3.5 to 1.” The ratio actually used in the financial projections for Kindred’s proposed Ocala LTCH was approximately 2.46-to-one, which can be calculated by dividing the 23.2 FTEs shown on Schedule 6 for “R.N.’s” and “L.P.N.’s” by the 9.4 FTEs shown on that schedule for “Nurses Aides.” Kindred’s application did not represent that the 3.5- to-one ratio would actually be provided at the proposed Ocala LTCH. There are no regulations that require that ratio (or any ratio) of licensed-to-unlicensed nursing personnel at LTCHs. Accordingly, the net profit for Kindred’s proposed facility is not overstated in any amount because of the failure to project nursing costs for the second year of operation based upon the 3.5-to-one ratio, and Ms. Greenberg’s opinion on that issue is rejected. Benefit Rate The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Kindred’s benefit rate is 17 percent (not 20 percent), and that the 17 percent rate was used for the salary projections included in Kindred’s application.15 Accordingly, the net profit from operations projected for Kindred’s proposed LTCH is not understated in any amount based upon its use of a 17 percent benefit rate, and Ms. Greenberg’s opinion on that issue is rejected. Summary In sum, the evidence establishes the net profit from operations of Kindred’s proposed LTCH in the second year of operation is overstated by a total of $210,652. Even after that amount is deducted from the net profit from operations shown on Schedule 8A, Kindred’s facility will still have a net profit from operations in the amount of $52,482. Therefore, Kindred’s proposed LTCH is financially feasible in the long-term. Kindred and Select-Marion are both for-profit entities whose parent corporations are headquartered in other states, and there is no credible evidence that the local community would directly benefit from the profitability of either facility. As a result, the fact that Select-Marion’s proposed facility is projected to be “more financially feasible" in the long-term than Kindred’s proposed facility is immaterial to the outcome of this case. Moreover, on the latter point, the net profit projected for Select-Marion’s facility is likely overstated to some degree because it is based on the patient revenues generated by a 60-bed LTCH operating at an average utilization rate of 68 percent in the second year of operation, which translates into an ADC of approximately 41. That ADC is higher than the ADC projected through the need methodology that was found to be the most reasonable and reliable. See Part G(3) above. Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes (Fostering Competition that Promotes Cost-effectiveness) Competition for LTCH services in District 3 will not be fostered by the approval of only one of the applications, and need has not been established for two LTCHs. The approved applicant would be the sole provider of such services in District 3, and there would likely not be any significant overlap in and competition for the patients served by the LTCH in Ocala and the existing LTCHs in Green Cove Springs, Jacksonville, and Tampa. Accordingly, the criterion in Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes, does not materially weigh in favor of the approval of either application. Section 408.035(11), Florida Statutes (Medicaid and Indigent Care) Kindred and Select-Marion stipulated that their applications were conditioned on the provision of Medicaid and charity care at levels consistent with the statewide average. However, the Agency took the position in the SAAR and in the Joint Pre-hearing Statement that the conditions offered by each applicant were lower than the statewide average. Kindred conditioned its application on a combined two percent of its total patient days being provided to Medicaid and charity patients. Schedule 7A of Kindred’s application reflects only 0.4 percent of the patient days being Medicaid patients and 0.3 percent of the patient days being charity patients for the first year of operation. In the second year of operation, Schedule 7A reflects 1.6 percent of the patient days being Medicaid patients and 1.2 percent of the patient days being charity patients, for a total of 2.8 percent. Select-Marion conditioned its application on a combined 2.8 percent of its patient days being provided to Medicaid and charity patients. Schedule 7A of Select-Marion’s application projects two percent of its patient days being charity patients and 0.8 percent of the patient days being Medicaid patients in each of the first two years of operation. The SAAR states that the statewide averages for Medicaid and charity patient days are two percent and 1.7 percent, respectively, for a total of 3.7 percent. There is no credible evidence in the record to corroborate those figures. Even if those percentages were assumed to accurately reflect the data reported to the Agency, the evidence establishes that the Medicaid percentage is skewed based upon the pediatric program in Kindred’s St. Petersburg LTCH, which attracts an inordinately high level of Medicaid patients. The St. Petersburg facility is the only LTCH in Florida that has such a program. Neither of the proposed LTCHs at issue in this proceeding will have a pediatric program. As a result, it is not reasonable to compare the skewed statewide average to the Medicaid and charity care commitments proposed by the applicants in this case. If the Medicaid patient days from the St. Petersburg LTCH are removed from the calculation of the statewide average, the “adjusted” statewide average for Medicaid patient days would between 1.2 and 1.5 percent. That range is comparable to the levels projected by the applicants in this case by the second year of operation of their respective LTCHs. Select-Marion projects that it will provide a higher percentage of patient days for Medicaid and charity care in the first year of operation than does Kindred; however, by the second year of operation, the total percentage of patient days for Medicaid and charity care projected for each facility is the same. The Agency recognizes that an LTCH may not meet its Medicaid and charity care conditions in the first year of the facility’s operation because the facility must control its admissions during a portion of that year in order to ensure that its ALOS is long enough to obtain certification from CMS. In sum, Select-Marion and Kindred both satisfy the criterion in Section 408.035(11), Florida Statutes, when their projected Medicaid and charity care commitments are compared to the statewide average that is adjusted to exclude pediatric patient days; and, because the Medicaid and charity care commitments by the Select-Marion and Kindred are materially the same by the second year of the facilities’ operation, this criterion does not favor either applicant over the other. Ultimate Findings Based upon Comparative Analysis On balance, Kindred’s application satisfies the applicable criteria in Section 408.035, Florida Statutes. On balance, Select-Marion’s application satisfies the applicable criteria in Section 408.035, Florida Statutes. Neither application is materially superior to the other in relation to the statutory criteria. Faced with two comparatively equal applications, it is not unreasonable for the Agency to view the more conservative application more favorably. In this case, the more conservative application is Kindred’s because it is proposing to establish only 31 beds in existing, unused hospital space with a cost of only $1.4 million (or $45,300 per bed), as compared to Select- Marion’s 60 beds in a newly-constructed facility with a cost of $12.2 million (or $204,100 per bed). The higher costs associated with Select-Marion’s proposed LTCH will be borne primarily by Select, not the facility’s patients or the general public because approximately 75 percent of the facility’s revenues will come from Medicare reimbursements, which are made under a PPS rather than a cost- based system. The same is true for the costs of Kindred’s LTCH; it will just take Kindred Healthcare less time to recoup its investment than it will for Select to recoup its investment. The applicants also bear the primary financial risk if the Medicare reimbursement system for LTCHs becomes less favorable. However, as Mr. Gregg pointed out in his deposition, there is also a risk to the health care system in those circumstances because the approved LTCH would have an incentive to serve patients who might also be equally well-served in an another, less expensive post-acute care setting in order to recoup its capital investment. This consideration weighs in favor of approval of Kindred’s LTCH, which has less of a capital investment to be recouped. Other considerations also weigh in favor of the approval of Kindred’s application over Select-Marion’s application. Specifically, Kindred garnered more community support for its proposed LTCH, including support from the two largest acute care hospitals in Ocala from which most of the admissions to a proposed LTCH in Ocala would come, and Kindred has also already negotiated a transfer agreement with one of the hospitals, making it more likely that Kindred’s LTCH would actually receive the admissions that it has projected. Additionally, Kindred’s LTCH will be operational approximately a year sooner than Select-Marion’s LTCH.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order approving Kindred’s application (CON 9648) and denying Select-Marion’s application (CON 9647). DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether BayCare Long Term Acute Care Hospital, Inc.'s Certificate of Need Application No. 9753 and University Community Hospital's Certificate of Need Application No. 9754, both submitted to the Agency for Health Care Administration, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact LTCHs defined An LTCH is a medical facility which provides extended medical and rehabilitation care to patients with multiple, chronic, or clinically complex acute medical conditions. These conditions include, but are not limited to, ventilator dependency, tracheotomy care, total parenteral nutrition, long- term intravenous anti-biotic treatment, complex wound care, dialysis at bedside, and multiple systems failure. LTCHs provide an interdisciplinary team approach to the complex medical needs of the patient. LTCHs provide a continuum of care between short-term acute care hospitals and nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), or comprehensive medical rehabilitation facilities. Patients who have been treated in an intensive acute care unit at a short-term acute care hospital and who continue to require intensive care once stabilized, are excellent candidates for care at an LTCH. Included in the interdisciplinary approach is the desired involvement of the patient's family. A substantial number of the patients suitable for treatment in an LTCH are in excess of 65 years of age, and are eligible for Medicare. Licensure and Medicare requirements dictate that an LTCH have an average length of stay (ALOS) of 25 days. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reimburses for care received through the prospective payment system (PPS). Through this system, CMS reimburses the services of LTCHs separately from short-term acute care providers and other post acute care providers. The reimbursement rate for an LTCH under PPS exceeds that of other providers. The reimbursement rate for an LTCH is about twice that of a rehabilitation facility. The increased reimbursement rate indicates the increased cost due to the more intensive care required in an LTCH. The Agency The Agency is a state agency created pursuant to Section 20.42. It is the chief health policy and planning entity for the State of Florida. The Agency administers the Health Facility and Services Development Act found at Sections 408.031-408.045. Pursuant to Section 408.034, the Agency is designated as the single state Agency to issue, revoke, or deny certificates of need. The Agency has established 11 health service planning districts. The applications in this case are for facilities in District 5, which comprises Pinellas and Pasco counties. UCH UCH is a not-for-profit organization that owns and operates a 431-bed tertiary level general acute care hospital and a 120-bed acute care general hospital. Both are located in Hillsborough County. UCH also has management responsibilities and affiliations to operate Helen Ellis Hospital, a 300-bed hospital located in Tarpon Springs, and manages the 300-bed Suncoast Hospital. Both of these facilities are in Pinellas County. UCH also has an affiliation to manage the open heart surgery program at East Pasco Medical Center, a general acute care hospital located in Pasco County. As a not-for-profit organization, the mission of UCH is to provide quality health care services to meet the needs of the communities where it operates regardless of their patients' ability to pay. Baycare BayCare is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BayCare Healthsystems, Inc. (BayCare Systems). BayCare Systems is a not-for-profit entity comprising three members that operate Catholic Health East, Morton Plant Mease Healthcare, and South Florida Baptist. The facilities owned by these organizations are operated pursuant to a Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) entered into by each of the participants. BayCare Systems hospitals include Morton Plant Hospital, a 687-bed tertiary level facility located in Clearwater, Pinellas County; St. Joseph's Hospital, an 887-bed tertiary level general acute care hospital located in Tampa, Hillsborough County; St. Anthony's Hospital, a 407-bed general acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County; and Morton Plant North Bay, a 120-bed hospital located in New Port Richey, Pasco County. Morton Plant Mease Health Care is a partnership between Morton Plant Hospital and Mease Hospital. Although Morton Plant Mease Healthcare is a part of the BayCare System, the hospitals that are owned by the Trustees of Mease Hospital, Mease Hospital Dunedin, and Mease Hospital Countryside, are not directly members of the BayCare System and are not signatories to the JOA. HealthSouth HealthSouth is a national company with the largest market share in inpatient rehabilitation. It is also a large provider of ambulatory services. HealthSouth has about 1,380 facilities across the nation. HealthSouth operates nine LTCHs. The facility that is the Intervenor in this case is a CMR located in Largo, Pinellas County. Kindred Kindred, through its parent company, operates LTCH facilities throughout Florida and is the predominant provider of LTCH services in the state. In the Tampa Bay area, Kindred operates three LTCHs. Two are located in Tampa and one is located in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County. The currently operating LTCH in District 5 that may be affected by the CON applications at issue is Kindred-St. Petersburg. Kindred-St. Petersburg is a licensed 82-bed LTCH with 52 private beds, 22 semi-private beds, and an 8-bed intensive care unit. It operates the array of services normally offered by an LTCH. It is important to note that Kindred-St. Petersburg is located in the far south of heavily populated District 5. The Applications UCH proposes a new freestanding LTCH which will consist of 50 private rooms and which will be located in Connerton, a new town being developed in Pasco County. UCH's proposal will cost approximately $16,982,715. By agreement of the parties, this cost is deemed reasonable. BayCare proposes a "hospital within a hospital" LTCH that will be located within Mease Hospital-Dunedin. The LTCH will be located in an area of the hospital currently used for obstetrics and women's services. The services currently provided in this area will be relocated to Mease Hospital- Countryside. BayCare proposes the establishment of 48 beds in private and semi-private rooms. Review criteria which was stipulated as satisfied by all parties Section 408.035(1)-(9) sets forth the standards for granting certificates of need. The parties stipulated to satisfying the requirements of subsections (3) through (9) as follows. With regard to subsection (3), 'The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care,' all parties stipulated that this statutory criterion is not in dispute and that both applicants may be deemed to have satisfied such criteria. With regard to subsection (4), 'The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation,' it was stipulated that both applicants have all resources necessary in terms of both capital and staff to accomplish the proposed projects, and therefore, both applicants satisfy this requirement. With regard to subsection (5), 'The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district,' it was stipulated that both proposals will increase access. Currently there are geographic, financial and programmatic barriers to access in District 5. The only extant LTCH is located in the southernmost part of District 5. With regard to subsection (6), 'The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal,' the parties stipulated that UCH satisfied the criterion. With regard to BayCare, it was stipulated that its proposal satisfied the criterion so long as BayCare can achieve its utilization projections and obtain Medicare certification as an LTCH and thus demonstrate short-term and long-term feasibility. This issue will be addressed below. With regard to subsection (7), 'The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost- effectiveness,' the parties stipulated that approval of both applications will foster competition that will promote quality and cost effectiveness. The only currently available LTCH in District 5, unlike BayCare and UCH, is a for-profit establishment. With regard to subsection (8), 'The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction,' the parties stipulated that the costs and methods of construction for both proposals are reasonable. With regard to subsection (9), 'the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent,' it was stipulated that both UCH and BayCare have a demonstrated history and a commitment to providing services to Medicaid, Medicaid HMO, self-pay, and underinsured payments. Technically, of course, BayCare has no history at all. However, its sponsors do, and it is they that will shape the mission for BayCare. BayCare's Medicare certification as an LTCH The evidence of record demonstrates that BayCare can comply with Medicare reimbursement regulations and therefore can achieve its utilization projections and obtain Medicare certification as an LTCH. Thus short-term and long-term feasibility is proven. Because BayCare will be situated as a hospital within a hospital, in Mease Hospital Dunedin, and because there is a relationship between that hospital and BayCare Systems, Medicare reimbursement regulations limit to 25 percent the number of patients that may be acquired from Mease Hospital Dunedin or from an organization that controls directly or indirectly the Mease Hospital Dunedin. Because of this limitation, it is, therefore, theoretically possible that the regulator of Medicare payments, CMS, would not allow payment where more than 25 percent of admissions were from the entire BayCare System. Should that occur it would present a serious but not insurmountable problem to BayCare. BayCare projects that 21 percent of its admissions will come from Mease Hospital Dunedin and the rest will come from other sources. BayCare is structured as an independent entity with an independent board of directors and has its own chief executive officer. The medical director and the medical staff will be employed by the independent board of directors. Upon the greater weight of the evidence, under this structure, BayCare is a separate corporate entity that neither controls, nor is controlled by, BayCare Systems or any of its entities or affiliates. One must bear in mind that because of the shifting paradigms of federal medical regulation, predictability in this regard is less than perfect. However, the evidence indicates that CMS will apply the 25 percent rule only in the case of patients transferring to BayCare from Mease Hospital Dunedin. Most of the Medicare-certified LTCHs in the United States operate as hospitals within hospitals. It is apparent, therefore, that adjusting to the CMS limitations is something that is typically accomplished. BayCare will lease space in Mease Hospital Dunedin which will be vacated by it current program. BayCare will contract with Mease Hospital Dunedin for services such as laboratory analysis and radiology. This arrangement will result in lower costs, both in the short term and in the long term, than would be experienced in a free-standing facility, and contributes to the likelihood that BayCare is feasible in the short term and long term. Criteria related to need The contested subsections of Section 408.035 not heretofore addressed, are (1) and (2). These subsections are illuminated by Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C- 1.008(2)(e)2., which provides standards when, as in this case, there is no fixed-need pool. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2., provides as follows: 2. If no agency policy exists, the applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, sub district or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Population Demographics and Dynamics The applicants presented an analysis of the population demographics and dynamics in support of their applications in District 5. The evidence demonstrated that the population of District 5 was 1,335,021 in 2004. It is anticipated that it will grow to 1,406,990 by 2009. The projected growth rate is 5.4 percent. The elderly population in the district, which is defined as persons over the age of 65, is expected to grow from 314,623 in 2004, to 340,676, in 2009, which represents an 8.3 percent increase. BayCare BayCare's service area is defined generally by the geographic locations of Morton Plant Hospital, Morton Plant North Bay Hospital, St. Anthony's Hospital, Mease Hospital Dunedin, and Mease Hospital Countryside. These hospitals are geographically distributed throughout Pinellas County and southwest Pasco County and are expected to provide a base for referrals to BayCare. There is only one extant LTCH in Pinellas County, Kindred, and it is located in the very southernmost part of this densely populated county. Persons who become patients in an LTCH are almost always moved to the LTCH by ambulance, so their movement over a long distance through heavy traffic generates little or no problem for the patient. Accordingly, if patient transportation were the only consideration, movement from the north end of the county to Kindred in the far south, would present no problem. However, family involvement is a substantial factor in an interdisciplinary approach to addressing the needs of LTCH patients. The requirement of frequent movement of family members from northern Pinellas to Kindred through congested traffic will often result in the denial of LTCH services to patients residing in northern Pinellas County or, in the alternative, deny family involvement in the interdisciplinary treatment of LTCH patients. Approximately 70 letters requesting the establishment of an LTCH in northern Pinellas County were provided in BayCare's application. These letters were written by medical personnel, case managers and social workers, business persons, and government officials. The thread common to these letters was, with regard to LTCH services, that the population in northern Pinellas County is underserved. UCH Pasco County has experienced a rapid population growth. It is anticipated that the population will swell to 426,273, in 2009, which represents a 10.1 percent increase over the population in 2004. The elderly population accounts for 28 percent of the population. This is about 50 percent higher than Florida as a whole. Rapid population growth in Pasco County, and expected future growth, has resulted in numerous new housing developments including Developments of Regional Impact (DRI). Among the approved DRI's is the planned community of Connerton, which has been designated a "new town" in Pasco County's Comprehensive Plan. Connerton is a planned community of 8,600 residential units. The plan includes space for a hospital and UCH has negotiated for the purchase of a parcel for that purpose within Connerton. The rate of growth, and the elderly population percentages, will support the proposed UCH LTCH and this is so even if BayCare establishes an LTCH in northern Pinellas County. Availability, utilization, and quality of like services in the district, sub-district, or both The Agency has not established sub-districts for LTCHs. As previously noted, Kindred is the only LTCH extant in District 5. It is a for-profit facility. Kindred was well utilized when it had its pediatric unit and added 22 additional beds. Subsequently, in October 2002, some changes in Medicare reimbursement rules resulted in a reduction of the reimbursement rate. This affected Kindred's income because over 70 percent of its patients are Medicare recipients. Kindred now uses admission criteria that have resulted in a decline in patient admissions. From 1998, the year after Kindred was established, until 2002, annual utilization was in excess of 90 percent. Thereafter, utilization has declined, the 22-bed addition has been shut down, and Kindred projects an occupancy of 55 percent in 2005. Kindred must make a profit. Therefore, it denies access to a significant number of patients in District 5. It denies the admission of patients who have too few "Medicare- reimbursable days" or "Medicaid-reimbursable days" remaining. The record indicates that Kindred only incurs charity care or Medicaid patient days when a patient admitted to Kindred with seemingly adequate funding unexpectedly exhausts his or her funding prior to discharge. Because of the constraints of PPS, Kindred has established admission criteria that excludes certain patients with conditions whose prognosis is so uncertain that it cannot adequately predict how long they will require treatment. Kindred's availability to potential patients is thus constrained. HealthSouth, a licensed CMR, is not a substitute for an LTCH. Although it is clear that there is some overlap between a CMR and an LTCH, HealthSouth, for instance, does not provide inpatient dialysis, will not accept ventilator patients, and does not treat complex wound patients. The nurse staffing level at HealthSouth is inadequate to provide for the type of patient that is eligible for treatment in an LTCH. The fact that LTCHs are reimbursed by Medicare at approximately twice the rate that a CMR is reimbursed, demonstrates the higher acuity level of LTCH services when compared to a CMR. HealthSouth is a facility which consistently operates at high occupancy levels and even if it were capable of providing the services typical of an LTCH, it would not have sufficient capacity to provide for the need. A CMR is a facility to which persons who make progress in an LTCH might repair so that they can return to the activities of daily living. SNFs are not substitutes for LTCHs although there could be some limited overlap. SNFs are generally not appropriate for patients otherwise eligible for the type of care provided by an LTCH. They do not provide the range of services typically provided by an LTCH and do not maintain the registered nurse staffing levels required for delivering the types of services needed for patients appropriate for an LTCH. LTCHs are a stage in the continuum of care. Short- term acute care hospitals take in very sick or injured patients and treat them. Thereafter, the survivors are discharged to home, or to a CMR, or to a SNF, or, if the patients are still acutely ill but stable, and if an LTCH is available, to an LTCH. As noted above, currently in northern Pinellas County and in Pasco County, there is no reasonable access to an LTCH. An intensive care unit (ICU) is, ideally, a treatment phase that is short. If treatment has been provided in an ICU and the patient remains acutely ill but stable, and is required to remain in the ICU because there is no alternative, greater than necessary costs are incurred. Staff in an ICU are not trained or disposed to provide the extensive therapy and nursing required by patients suitable for an LTCH and are not trained to provide support and training to members of the patient's family in preparation for the patient's return home. The majority of patients suitable for an LTCH have some potential for recovery. This potential is not realized in an ICU, which is often counterproductive for patients who are stabilized but who require specialized long-term acute care. Patients who remain in an ICU beyond five to seven days have an increased morbidity/mortality rate. Maintaining patients suitable for an LTCH in an ICU also results in over-utilization of ICU services and can cause congestion when ICU beds are fully occupied. UCH in Pasco County, and to a lesser extent BayCare in northern Pinellas County, will bring to the northern part of District 5 services which heretofore have not been available in the district, or, at least, have not been readily available. Persons in Pasco County and northern Pinellas County, who would benefit from a stay in an LTCH, have often had to settle for some less appropriate care situation. Medical Treatment Trends LTCHs are relatively new cogs in the continuum of care and the evidence indicates that they will play an important role in that continuum in the future. The evidence of record demonstrates that the current trend in medical treatment is to find appropriate post acute placements in an LTCH setting for those patients in need of long-term acute care beyond the stay normally experienced in a short-term acute care hospital. Market conditions The federal government's development of the distinctive PPS for LTCHs has created a market condition which is favorable for the development of LTCH facilities. Although the Agency has not formally adopted by rule a need methodology specifically for LTCHs, by final order it has recently relied upon the "geometric mean length of stay + 7" (GMLOS +7) need methodology. The GMLOS +7 is a statistical calculation used by CMS in administering the PPS reimbursement system in determining an appropriate reimbursement for a particular "diagnostic related group" (DRG). Other need methodologies have been found to be unsatisfactory because they do not accurately reflect the need for LTCH services in areas where LTCH services are not available, or where the market for LTCH services is not competitive. GMLOS +7 is the best analysis the Agency has at this point. Because the population for whom an LTCH might be appropriate is unique, and because it overlaps with other populations, finding an algebraic need expression is difficult. An acuity measure would be the best marker of patient appropriateness, but insufficient data are available to calculate that. BayCare's proposal will provide beneficial competition for LTCH services in District 5 for the first time and will promote geographic, financial, and programmatic access to LTCH services. BayCare, in conducting its need calculations used a data pool from Morton Plant Hospital, Mease Dunedin Hospital, Mease Countryside Hospital, Morton Plant North Bay Hospital, and St. Anthony's Hospital for the 12 months ending September 2003. The hospitals included in the establishment of the pool are hospitals that would be important referral sources for BayCare. BayCare then identified 160 specific DRGs historically served by existing Florida LTCHs, or which could have been served by Florida LTCHs, and lengths of stay greater than the GMLOS for acute care patients, and compared them to the data pool. This resulted in a pool of 871 potential patients. The calculation did not factor in the certain growth in the population of the geographic area, and therefore the growth of potential LTCH patients. BayCare then applied assumptions based on the proximity of the referring hospitals to the proposed LTCH to project how many of the patients eligible for LTCH services would actually be referred and admitted to the proposed LTCH. That exercise resulted in a projected potential volume of 20,265 LTCH patient days originating just from the three District 5 BayCare hospitals and the two Mease hospitals. BayCare assumes, and the assumption is found to be reasonable, that 25 percent of their LTCH volume will originate from facilities other than BayCare or Mease hospitals. Adding this factor resulted in a total of 27,020 patient days for a total net need of 82 beds at 90 percent occupancy. BayCare's GMLOS +7 bed need methodology reasonably projects a bed need of 82 beds based on BayCare's analysis of the demand arising from the three District 5 BayCare hospitals and the two Mease hospitals. UCH provided both a GMLOS +7 and a use rate analysis. The use rate analysis is suspect in a noncompetitive environment and, obviously, in an environment where LTCHs do not exist. UCH's GMLOS +7 analyses resulted in the identification of a need for 159 additional LTCH beds in District 5. This was broken down into a need of 60 beds in Pasco County and 99 additional beds in Pinellas County. There is no not-for-profit LTCH provider in District The addition of BayCare and UCH LTCHs to the district will meet a need in the case of Medicaid, indigent, and underinsured patients. Both BayCare and UCH have agreed in their applications to address the needs of patients who depend on Medicaid, or who are indigent, or who have private insurance that is inadequate to cover the cost of their treatment. The statistical analyses provided by both applicants support the proposed projects of both applicants. Testimony from doctors who treat patients of the type who might benefit from an LTCH testified that those types of facilities would be utilized. Numerous letters from physicians, nurses, and case managers support the need for these facilities. Adverse impacts HealthSouth and Kindred failed to persuade that BayCare's proposal will adversely impact them. HealthSouth provides little of the type of care normally provided at an LTCH. Moreover, HealthSouth is currently operating near capacity. Kindred is geographically remote from BayCare's proposed facility, and, more importantly, remote in terms of travel time, which is a major consideration for the families of patients. Kindred did not demonstrate that it was currently receiving a large number of patients from the geographic vicinity of the proposed BayCare facility, although it did receive some patients from BayCare Systems facilities and would likely lose some admissions if BayCare's application is approved. The evidence did not establish that Kindred would suffer a material adverse impact should BayCare establish an LTCH in Mease Dunedin Hospital. HealthSouth and Kindred conceded that UCH's program would not adversely impact them. The Agency's Position The Agency denied the applications of BayCare and UCH in the SAARs. At the time of the hearing the Agency continued to maintain that granting the proposals was inappropriate. The Agency's basic concern with these proposals, and in fact, the establishments of LTCHs throughout the state, according to the Agency's representative Jeffrey N. Gregg, is the oversupply of beds. The Agency believes it will be a long time before it can see any measure of clinical efficiency and whether the LTCH route is the appropriate way to go. The Agency has approved a number of LTCHs in recent years and is studying them in order to get a better understanding of what the future might hold. The Agency noted that the establishment of an LTCH by ongoing providers, BayCare Systems and UCH, where there are extant built-in referring facilities, were more likely to be successful than an out-of-state provider having no prior relationships with short-term acute care hospitals in the geographic vicinity of the LTCH. The Agency noted that both a referring hospital and an LTCH could benefit financially by decompressing its intensive care unit, and thus maximizing their efficiency. The Agency did not explain how, if these LTCHs are established, a subsequent failure would negatively affect the delivery of health services in District 5. The Agency, when it issued its SAAR, did not have the additional information which became available during the hearing process.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that UCH Certificate of Need Application No. 9754 and BayCare Certificate of Need Application No. 9753 satisfy the applicable criteria and both applications should be approved. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 29th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Robert Griffin, Esquire J. Robert Griffin, P.A. 1342 Timberlane Road, Suite 102-A Tallahassee, Florida 32312-1762 Patricia A. Renovitch, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez, Cole, & Bryant P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Blank, Meenan & Smith, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Timothy Elliott, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alan Levine, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Christa Calamas, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Mail Station 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration should approve Petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need to establish a freestanding 44-bed long-term acute care hospital in Sarasota County.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Parties Petitioner is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Select Medical Corporation (Select), which owns and operates 79 LTACHs in 24 states including a 40-bed LTACH in Miami-Dade County that was licensed in December 2002. The Agency is the state agency responsible for administering the CON process and licensing LTACHs and other hospital facilities. Petitioner’s Proposed LTACH In the first batching cycle of 2003 for “other beds and programs,” Petitioner timely filed an application for a CON to establish a freestanding 44-bed LTACH in Sarasota County. Sarasota County is located in District 8 for health planning purposes. The other counties in District 8 are DeSoto, Charlotte, Lee, Glades, Hendry, and Collier. Petitioner's proposed LTACH will be located in the city of Sarasota, which is in northern Sarasota County, close to the boundary between Sarasota and Manatee Counties. Petitioner projected in the application that its proposed LTACH would be operational by June 2005. The utilization projections in the application focused on the facility's third year of operation, which is the 12-month period ending June 2008. The specific mix of services to be provided at Petitioner’s proposed LTACH has not yet been determined; however, it is expected that the services will include the same "core" services found at other Select LTACHs. Those services are the treatment of pulmonary and ventilator patients, neuro- trauma and stroke patients, medically complex patients, and wound care. Petitioner’s facility will include a four-bed “high observation” unit in which the most unstable and highest acuity patients will be located. The nurse-to-patient ratio in that unit will be two-to-one, and the level of monitoring will be similar to that of an intensive care unit (ICU) in a general acute care hospital. Application Review and Denial Petitioner's application was designated CON 9657, and was reviewed along with the CON application filed by Petitioner for a 60-bed LTACH in Lee County. The Lee County application, CON 9656, is not at issue in this proceeding. On June 11, 2003, the Agency issued its State Agency Action Report (SAAR), which recommended denial of both CON applications filed by Petitioner. The primary basis for denial of the Sarasota County application described in the SAAR was Petitioner's failure to demonstrate a need for its proposed 44- bed LTACH. The parties stipulated that Petitioner's CON application satisfied all of the applicable statutory and rule criteria except those related to "need," and that the only issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Petitioner established a need for its proposed facility.1 LTACHs, Generally LTACHs are health care facilities that provide extended medical and rehabilitative care to patients with multiple, chronic, and/or clinically complex acute medical conditions. To qualify as an LTACH, the facility must serve a patient population whose average length of stay exceeds 25 days. LTACH services are most highly utilized by persons in the 65 and older (“65+”) age cohort because those persons are more likely to have complex and/or co-morbid medical conditions that require long-term acute care. The typical LTACH patient is still in need of considerable acute care, but a traditional acute care hospital is no longer the most appropriate or lowest cost setting for that care. Most LTACH admissions are patients transferred from a traditional acute care hospital. It is not uncommon for an LTACH patient to be transferred directly from the hospital's critical care unit or ICU after the patient has been diagnosed and stabilized. Traditional post-acute care settings -- nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), skilled nursing units (SNUs), comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR) hospitals, and home health care -- are not appropriate for the typical LTACH patient because the patient's acuity level and medical/therapeutic needs are higher than those generally treated in those settings. Indeed, unlike traditional post-acute care settings which typically do not admit patients who still require acute care, the core patient-group served by LTACHs are patients who require considerable acute care through daily physician visits and intensive nursing care which can average as much as nine hours per day. LTACH patients are often discharged to a traditional post-acute care setting such as a nursing home, SNF, SNU, CMR, or home health care. Thus, those facilities cannot be considered as "substitutes" for LTACHs, even though there is overlap between the diagnoses and services provided to lower acuity LTACH patients and higher acuity patients in those traditional post-acute care settings. The federal government has recently developed a Medicare payment system specifically for LTACHs. That system recognizes the LTACH patient population as being distinct from the patient populations treated by traditional acute care hospitals and post-acute care providers such as nursing homes, SNFs, SNUs, and CMRs, even though there may be some overlap between the patient populations served by LTACHs and those other types of facilities. LTACH services are reimbursed by Medicare at a predetermined rate that is weighted based upon the patient's diagnosis and acuity, regardless of the cost of care. This reimbursement system is similar to, but uses Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) that are different than the DRGs used in the traditional acute care hospital setting. LTACHs fit into the continuum of care between traditional acute care hospitals and traditional post-acute care facilities. LTACHs are designed to serve patients that would otherwise have to be maintained in a traditional acute care hospital, where the standard reimbursement rates may be insufficient to cover the costs associated with a lengthy stay, or be moved to an alternative setting such as a nursing home, SNF, SNU, or CMR, where the patient may not receive the level of curative care needed. The recently-adopted, LTACH-specific system for Medicare reimbursements is expected to enhance the status of LTACHs as part of the continuum of care. LTACHs in Florida Currently, there are only nine LTACHs operating in Florida with a total of 683 licensed beds. The facilities are concentrated in six counties, Dade, Broward, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Duval, and Clay. There are an additional 182 beds which have been approved by the Agency but which are not yet operational. Those beds include a new 40-bed facility in Sarasota County (discussed below) and an additional 22 beds at the existing 60-bed Pinellas County facility, which is in the health planning district (District 5) immediately to the north of District 8. The Pinellas County facility is located in St. Petersburg, which is approximately 25 to 30 miles north of Petitioner’s proposed facility. The Florida LTACH facilities are well utilized. The occupancy rates at the facilities range from 54.6 percent to 99.2 percent. Four of the nine facilities have occupancy rates higher than 80 percent, and the average occupancy rate for all of the facilities is 76.6 percent. The average length of stay for all patients discharged from Florida LTACHs between July 2001 and June 2002 was 42.2 days. The 65+ age cohort accounted for approximately 77 percent of the LTACH discharges in Florida for that period. Relevant Demographics of Sarasota County The 2003 population of Sarasota County was 343,966, which was 25.8 percent of the total District 8 population. In 2008, which is the third year of operation for Petitioner's proposed LTACH, the population of Sarasota County is projected to increase by 6.2 percent to 365,439. Over that same period, the population of District 8 as a whole is projected to increase by 10.4 percent. The 65+ age cohort, which is the group most likely to utilize LTACH services and the group that utilizes LTACH services at the highest rate, represents 31.2 percent of Sarasota County's 2003 population and 31.5 percent of the county's projected 2008 population. By contrast, in 2003 the District 8 average for the 65+ age cohort was 26.9 percent and the statewide average was 17.5 percent. Sarasota County has a higher percentage of persons in the 65+ age cohort than do any of the counties that currently have an LTACH facility. Pinellas County, with 22 percent of its population in the 65+ age cohort (and 82 licensed and approved LTACH beds), has the highest rate of the counties with LTACHs. There are four acute care hospitals in Sarasota County, two of which -- Sarasota Memorial Hospital and Doctors Hospital of Sarasota -- are located in the city of Sarasota in close proximity to the proposed location of Petitioner's LTACH. The other two hospitals in Sarasota County -- Bon Secours Venice Hospital and Englewood Community Hospital -- are located in the southern part of the county and are 16 miles and 28 miles, respectively, from the proposed location of Petitioner's LTACH. In the CON application, Petitioner stated that the four hospitals in Sarasota County would "provide a solid base of patients" for the proposed LTACH. The application further stated that patients would also likely come from three hospitals in Charlotte County -- Charlotte Regional Medical Center, Fawcett Memorial Hospital, and Bon Secours St. Joseph Hospital - - and one hospital in DeSoto County -- Desoto Memorial Hospital -- even though the Charlotte County hospitals are almost 40 miles from the proposed site of Petitioner's LTACH and the DeSoto County hospital is more than 40 miles from the proposed site. The record does not reflect how many total acute care beds are in these hospitals, nor does it reflect whether any of the hospitals are trauma centers or whether they have any specialty programs that might impact (either positively or negatively) the potential LTACH patient pool for Petitioner's proposed facility. Approved LTACH in District 8 There are no LTACHs currently operating in Sarasota County or District 8. HealthSouth received a CON in October 2002 to establish a freestanding 40-bed LTACH in Sarasota County, but that facility has not yet opened. HealthSouth is behind schedule in the development of its LTACH. If HealthSouth does not "break ground" on its LTACH by April 2004, its CON will expire; however, as of the date of the hearing, HealthSouth's CON was still valid. The Agency expressed a concern in the SAAR that "the ultimate development of the HealthSouth LTCH [sic] in District 8 is uncertain" based upon legal and financial problems at HealthSouth. However, as of the date of the hearing, the Agency had not received any formal indication from HealthSouth that it is not going forward with the development of its Sarasota County LTACH. HealthSouth did not seek to intervene in this proceeding. Numeric Need for Petitioner’s Proposed LTACH Petitioner has the burden to demonstrate "need" for its proposed LTACH. The Agency does not publish a fixed-need pool for LTACHs, nor is there an Agency rule which provides a specific formula or methodology for determining numeric need for an LTACH.2 HealthSouth's 40 approved, but not yet operational LTACH beds must be factored into the analysis of need for any additional LTACH beds in District 8. Accordingly, it is necessary for Petitioner to demonstrate a numeric need for at least 84 LTACH beds for its application to be granted. The application states that “the primary service area [for Petitioner’s proposed LTACH] is Sarasota County and the broader service area includes portions of Charlotte County and DeSoto County . . . .” This service area encompasses an approximately 40-mile radius around the site of the proposed facility, and includes the eight acute care hospitals referenced above. In contrast to the application’s description of the service area, Petitioner’s expert witness in the area of LTACH development, Greg Sasserman, testified that the “actual” service area for Petitioner’s proposed LTACH would be a 10 to 20-mile radius around the facility. That distance is a more reasonable estimate of the distance that patients would likely travel for LTACH services. In its application, Petitioner attempted to demonstrate numerical need for the proposed facility under two distinct methodologies, one based upon "use rate" and another based upon "length of stay." “Use Rate” Methodology Petitioner’s "use rate" methodology projected the number of LTACH patient days that will likely be generated by Sarasota County residents based upon the utilization rates of LTACH services by the residents of the counties in which LTACH facilities are currently located. The utilization rates for the existing facilities were calculated by age cohort and were shown as a number of patient days per 1,000 persons in each age cohort. Those rates were then applied to the projected population of Sarasota County in 2008 in each age cohort in order to calculate a projected number of patient days that will be generated by Sarasota County residents in that year. Those patient days were then "grossed up” by an occupancy standard of 80 percent and then "grossed up" by an additional 44.5 percent to account for patients coming to the facility from outside of Sarasota County. The utilization rate calculated under this methodology is not a true “statewide” rate. The existing LTACHs are concentrated in only six of the states 67 counties, and more significantly, Petitioner excluded the facilities in Miami-Dade and Pinellas Counties from its calculations because their utilization rates were, according to Petitioner, “misleadingly conservative.” The 44.5 percent out-of-county rate was purportedly derived from the experience of the other LTACHs operating in Florida. However, the record does not include the raw data upon which that rate was calculated, and it does not reflect whether the rate includes the two facilities excluded from the calculation of the “statewide” utilization rate or the distances from which out-of-county patients are drawn to the facilities. Nor can the 44.5 percent rate be squared with the calculations of potential LTACH discharges from the eight area hospitals as part of the “length of stay” methodology (discussed below), which reflect only 24.7 to 26.8 percent of the patients coming from hospitals outside of Sarasota County.3 Petitioner's calculations produced an estimate of 29,654 LTACH patient days generated by Sarasota County residents in 2008, which translated into an average daily census (ADC) of 81 patients and a need for 101 LTACH beds; and an estimate of 53,431 LTACH patient days, which translated into an ADC of 146 patients and a need for 182 LTACH beds when the out-of-county residents were taken into consideration. Use rate methodologies are commonly used by health planners to project need for acute care beds and other types of services. However, in the LTACH context, a use rate methodology is not necessarily a reliable indicator of bed need because the existing LTACHs are not evenly distributed statewide and the utilization rates for the existing LTACHs vary significantly. The unreliability of Petitioner’s “use rate” analysis is further demonstrated by the fact that Petitioner excluded two of the existing facilities in the calculation of its “statewide” utilization rate. If the utilization rates of those facilities were included, the number of patient days and bed need projected by Petitioner would have been lower. “Length of Stay” Methodology Petitioner’s "length of stay" methodology projected bed need based upon an analysis of the discharges from the eight District 8 hospitals identified above. More specifically, the analysis focused on the discharges that Petitioner considered to be “appropriate” LTACH admissions based upon the nature of the patient’s diagnosis and the length of the patient’s stay at the hospital. Open heart surgery DRGs were included in the analysis, and DRGs “for people age 0 to 17, obstetric and gynecological care, newborns, alcohol and drug abuse, rehabilitation and psychoses” were excluded from the analysis. The application also makes various references to LTACH-appropriate diagnoses by Major Diagnostic Category (MDC) and "program area"; however, the specific discharges identified by Petitioner as being potential LTACH patients from the eight hospitals are not broken down by DRG in the application. Petitioner used two approaches to determine whether the patient is an “appropriate” LTACH patient from a length of stay perspective. Both approaches estimate the number of days that patients who otherwise would have remained in and been discharged from an acute care hospital would have likely spent at an LTACH, if one was available The first approach, which was characterized in the application and at hearing as the more “conservative” measure, only considered patients whose length of stay at the acute care hospital was at least 15 days longer than the geometric mean length of stay (GMLOS) for the patient's DRG (hereafter “the GMLOS plus 15 methodology.)” The estimated number of patient days produced by the GMLOS plus 15 methodology is the sum of the patients' actual lengths of stay less the GMLOS, which represents the number of days that the patients would likely stay in the LTACH facility. The second approach, which was characterized in the application as the more “aggressive” measure, considered all patients whose length of stay was more than 15 days (hereafter “the LOS plus 15 methodology”). The estimated number of patient days produced by the LOS plus 15 methodology is the sum of the patients' actual lengths of stay less 15 days, which again reflects the number of days that the patients would likely stay in an LTACH facility. The GMLOS is a statistically-adjusted value for all cases within a DRG that takes into account “outlier” cases,4 transfer cases, and other cases that could skew an arithmetic average length of stay. The GMLOS is calculated by the federal government. The only difference in the two approaches is that the GMLOS plus 15 methodology includes only those patients with considerably longer lengths of stay than expected for their diagnoses (i.e., 15 days in excess of the GMLOS for the applicable DRG), whereas the LOS plus 15 methodology includes all patients with long lengths of stay (i.e., in excess of 15 days) irrespective of their diagnoses. Patients who, because of co-morbidities, otherwise complex medical conditions, or frailties due to age, have lengths of stay in excess of the GMLOS plus 15 days are generally appropriate LTACH patients, particularly if the patient would otherwise remain in the ICU of the acute care hospital. In such circumstances, an LTACH would likely be the more appropriate setting for the patient from both a financial and patient-care standpoint. The GMLOS plus 15 methodology resulted in an estimated 13,263 LTACH patient days, which translates into an ADC of 36.3 patients and a need of 45 LTACH beds based upon an 80 percent occupancy standard. The LOS plus 15 methodology resulted in an estimated 21,753 LTACH patient days, which translates into an ADC of 59.6 patients and a need for 74 LTACH beds based upon an 80 percent occupancy standard. The patient days computed through the GMLOS plus 15 methodology and the LOS plus 15 methodology were characterized in the application and at the hearing as the lower and upper ends, respectively, of the projected LTACH patient days in the area to be served by Petitioner’s proposed LTACH. The mid-point of that range, 17,508 patient days, was then broken out by age cohort and was used to compute “hospital specific” utilization rates by age cohort. Those “hospital-specific” utilization rates were then multiplied by the projected future population of the respective age cohorts in the area to be served by Petitioner’s LTACH – Sarasota County and one-half of the population of Charlotte County – to project the total number of LTACH beds needed in 2008. No adjustment was made for out-of-county admissions because the hospitals included in both of the length-of-stay methodologies already included projected admissions from out-of- county hospitals. The end-result of the mid-point analysis and, hence, the end-result of Petitioner’s “length of stay” methodology was a projected need for 67 LTACH beds in 2008. Under the circumstances of this case, the GMLOS plus 15 methodology provides a more reasonable projection of LTACH patient days than does the LOS plus 15 methodology or the mid- point analysis. Specifically, the LOS plus 15 methodology is based upon the premise that physicians would be more likely to transfer their patients who would otherwise require long hospital lengths of stays to an LTACH “as soon as possible in their treatment regiment when LTAC [sic] beds are available,” but the record is devoid of competent evidence, such as letters or testimony from local physicians, that would provide support for that premise. Both of the “length of stay” methodologies appear to assume a 100 percent capture rate of the LTACH-appropriate patients by Petitioner’s proposed facility. The record is devoid of competent evidence demonstrating the reasonableness of that assumption, either with or without the HealthSouth facility in place. For example, the record does not include any tentative transfer agreements or other documentation that demonstrates a willingness of the local hospitals to transfer patients to Petitioner’s LTACH if it is constructed.5 Furthermore, based upon Mr. Sasserman’s definition of the service area of Petitioner’s proposed LTACH, it was not reasonable to include the patient days generated by discharges from five of the eight hospitals used by Petitioner in its “length of stay” methodologies, since those hospitals are outside of the 10 to 20-mile radius identified by Mr. Sasserman. Finally, there is no basis in the record to conclude that any overstatement of the bed need resulting from the inclusion of hospitals outside of the service area as defined by Mr. Sasserman would be offset by referrals from Manatee Memorial Hospital, which is located in District 5 approximately 10 miles north of the proposed site for Petitioner’s LTACH. The testimony on this point by Mr. Sasserman and Petitioner's Health Planner is pure speculation. Ultimate Findings Regarding Numeric “Need” The bed need projected by Petitioner through its “use rate” methodology is not reliable because of the significant shortcomings in that methodology described above. Of the two measures used by Petitioner as part of its “length of stay” methodology, the GMLOS plus 15 methodology is more reasonable than the LOS plus 15 methodology; however, neither methodology resulted in a projected bed need that is sufficient to account for HealthSouth’s 40 approved beds and Petitioner’s 44 proposed beds.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a final order denying Petitioner’s application for a Certificate of Need to establish a 44-bed LTACH in Sarasota County. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2004.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Applicant, LMHS The applicant, LMHS, is a public, not-for-profit health care system, created in 1968 by special act of the Legislature. A ten-member publicly elected board of directors is responsible for overseeing LMHS on behalf of the citizens of Lee County. LMHS does not have taxing power. LMHS is the dominant provider of hospital services in Lee County. LMHS operates four hospital facilities under three separate hospital licenses. The four hospital campuses are dispersed throughout Lee County: borrowing the sub-county area descriptors adopted by LMHS’s health planning expert, LMHS operates one hospital in northwest Lee County, one hospital in central Lee County, and two hospitals in south Lee County.1/ At present, the four hospital campuses are licensed to operate a total of 1,423 hospital beds. The only non-LMHS hospital in Lee County is 88-bed Lehigh Regional Medical Center (Lehigh Regional) in northeast Lee County, owned and operated by a for-profit hospital corporation, Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA). LMHS has a best-practice strategy of increasing and concentrating clinical specialties at each of its existing hospitals. The LMHS board has already approved which specialty service lines will be the focus at each of its four hospitals. Although there is still some duplication of specialty areas, LMHS has tried to move more to clinical specialization concentrated at a specific hospital to lower costs, better utilize resources, and also to concentrate talent and repetitions, leading to improved clinical outcomes. Currently licensed to operate 415 hospital beds, Lee Memorial Hospital (Lee Memorial) is located in downtown Fort Myers in central Lee County. The hospital was initially founded in 1916 and established at its current location in the 1930s. In the 1960s, a five-story clinical tower was constructed on the campus, to which three more stories were added in the 1970s. The original 1930s building was demolished and its site became surface parking. Today, Lee Memorial provides a full array of acute care services, plus clinical specialties in such areas as orthopedics, neurology, oncology, and infectious diseases. Lee Memorial’s licensed bed complement includes 15 adult inpatient psychiatric beds (not in operation), and 60 beds for comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR), a tertiary health service.2/ Lee Memorial is a designated stroke center, meaning it is a destination to which EMS providers generally seek to transport stroke patients, bypassing any closer hospital that lacks stroke center designation. Lee Memorial operates the only verified level II adult trauma center in the seven-county region designated AHCA district 8. Lee Memorial also is home to a new residency program for medical school graduates. At its peak, Lee Memorial operated as many as 600 licensed beds at the single downtown Fort Myers location. In 1990, when hospital beds were still regulated under the CON program, Lee Memorial transferred its right to operate 220 beds to establish a new hospital facility to the south, HealthPark Medical Center (HealthPark). One reason to shift some of its regulated hospital beds to the south was because of the growing population in the southern half of Lee County. Another reason was to ensure a paying patient population by moving beds away from Lee Memorial to a more affluent area. That way, LMHS would have better system balance, and be better able to bear the financial burden of caring for disproportionately high numbers of Medicaid and charity care patients at the downtown safety-net hospital. That was a reasonable and appropriate objective. HealthPark, located in south Lee County ZIP code 33908, to the south and a little to the west of Lee Memorial, now operates 368 licensed beds--320 general acute care and 48 neonatal intensive care beds. HealthPark’s specialty programs and services include cardiac care, open heart surgery, and urology. HealthPark is a designated STEMI3/ (heart attack) center, a destination to which EMS providers generally seek to transport heart attack patients, bypassing any closer hospital lacking STEMI center designation. HealthPark also concentrates in specialty women’s and children’s services, offering obstetrics, neonatal intensive care, perinatal intensive care, and pediatrics. HealthPark is a state-designated children’s cancer center. HealthPark’s open heart surgery, neonatal and perinatal intensive care, and pediatric oncology services are all tertiary health services. In 1996, LMHS acquired its third hospital, Cape Coral Medical Center (Cape Coral), from another entity.4/ The acquisition of Cape Coral was another step in furtherance of the strategy to improve LMHS’s overall payer mix by establishing hospitals in affluent areas. Cape Coral is located in northwest Lee County, and is licensed to operate 291 general acute care beds. Cape Coral’s specialty concentrations include obstetrics, orthopedics, gastroenterology, urology, and stroke treatment. Cape Coral recently achieved primary stroke center designation, making it an appropriate destination for EMS transport of stroke patients, according to Lee County EMS transport guidelines. The newest LMHS hospital, built in 2007-2008 and opened in 2009, is Gulf Coast Medical Center (Gulf Coast) in south Lee County ZIP code 33912.5/ With 349 licensed beds, Gulf Coast offers tertiary services including kidney transplantation and open heart surgery, and specialty services including obstetrics, stroke treatment, surgical oncology, and neurology. Gulf Coast is both a designated primary stroke center and a STEMI center. NCH NCH is a not-for-profit system operating two hospital facilities with a combined 715 licensed beds in Collier County, directly to the south of Lee County. Naples Community Hospital (Naples Community) is in downtown Naples. NCH North Naples Hospital Campus (North Naples) is located in the northernmost part of Collier County, near the Collier-Lee County line.6/ The Petitioner in this case is NCH doing business as North Naples. North Naples is licensed to operate 262 acute care beds. It provides an array of acute care hospital services, specialty services including obstetrics and pediatrics, and tertiary health services including neonatal intensive care and CMR. AHCA AHCA is the state health planning agency charged with administering the CON program pursuant to the Health Facility and Services Development Act, sections 408.031-408.0455, Florida Statutes (2013).7/ AHCA is responsible for the coordinated planning of health care services in the state. To carry out its responsibilities for health planning and CON determinations, AHCA maintains a comprehensive health care database, with information that health care facilities are required to submit, such as utilization data. See § 408.033(3), Fla. Stat. AHCA conducts its health planning and CON review based on “health planning service district[s]” defined by statute. See § 408.032(5), Fla. Stat. Relevant in this case is district 8, which includes Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Lee, Glades, Hendry, and Collier Counties. Additionally, by rule, AHCA has adopted acute care sub-districts, originally utilized in conjunction with an acute care bed need methodology codified as Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.038. The acute care bed need rule was repealed in 2005, following the deregulation of acute care beds from CON review. However, AHCA has maintained its acute care sub-district rule, in which Lee County is designated sub-district 8-5. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-2.100(3)(h)5. The Proposed Project LMHS proposes to establish a new 80-bed general hospital on the southeast corner of U.S. Highway 41 and Coconut Road in Bonita Springs (ZIP code 34135),8/ in south Lee County. The CON application described the hospital services to be offered at the proposed new hospital in only the most general fashion--medical- surgical services, emergency services, intensive care, and telemetry services. Also planned for the proposed hospital are outpatient care, community education, and chronic care management --all non-hospital, non-CON-regulated services. At hearing, LMHS did not elaborate on the planned hospital services for the proposed new facility. Instead, no firm decisions have been made by the health system regarding what types of services will be offered at the new hospital. The proposed site consists of three contiguous parcels, totaling approximately 31 acres. LMHS purchased a 21-acre parcel in 2004, with a view to building a hospital there someday. LMHS later added to its holdings when additional parcels became available. At present, the site’s development of regional impact (DRI) development order does not permit a hospital, but would allow the establishment of a freestanding emergency department. The proposed hospital site is adjacent to the Bonita Community Health Center (BCHC). Jointly owned by LMHS and NCH, BCHC is a substantial health care complex described by LMHS President James Nathan as a “hospital without walls.” This 100,000 square-foot complex includes an urgent care center, ambulatory surgery center, and physicians’ offices. A wide variety of outpatient health care services are provided within the BCHC complex, including radiology/diagnostic imaging, endoscopy, rehabilitation, pain management, and lab services. Although LMHS purchased the adjacent parcels with the intent of establishing a hospital there someday, representatives of LMHS expressed their doubt that “someday” has arrived; they have candidly admitted that this application may be premature. CON Application Filing LMHS did not intend to file a CON application when it did, in the first hospital-project review cycle of 2013. LMHS did not file a letter of intent (LOI) by the initial LOI deadline to signify its intent to file a CON application. However, LMHS’s only Lee County hospital competitor, HMA, filed an LOI on the deadline day. LMHS learned that the project planned by HMA was to replace Lehigh Regional with a new hospital, which would be relocated to south Lee County, a little to the north of the Estero/Bonita Springs area. LMHS was concerned that if the HMA application went forward and was approved, that project would block LMHS’s ability to pursue a hospital in Bonita Springs for many years to come. Therefore, in reaction to HMA’s LOI, LMHS filed a “grace period” LOI, authorized under AHCA’s rules, to submit a competing proposal for a new hospital in south Lee County. But for the HMA LOI, there would have been no grace period for a competing proposal, and LMHS would not have been able to apply when it did. Two weeks later, on the initial application filing deadline, LMHS submitted a “shell” application. LMHS proceeded to quickly prepare the bulk of its application to file five weeks later by the omissions response deadline of April 10, 2013. Shortly before the omissions response deadline, Mr. Nathan met with Jeffrey Gregg, who is in charge of the CON program as director of AHCA’s Florida Center for Health Information and Policy Analysis, and Elizabeth Dudek, AHCA Secretary, to discuss the LMHS application. Mr. Nathan told the AHCA representatives that LMHS was not really ready to file a CON application, but felt cornered and forced into it to respond to the HMA proposal. Mr. Nathan also discussed with AHCA representatives the plan to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial, but AHCA told Mr. Nathan not to make such a proposal. Since beds are no longer subject to CON regulation, hospitals are free to add or delicense beds as they deem appropriate, and therefore, an offer to delicense beds adds nothing to a CON proposal. LMHS’s CON application was timely filed on the omissions deadline. A major focus of the application was on why LMHS’s proposal was better than the expected competing HMA proposal. However, HMA did not follow through on its LOI by filing a competing CON application. The LMHS CON application met the technical content requirements for a general hospital CON application, including an assessment of need for the proposed project. LMHS highlighted the following themes to show need for its proposed new hospital: South Lee County “should have its own acute care hospital” because it is a fast-growing area with an older population; by 2018, the southern ZIP codes of Lee County will contain nearly a third of the county’s total population. The Estero/Bonita Springs community strongly supports the proposed new hospital. Approval of the proposed new hospital “will significantly reduce travel times for the service area’s residents and will thereby significantly improve access to acute care services,” as shown by estimated travel times to local hospitals for residents in the proposed primary service area and by Lee County EMS transport logs. LMHS will agree to a CON condition to delicense 80 beds at Lee Memorial, which are underutilized, so that there will be no net addition of acute care beds to the sub-district’s licensed bed complement. AHCA’s Preliminary Review and Denial AHCA conducted its preliminary review of the CON application in accordance with its standard procedures. As part of the preliminary review process for general hospital applications, the CON law now permits existing health care facilities whose established programs may be substantially affected by a proposed project to submit a detailed statement in opposition. Indeed, such a detailed statement is a condition precedent to the existing provider being allowed to participate as a party in any subsequent administrative proceedings conducted with respect to the CON application. See § 408.037(2), Fla. Stat. North Naples timely filed a detailed statement in opposition to LMHS’s proposed new hospital. LMHS timely filed a response to North Naples’ opposition submittal, pursuant to the same law. After considering the CON application, the North Naples opposition submittal, and the LMHS response, AHCA prepared its SAAR in accordance with its standard procedures. A first draft of the SAAR was prepared by the CON reviewer; the primary editor of the SAAR was AHCA CON unit manager James McLemore; and then a second edit was done by Mr. Gregg. Before the SAAR was finalized, Mr. Gregg met with the AHCA Secretary to discuss the proposed decision. The SAAR sets forth AHCA’s preliminary findings and preliminary decision to deny the LMHS application. Mr. Gregg testified at hearing as AHCA’s representative, as well as in his capacity as an expert in health planning and CON review. Through Mr. Gregg’s testimony, AHCA reaffirmed its position in opposition to the LMHS application, and Mr. Gregg offered his opinions to support that position. Statutory and Rule Review Criteria The framework for consideration of LMHS’s proposed project is dictated by the statutory and rule criteria that apply to general hospital CON applications. The applicable statutory review criteria, as amended in 2008 for general hospital CON applications, are as follows: The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed. The availability, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant. * * * (e) The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district. * * * (g) The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness. * * * (i) The applicant’s past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. § 408.035(1), Fla. Stat.; § 408.035(2), Fla. Stat. (identifying review criteria that apply to general hospital applications). AHCA has not promulgated a numeric need methodology to calculate need for new hospital facilities. In the absence of a numeric need methodology promulgated by AHCA for the project at issue, Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e) applies. This rule provides that the applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory and rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.030 also applies. This rule elaborates on “health care access criteria” to be considered in reviewing CON applications, with a focus on the needs of medically underserved groups such as low income persons. LMHS’s Needs Assessment LMHS set forth its assessment of need for the proposed new hospital, highlighting the population demographics of the area proposed to be served. Theme: South Lee County’s substantial population The main theme of LMHS’s need argument is that south Lee County “should have its own acute care hospital” because it is a fast-growing area with a substantial and older population. (LMHS Exh. 3, p. 37). LMHS asserts that south Lee County’s population is sufficient to demonstrate the need for a new hospital because “by 2018, the southern ZIP codes of Lee County will contain nearly a third of the county’s total population.” Id. LMHS identified eight ZIP codes--33908, 33912, 33913, 33928, 33931, 33967, 34134, and 34135--that constitute “south Lee County.” (LMHS Exh. 3, Table 4). Claritas population projections, reasonably relied on by the applicant, project that by 2018 these eight ZIP codes will have a total population of 200,492 persons, approximately 29 percent of the projected population of 687,795 for all of Lee County. The age 65-and-older population in south Lee County is projected to be 75,150, approximately 40 percent of the projected 65+ population of 185,655 for all of Lee County. A glaring flaw in LMHS’s primary need theme is that the eight-ZIP-code “south Lee County” identified by LMHS is not without its own hospital. That area already has two of the county’s five existing hospitals: Gulf Coast and HealthPark. In advancing its need argument, LMHS selectively uses different meanings of “south Lee County.” When describing the “south Lee County” that deserves a hospital of its own, LMHS means the local Estero/Bonita Springs community in and immediately surrounding the proposed hospital site in the southernmost part of south Lee County. However, when offering up a sufficient population to demonstrate need for a new hospital, “south Lee County” expands to encompass an area that appears to be half, if not more, of the entire county. The total population of the Estero/Bonita Springs community is 76,753, projected to grow to 83,517 by 2018--much more modest population numbers compared to those highlighted by the applicant for the expanded version of south Lee County. While the rate of growth for Estero/Bonita Springs is indeed fast compared to the state and county growth rates, this observation is misleading because the actual numbers are not large. LMHS also emphasizes the larger proportion of elderly in the Estero/Bonita Springs community, which is also expected to continue to grow at a fast clip. Although no specifics were offered, it is accepted as a generic proposition that elderly persons are more frequent consumers of acute care hospital services. By the same token, elderly persons who require hospitalization tend to be sicker, and to present greater risks of potential complications from comorbidities, than non-elderly patients. As a result, for example, as discussed below, Lee County EMS’s emergency transport guidelines steer certain elderly patients to hospitals with greater breadth of services than the very basic hospital planned by LMHS, “as a reasonable precaution.” Projections of a Well-Utilized Proposed Hospital Mr. Davidson, LMHS’s health planning consultant, was provided with the proposed hospital’s location and number of beds, and was asked to develop the need assessment and projections. No evidence was offered regarding who determined that the proposed hospital should have 80 beds, or how that determination was made. Mr. Davidson set about to define the proposed primary and secondary service areas, keeping in mind that section 408.037(2) now requires a general hospital CON application to specifically identify, by ZIP codes, the primary service area from which the proposed hospital is expected to receive 75 percent of its patients, and the secondary service area from which 25 percent of the hospital’s patients are expected. Mr. Davidson selected six ZIP codes for the primary service area. He included the three ZIP codes comprising the Estero/Bonita Springs community. He also included two ZIP codes that are closer to existing hospitals than to the proposed site, according to the drive-time information he compiled. In addition, he included one ZIP code in which there is already a hospital (Gulf Coast, in 33912). Mr. Davidson’s opinion that this was a reasonable, and not overly aggressive, primary service area was not persuasive;9/ the criticisms by the other expert health planning witnesses were more persuasive and are credited. Mr. Davidson selected six more ZIP codes for the secondary service area. These include: two south Lee County ZIP codes that are HealthPark’s home ZIP code (33908) and a ZIP code to the west of HealthPark (33931); three central Lee County ZIP codes to the north of HealthPark and Gulf Coast; and one Collier County ZIP code that is North Naples’ home ZIP code. Mr. Davidson’s opinion that this was a reasonable, and not overly aggressive, secondary service area was not persuasive; the criticisms by the other expert health planning witnesses were more persuasive and are credited. As noted above, the existing LMHS hospitals provide tertiary-level care and a number of specialty service lines and designations that have not been planned for the proposed new hospital. Conversely, there are no services proposed for the new hospital that are not already provided by the existing LMHS hospitals. In the absence of evidence that the proposed new hospital will offer services not available at closer hospitals, it is not reasonable to project that any appreciable numbers of patients will travel farther, and in some instances, bypass one or more larger existing hospitals with greater breadth of services, to obtain the same services at the substantially smaller proposed new hospital. As aptly observed by AHCA’s representative, Mr. Gregg, the evidence to justify such an ambitious service area for a small hospital providing basic services was lacking: So if we were to have been given more detail[:] here’s the way we’re going to fit this into our system, here’s -- you know, here’s why we can design this service area as big as we did, even though it would require a lot of people to drive right by HealthPark or right by Gulf Coast to go to this tiny basic hospital for some reason. I mean, there are fundamental basics about this that just make us scratch our head. (Tr. 1457). The next step after defining the service area was to develop utilization projections, based on historic utilization data for service area residents who obtained the types of services to be offered by the proposed hospital. In this case, the utilization projections suffer from a planning void. Mr. Nathan testified that no decisions have been made regarding what types of services, other than general medical- surgical services, will be provided at the proposed new hospital. In lieu of information regarding the service lines actually planned for the proposed hospital, Mr. Davidson used a subtractive process, eliminating “15 or so” service lines that the proposed hospital either “absolutely wasn’t going to provide,” or that, in his judgment, a small hospital of this type would not provide. The service lines he excluded were: open heart surgery; trauma; neonatal intensive care; inpatient psychiatric, rehabilitation, and substance abuse; and unnamed “others.” His objective was to “narrow the scope of available admissions down to those that a smaller hospital could reasonably aspire to care for.” (Tr. 671-672). That objective is different from identifying the types of services expected because they have been planned for this particular proposed hospital. The testimony of NCH’s health planner, as well as Mr. Gregg, was persuasive on the point that Mr. Davidson’s approach was over-inclusive. The historic data he used included a number of service lines that are not planned for the proposed hospital and, thus, should have been subtracted from the historic utilization base. These include clinical specialties that are the focus of other LMHS hospitals, such as infectious diseases, neurology, neurosurgery, orthopedics, and urology; cardiac care, such as cardiac catheterization and angioplasty that are not planned for the proposed hospital; emergency stroke cases that will be directed to designated stroke centers; pediatric cases that will be referred to HealthPark; and obstetrics, which is not contemplated for the proposed hospital according to the more credible evidence.10/ Mr. Davidson’s market share projections suffer from some of the same flaws as the service area projections: there is no credible evidence to support the assumption that the small proposed new hospital, which has planned to offer only the most basic hospital services, will garner substantial market shares in ZIP codes that are closer to larger existing hospitals providing a greater breadth of services. In addition, variations in market share projections by ZIP code raise questions that were not adequately explained.11/ Overall, the “high-level” theme offered by LMHS’s health planner--that it is unnecessary to know what types of services will be provided at the new hospital in order to reasonably project utilization and market share--was not persuasive. While it is possible that utilization of the proposed new hospital would be sufficient to suggest it is filling a need, LMHS did not offer credible evidence that that is so. Bed Need Methodology for Proposed Service Area Mr. Davidson projected bed need for the proposed service area based on the historic utilization by residents of the 12 ZIP codes in the service lines remaining after his subtractive process, described above. Other than using an over-inclusive base (as described above), Mr. Davidson followed a reasonable approach to determine the average daily census generated by the proposed service area residents, and then applying a 75 percent occupancy standard to convert the average daily census into the number of beds supported by that population. The results of this methodology show that utilization generated by residents of the six-ZIP code primary service area would support 163 hospital beds; and utilization generated by residents of the six-ZIP code secondary service area would support 225 beds in the secondary service area. The total gross bed need for the proposed service area adds up to 388 beds. However, the critical next step was missing: subtract from the gross number of needed beds the number of existing beds, to arrive at the net bed need (or surplus). In the primary service area, 163 beds are needed, but there are already 349 beds at Gulf Coast. Thus, in the primary service area, there is a surplus of 186 beds, according to the applicant’s methodology. In the secondary service area, 225 beds are needed, but there are already 320 acute care beds at HealthPark and 262 acute care beds at North Naples. Thus, in the secondary service area, there is a surplus of 357 beds, according to the applicant’s methodology. While it is true that Gulf Coast and HealthPark use some of their beds to provide some tertiary and specialty services that were subtracted out of this methodology, and all three hospitals presumably provide services to residents outside the proposed service area, Mr. Davidson made no attempt to measure these components. Instead, the LMHS bed need methodology ignores completely the fact that there is substantial existing bed capacity--931 acute care beds--within the proposed service area. Availability and Utilization of Existing Hospitals LMHS offered utilization data for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2012, for Lee County hospitals. Cape Coral’s average annual occupancy rate was 57.6 percent; HealthPark’s was 77.5 percent; Lee Memorial’s was 55.9 percent; Lehigh Regional’s was 44 percent; and Gulf Coast’s was 79.8 percent. Mr. Davidson acknowledged that a reasonable occupancy standard to plan for a small hospital the size of the proposed hospital is 75 percent. For a larger operational hospital, 80 percent is a good standard to use, indicating it is well-utilized. Judged by these standards, only HealthPark and Gulf Coast come near the standard for a well-utilized hospital. As noted in the CON application, these annual averages do not reflect the higher utilization during peak season. According to the application, HealthPark’s occupancy was 88.2 percent and Gulf Coast’s was 86.8 percent for the peak quarter of January-March 2012. LMHS did not present utilization information for North Naples, even though that hospital is closest to the proposed hospital site and is within the proposed service area targeted by the applicant. For the same 12-month period used for the LMHS hospitals, North Naples’ average annual occupancy rate was 50.97 percent and for the January-March 2012 “peak season” quarter, North Naples’ occupancy was 60.68 percent. At the final hearing, LMHS did not present more recent utilization data, choosing instead to rely on the older information in the application. Based on the record evidence, need is not demonstrated by reference to the availability and utilization of existing hospitals in the proposed service area or in the sub-district. Community Support LMHS argued that the strong support by the Estero/Bonita Springs community should be viewed as evidence of need for the proposed new hospital. As summarized in the SAAR, approximately 2,200 letters of support were submitted by local government entities and elected officials, community groups, and area residents, voicing their support for the proposed hospital. LMHS chose not to submit these voluminous support letters in the record. The AHCA reviewer noted in the SAAR that none of the support letters documented instances in which residents of the proposed service area needed acute care hospital services but were unable to obtain them, or suffered poor or undesirable health outcomes due to the current availability of hospital services. Two community members testified at the final hearing to repeat the theme of support by Estero/Bonita Springs community residents and groups. These witnesses offered anecdotal testimony about traffic congestion during season, population growth, and development activity they have seen or heard about. They acknowledged the role their community organization has played in advocating for a neighborhood hospital, including developing and disseminating form letters for persons to express their support. Consistent with the AHCA reviewer’s characterization of the support letters, neither witness attested to any experiences needing acute care hospital services that they were unable to obtain, or any experiences in which they had poor or undesirable outcomes due to the currently available hospital services. There was no such evidence offered by any witness at the final hearing. Mr. Gregg characterized the expression of community support by the Estero/Bonita Springs community as typical “for an upper income, kind of retiree-oriented community where, number one, people anticipate needing to use hospitals, and number two, people have more time on their hands to get involved with things like this.” (Tr. 1433). Mr. Gregg described an extreme example of community support for a prior new hospital CON application, in which AHCA received 21,000 letters of support delivered in two chartered buses that were filled with community residents who wanted to meet with AHCA representatives. Mr. Gregg identified the project as the proposed hospital for North Port, which was ultimately denied following an administrative hearing. In the North Port case, the Administrative Law Judge made this apt observation with regard to the probative value of the overwhelming community support offered there: “A community’s desire for a new hospital does not mean there is a ‘need’ for a new hospital. Under the CON program, the determination of need for a new hospital must be based upon sound health planning principles, not the desires of a particular local government or its citizens.” Manatee Memorial Hospital, L.P. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., et al., Case Nos. 04-2723CON, 04-3027CON, and 04- 3147CON (Fla. DOAH Dec. 15, 2005; Fla. AHCA April 11, 2006), RO at 26, ¶ 104, adopted in FO. That finding, which was adopted by AHCA in its final order, remains true today, and is adopted herein. Access The statutory review criteria consider access issues from two opposing perspectives: from the perspective of the proposed project, consideration is given to the extent to which the proposal will enhance access to health care services for the applicant’s service district; without the proposed project, consideration is given to the accessibility of existing providers of the health care services proposed by the applicant. Addressing this two-part access inquiry, LMHS contends that the proposed hospital would significantly reduce travel times and significantly enhance access to acute care services. Three kinds of access are routinely considered in CON cases: geographic access, in this case the drive times by individuals to hospitals; emergency access, i.e., the time it takes for emergency ground transport (ambulances) to deliver patients to hospitals; and economic access, i.e., the extent to which hospital services are provided to Medicaid and charity care patients. Geographic Access (drive times to hospitals) For nearly all residents of the applicable service district, district 8, the proposed new hospital was not shown to enhance access to health care at all. The same is true for nearly all residents of sub-district 8-5, Lee County. LMHS was substantially less ambitious in its effort to show access enhancement, limiting its focus on attempting to prove that access to acute care services would be enhanced for residents of the primary service area. LMHS did not attempt to prove that there would be any access enhancement to acute care services for residents of the six-ZIP code secondary service area. As set forth in the CON application, Mr. Davidson used online mapping software to estimate the drive time from each ZIP code in the primary service area to the four existing LMHS hospitals, the two NCH hospitals, and another hospital in north Collier County, Physicians Regional-Pine Ridge. The drive-time information offered by the applicant showed the following: the drive time from ZIP code 33912 was less to three different existing LMHS hospitals than to the proposed new hospital; the drive time from ZIP code 33913 was less to two different existing LMHS hospitals than to the proposed new hospital; and the drive time from ZIP code 33967 was less to one existing LMHS hospital than to the proposed hospital site. Thus, according to LMHS’s own information, drive times would not be reduced at all for three of the six ZIP codes in the primary service area. Not surprisingly, according to LMHS’s information, the three Estero/Bonita Springs ZIP codes are shown to have slightly shorter drive times to the proposed neighborhood hospital than to any existing hospital. However, the same information also suggests that those residents already enjoy very reasonable access of 20-minutes’ drive time or less to one or more existing hospitals: the drive time from ZIP code 33928 is between 14 and 20 minutes to three different existing hospitals; the drive time from ZIP code 34134 is between 18 and 20 minutes to two different existing hospitals; and the drive time from ZIP code 34135 is 19 minutes to one existing hospital. In terms of the extent of drive time enhancement, the LMHS information shows that drive time would be shortened from 14 minutes to seven minutes for ZIP code 33928; from 18 minutes to 12 minutes for ZIP code 34134; and from 19 minutes to 17 minutes for ZIP code 34135. There used to be an access standard codified in the (now-repealed) acute care bed need rule, providing that acute care services should be accessible within a 30-minute drive time under normal conditions to 90 percent of the service area’s population. Mr. Davidson’s opinion is that the former rule’s 30-minute drive time standard remains a reasonable access standard for acute care services. Here, LMHS’s drive time information shows very reasonable access now, meeting an even more rigorous drive-time standard of 20 minutes. The establishment of a new hospital facility will always enhance geographic access by shortening drive times for some residents. For example, if LMHS’s proposed hospital were established, another proposed hospital could demonstrate enhanced access by reducing drive times from seven minutes to four minutes for residents of Estero’s ZIP code 33928. But the question is not whether there is any enhanced access, no matter how insignificant. Instead, the appropriate consideration is the “extent” of enhanced access for residents of the service district or sub-district. Here, the only travel time information offered by LMHS shows nothing more than insignificant reductions of already reasonable travel times for residents of only three of six ZIP codes in the primary service area. The drive-time information offered in the application and at hearing was far from precise, but it was the only evidence offered by the applicant in an attempt to prove its claim that there would be a significant reduction in drive times for residents of the primary service area ZIP codes. No travel time expert or traffic engineer offered his or her expertise to the subject of geographic accessibility in this case. No evidence was presented regarding measured traffic conditions or planned roadway improvements. Anecdotal testimony regarding “congested” roads during “season” was general in nature and insufficient to prove that there is not reasonable access now to basic acute care hospital services for all residents of the proposed service area. The proposed new hospital is not needed to address a geographic access problem. Consideration of the extent of access enhancement does not weigh in favor of the proposed new hospital. Emergency Access LMHS also sought to establish that emergency access via EMS ambulance transport was becoming problematic during the season because of traffic congestion. In its CON application, LMHS offered Lee County EMS transport logs as evidence that ambulance transport times from the Estero/Bonita Springs community to an existing hospital were higher during season than in the off-season months. LMHS represented in its CON application that the voluminous Lee County EMS transport logs show average transport times of over 22 minutes from Bonita Springs to a hospital in March 2012 compared to 15 minutes for June 2012, and average transport times of just under 22 minutes from Estero to a hospital in March 2012 compared to over 17 minutes for June 2012. LMHS suggested that these times were not reasonable because these were all emergency transports at high speeds with flashing lights and sirens. LMHS did not prove the accuracy of this statement. The Lee County EMS ordinance limits the use of sirens and flashing lights to emergency transports, defined to mean transports of patients with life- or limb-threatening conditions. According to Lee County EMS Deputy Chief Panem, 90 to 95 percent of ambulance transports do not involve such conditions. Contrary to the conclusion that LMHS urges should be drawn from the EMS transport logs, the ambulance transport times summarized by LMHS in its application do not demonstrate unreasonable emergency access for residents of Estero/Bonita Springs. The logs do not demonstrate an emergency access problem for the local residents during the season, as contended by LMHS; nor did LMHS offer sufficient evidence to prove that the proposed new hospital would materially improve ambulance transport times. LMHS’s opinion that the ambulance logs show a seasonal emergency access problem for Estero/Bonita Springs residents cannot be credited unless the travel times on the logs reflect patient transports to the nearest hospital, such that establishing a new hospital in Bonita Springs would result in faster ambulance transports for Estero/Bonita Springs residents. Deputy Chief Panem testified that ambulance transport destination is dictated in the first instance by patient choice. In addition, for the “most serious calls,” the destination is dictated by emergency transport guidelines with a matrix identifying the most “appropriate” hospitals to direct patients. For example, as Deputy Chief Panem explained: In the case of a stroke or heart attack, we want them to go to a stroke facility or a heart attack facility[;] or trauma, we have a trauma center in Lee County as well . . . Lee Memorial Hospital downtown is a level II trauma center. (Tr. 378). The emergency transport matrix identifies the hospitals qualified to handle emergency heart attack, stroke, or trauma patients. In addition, the matrix identifies the “most appropriate facility” for emergency pediatrics, obstetrics, pediatric orthopedic emergencies, and other categories involving the “most serious calls.” Of comparable size to the proposed new hospital, 88-bed Lehigh Regional is not identified as an “appropriate facility” to transport patients with any of the serious conditions shown in the matrix. Similar to Lehigh Regional, the slightly smaller proposed new hospital is not expected to be identified as an appropriate facility destination for patients with any of the conditions designated in the Lee County EMS emergency transport matrix. The Lee County EMS transport guidelines clarify that all trauma alert patients “will be” transported to Lee Memorial as the Level II Trauma Center. In addition, the guidelines provide as follows: “Non-trauma alert patients with a high index of suspicion (elderly, etc.) should preferentially be transported to the Trauma Center as a reasonable precaution.” (emphasis added). For the elderly, then, a condition that would not normally be considered one of the most serious cases to be steered to the most appropriate hospital may be reclassified as such, as a reasonable precaution because the patient is elderly. The Lee County EMS transport logs do not reflect the reason for the chosen destination. The patients may have requested transport to distant facilities instead of to the nearest facilities. Patients with the most serious conditions may have accepted the advice of ambulance crews that they should be transported to the “most appropriate facility” with special resources to treat their serious conditions; or those patients may have been unable to express their choice due to the seriousness of their condition, in which case the patients would be taken to the most appropriate facility, bypassing closer facilities. Elderly patients may have been convinced to take the reasonable precaution to go to an appropriate facility even if their condition did not fall into the most serious categories. Since the transport times on the EMS logs do not necessarily reflect transport times to the closest hospital, it is not reasonable to conclude that the transport times would be shorter if there were an even closer hospital, particularly where the closer hospital is not likely to be designated as an appropriate destination in the transport guidelines matrix. The most serious cases, categorized in the EMS transport matrix, are the ones for which minutes matter. For those cases, a new hospital in Estero/Bonita Springs, which has not planned to be a STEMI receiving center, a stroke center, or a trauma center, is not going to enhance access to emergency care, even for the neighborhood residents. The evidence at hearing did not establish that ambulance transport times are excessive or cause an emergency access problem now.12/ In fact, Deputy Chief Panem did not offer the opinion, or offer any evidence to prove, that the drive time for ambulances transporting patients to area hospitals is unreasonable or contrary to any standard for reasonable emergency access. Instead, Lee County EMS recently opposed an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity by the Bonita Springs Fire District to provide emergency ground transportation to hospitals, because Lee County EMS believed then, and believes now, that it is providing efficient and effective emergency transport services to the Bonita Springs area residents. At hearing, LMHS tried a different approach by attempting to prove an emergency access problem during season, not because of the ambulance drive times, but because of delays at the emergency departments themselves after patients are transported there. The new focus at hearing was on EMS “offload” times, described as the time between ambulance arrival at the hospital and the time the ambulance crews hand over responsibility for a patient to the emergency department staff. According to Deputy Chief Panem, Lee County hospitals rarely go on “bypass,” a status that informs EMS providers not to transport patients to a hospital because additional emergency patients cannot be accommodated. No “bypass” evidence was offered, suggesting that “bypass” status is not a problem in Lee County and that Lee County emergency departments are available to EMS providers. Deputy Chief Panem also confirmed that North Naples does not go on bypass. The North Naples emergency department consistently has been available to receive patients transported by Lee County EMS ambulances, during seasonal and off- season months. Offload times are a function of a variety of factors. Reasons for delays in offloading patients can include inadequate capacity or functionality of the emergency department, or inadequate staffing in the emergency department such that there may be empty treatment bays, but the bays cannot be filled with patients because there is no staff to tend to the patients. Individual instances of offload delays can occur when emergency department personnel prioritize incoming cases, and less-emergent cases might have to wait while more-emergent cases are taken first, even if they arrived later. Offload times are also a function of “throughput” issues. Approximately 20 to 25 percent of emergency department patients require admission to the hospital, but there can be delays in the admission process, causing the patient to be held in a treatment bay that could otherwise be filled by the next emergency patient. There can be many reasons for throughput delays, including the lack of an available acute care bed, or inadequate staffing that prevents available acute care beds from being filled. No evidence was offered to prove the actual causes of any offload delays. Moreover, the evidence failed to establish that offload times were unreasonable or excessive. Deputy Chief Panem offered offload time data summaries that reflect very good performance by LMHS hospitals and by North Naples. Deputy Chief Panem understandably advocates the shortest possible offload time, so that Lee County EMS ambulances are back in service more quickly. Lee County EMS persuaded the LMHS emergency departments to agree to a goal for offload times of 30 minutes or less 90 percent of the time, and that is the goal he tracks. Both Lee Memorial and North Naples have consistently met or exceeded that goal in almost every month over the last five years, including during peak seasonal months. Cape Coral and Gulf Coast sometimes fall below the goal in peak seasonal months, but the evidence did not establish offload times that are excessive or unreasonable during peak months. HealthPark is the one LMHS hospital that appears to consistently fall below Lee County EMS’s offload time goal; in peak seasonal months, HealthPark’s offload times were less than 30 minutes in approximately 70 percent of the cases. No evidence was offered to prove the extent of offload delays at HealthPark for the other 30 percent of emergency cases, nor was evidence offered to prove the extent of offload delays at any other hospital. Deputy Chief Panem referred anecdotally to offload times that can sometimes reach as high as two to three hours during season, but he did not provide specifics. Without documentation of the extent and magnitude of offload delays, it is impossible to conclude that they are unreasonable or excessive. There is no persuasive evidence suggesting that this facet of emergency care would be helped by approval of the proposed new hospital, especially given the complicated array of possible reasons for each case in which there was a delayed offload.13/ Staffing/professional coverage issues likely would be exacerbated by approving another hospital venue for LMHS. Pure physical plant issues, such as emergency department capacity and acute care bed availability, might be helped to some degree, at least in theory, by a new hospital, but to a lesser degree than directly addressing any capacity issues at the existing hospitals. For example, HealthPark’s emergency department has served as a combined destination for a wide array of adult and pediatric emergencies. However, HealthPark is about to break ground on a new on-campus children’s hospital with its own dedicated emergency department. There will be substantially expanded capacity both within the new dedicated pediatric emergency department, and in the existing emergency department, where vacated space used for pediatric patients will be freed up for adults. Beyond the emergency departments themselves, there will be substantial additional acute care bed capacity, with space built to accommodate 160 dedicated pediatric beds in the new children’s hospital. The existing hospital will have the ability to add more than the 80 acute care beds proposed for the new hospital. This additional bed capacity could be in place within roughly the same timeframe projected for opening the proposed new hospital. To the extent additional capacity would improve emergency department performance, Cape Coral is completing an expansion project that increases its treatment bays from 24 to 42, and Lee Memorial is adding nine observation beds to its emergency department. No current expansion projects were identified for Gulf Coast, which just began operations in 2009, but LMHS has already invested in design and construction features to enable that facility to expand by an additional 252 beds. In Mr. Kistel’s words, Gulf Coast has a “tremendous platform for growth[.]” (Tr. 259). Mr. Gregg summarized AHCA’s perspective in considering the applicant’s arguments of geographic and emergency access enhancement, as follows: [I]n our view, this community is already well served by existing hospitals, either within the applicant’s system or from the competing Naples system, and we don’t think that the situation would be improved by adding another very small, extremely basic hospital. And to the extent that that would mislead people into thinking that it’s a full-service hospital that handles time-sensitive emergencies in the way that the larger hospitals do, that’s another concern. (Tr. 1425). * * * The fact that this hospital does not plan to offer those most time-sensitive services means that any – on the surface, as I said earlier, the possible improvement in emergency access offered by any new hospital is at least partially negated in this case because it has been proposed as such a basic hospital, when the more sophisticated services are located not far away. (Tr. 1431). Mr. Gregg’s opinion is reasonable and is credited. Economic Access The Estero/Bonita Springs community is a very affluent area, known for its golf courses and gated communities. As a result of the demographics of the proposed hospital’s projected service area, LMHS’s application offers to accept as a CON condition a commitment to provide 10 percent of the total annual patient days to a combination of Medicaid, charity, and self-pay patients. This commitment is less than the 2011-2012 experience for the primary service area, where patient days attributable to residents in these three payer classes was a combined 16.3 percent; and the commitment is less than the 2011- 2012 experience for the total proposed service area, where patient days in these three categories was a combined 14.4 percent. Nonetheless, LMHS’s experts reasonably explained that the commitment was established on the low side, taking into account the uncertainties of changes in the health care environment, to ensure that the commitment could be achieved. In contrast with the 10 percent commitment and the historic level of Medicaid/charity/self-pay patient days in the proposed service area, Lee Memorial historically has provided the highest combined level of Medicaid and charity patient days in district 8. According to LMHS’s financial expert, in 2012, Lee Memorial downtown and HealthPark, combined for reporting purposes under the same license, provided 31.5 percent of their patient days to Medicaid and charity patients--a percentage that would be even higher, it is safe to assume, if patient days in the “self- pay/other” payer category were added. At hearing, Mr. Gregg reasonably expressed concern with LMHS shifting its resources from the low-income downtown area where there is great need for economic access to a very affluent area where comparable levels of service to the medically needy would be impossible to achieve. Mr. Gregg acknowledged that AHCA has approved proposals in the past that help systems with safety-net hospitals achieve balance by moving some of the safety net’s resources to an affluent area. As previously noted, that sort of rationale was at play in the LMHS project to establish HealthPark, and again in the acquisitions of Cape Coral and Gulf Coast. However, LMHS now has three of its four hospitals thriving in relatively affluent areas. To move more LMHS resources from the downtown safety-net hospital to another affluent area would not be a move towards system balance, but rather, system imbalance, and would be contrary to the economic access CON review criteria in statute and rule. Missing Needs Assessment Factor: Medical Treatment Trends The consistent testimony of all witnesses with expertise to address this subject was that the trend in medical treatment continues to be in the direction of outpatient care in lieu of inpatient hospital care. The expected result will be that inpatient hospital usage will narrow to the most highly specialized services provided to patients with more serious conditions requiring more complex, specialized treatments. Mr. Gregg described this trend as follows: “[O]nly those services that are very expensive, operated by very extensive personnel” will be offered to inpatients in the future. (Tr. 1412). A basic acute care hospital without planned specialty or tertiary services is inconsistent with the type of hospital dictated by this medical treatment trend. Mr. Gregg reasonably opined that “the ability of a hospital system to sprinkle about small little satellite facilities is drawing to a close.” (Tr. 1413). Small hospitals will no longer be able to add specialized and tertiary services, because these will be concentrated in fewer hospitals. LMHS’s move to clinical specialization at its hospitals bears this out. Another trend expected to impact services within the timeframe at issue is the development of telemedicine as an alternative to inpatient hospital care. For patients who cannot be treated in an outpatient setting and released, an option will be for patients to recover at home in their own beds, with close monitoring options such as visual monitoring by video linking the patient with medical professionals, and use of devices to constantly measure and report vital signs monitored by a practitioner at a remote location. Telemedicine offers advantages over inpatient hospitalization with regard to infection control and patient comfort, as well as overall health care cost control by reducing the need for capital-intensive traditional bricks-and- mortar hospitals. A medical treatment trend being actively pursued by both LMHS and NCH is for better, more efficient management of inpatient care so as to reduce the average length of patient stays. A ten-year master planning process recently undertaken by LMHS included a goal to further reduce average lengths of stay by 0.65 days by 2021, and thereby reduce the number of hospital beds needed system-wide by 128 beds. LMHS did not address the subject of medical treatment trends as part of its needs assessment. The persuasive evidence demonstrated that medical treatment trends do not support the need for the proposed new facility; consideration of these trends weighs against approval. Competition; Market Conditions The proposed new hospital will not foster competition; it will diminish competition by expanding LMHS’s market dominance of acute care services in Lee County. AHCA voiced its reasonable concerns about Lee Memorial’s “unprecedented” market dominance of acute care services in a county as large as Lee, which recently ranked as the eighth most populous county in Florida. LMHS already provides a majority of hospital care being obtained by residents of the primary service area. LMHS will increase its market share if the proposed new hospital is approved. This increase will come both directly, via basic medical-surgical services provided to patients at the new hospital, and indirectly, via LMHS’s plan for the proposed new hospital to serve as a feeder system to direct patients to other LMHS hospitals for more specialized care.14/ The evidence did not establish that LMHS historically has used its market power as leverage to demand higher charges from private insurers. However, as LMHS’s financial expert acknowledged, the health care environment is undergoing changes, making the past less predictive of the future. The changing environment was cited as the reason for LMHS’s low commitment to Medicaid and charity care for the proposed project. There is evidence of LMHS’s market power in its high operating margin, more than six percent higher than NCH’s operating margin between 2009 and 2012. LMHS’s financial expert’s opinion that total margin should be considered instead of operating margin when looking at market power was not persuasive. Of concern is the market power in the field of hospital operations, making operating margin the appropriate measure. Overall, Mr. Gregg reasonably explained the lack of competitive benefit from the proposed project: I think that this proposal does less for competition than virtually any acute care hospital proposal that we’ve seen. As I said, it led the Agency to somewhat scratch [its] head in disbelief. There is no other situation like it. . . . This is the most basic of satellites. This hospital will be referring patients to the rest of the Lee Memorial system in diverse abundance because they are not going to be able to offer specialized services. And economies of scale are not going to allow it in the future. People will not be able to duplicate the expensive services that hospitals offer. So we do not see this as enhancing competition in any way at all. (Tr. 1416-1417). The proposed hospital’s inclusion of outpatient services, community education, and chronic care management presents an awkward dimension of direct competition with adjacent BCHC, the joint venture between LMHS and NCH. BCHC has been a money-losing proposition in a direct sense, but both systems remain committed to the venture, in part because of the indirect benefit they now share in the form of referrals of patients to both systems’ hospitals. Duplication of BCHC’s services, which are already struggling financially, would not appear to be beneficial competition. While this is not a significant factor, to the extent LMHS makes a point of the non-hospital outpatient services that will be available at the proposed new hospital, it must be noted that that dimension of the project does nothing to enhance beneficial competition. Adverse Impact NCH would suffer a substantial adverse financial impact caused by the establishment of the proposed hospital, if approved. A large part of the adverse financial impact would be attributable to lost patient volume at North Naples, an established hospital which is not well-utilized now, without a new hospital targeting residents of North Naples’ home zip code. The expected adverse financial impact of the proposed new hospital was reasonably estimated to be $6.4 million annually. Just as LMHS cited concerns about the unpredictability of the health care environment as a reason to lower its Medicaid/charity commitment for the proposed project, NCH has concerns with whether the substantial adverse impact from the proposed hospital will do serious harm to NCH’s viability, when added to the uncertain impacts of the Affordable Care Act, sequestration, Medicaid reimbursement, and other changes. LMHS counters with the view that if the proposed hospital is approved, in time population growth will offset the proposed hospital’s adverse impact. While consideration of medical treatment trends may dictate that an increasing amount of future population growth will be treated in settings other than a traditional hospital, Mr. Gregg opined that over time, the area’s population growth will still tend to drive hospital usage up. However, future hospital usage will be by a narrower class of more complex patients. Considering all of the competing factors established in this record, the likely adverse impact that NCH would experience if the proposed hospital is established, though substantial enough to support the standing of Petitioner North Naples, is not viewed as extreme enough to pose a threat to NCH’s viability. Institution/System-Specific Interests LMHS’s proposed condition to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial downtown is not a factor weighing in favor of approval of its proposed hospital. At hearing, LMHS defended the proposed CON condition as a helpful way to allow LMHS to address facility challenges at Lee Memorial. The evidence showed that to some extent, this issue is overstated in that, by all accounts, Lee Memorial provides excellent, award-winning care that meets all credentialing requirements for full accreditation. The evidence also suggested that to some extent, there are serious system issues facing LMHS that will need to be confronted at some point to answer the unanswered question posed by Mr. Gregg: What will become of Lee Memorial? Recognizing this, LMHS began a ten-year master planning process in 2011, to take a look at LMHS’s four hospitals in the context of the needs of Lee County over a ten-year horizon, and determine how LMHS could meet those needs. A team of outside and in-house experts were involved in the ten-year master planning process. LMHS’s strategic planning team looked at projected volumes and population information for all of Lee County over the next ten years and determined the number of beds needed to address projected needs. Recommendations were then developed regarding how LMHS would meet the needs identified for Lee County through 2021 by rearranging, adding, and subtracting beds among the four existing hospital campuses. A cornerstone of the master plan assessment by numerous outside experts and LMHS experts was that Lee Memorial’s existing physical plant was approaching the end of its useful life. Options considered were: replace the hospital building on the existing campus; downsize the hospital and relocate some of the beds and services to Gulf Coast; and the favored option, discontinue operations of Lee Memorial as an acute care hospital, removing all acute care beds and reestablishing those beds and services primarily at the Gulf Coast campus, with some beds possibly placed at Cape Coral. All of these options addressed the projected needs for Lee County through 2021 within the existing expansion capabilities of Gulf Coast and Cape Coral, and the expansion capabilities that HealthPark will have with the addition of its new on-campus children’s hospital. Somewhat confusingly, the CON application referred several times to LMHS’s “ten-year master plan for our long-term facility needs, which considers the changing geographic population trends of our region, the need for additional capacity during the seasonal months, and facility challenges at Lee Memorial[.]” (LMHS Exh. 3, pp. 12, 57). The implication given by these references was that the new hospital project was being proposed in furtherance of the ten-year master plan, as the product of careful, studied consideration in a long-range planning process to address the future needs of Lee County. To the contrary, although the referenced ten-year master plan process was, indeed, a long- range deliberative planning process to assess and plan for the future needs of Lee County, the ten-year master plan did not contemplate the proposed new hospital as a way to meet the needs in Lee County identified through 2021.15/ The ten-year master planning process was halted because of concerns about the options identified for Lee Memorial. Further investigation was to be undertaken for Lee Memorial and what services needed to be maintained there. No evidence was presented to suggest that this investigation had taken place as of the final hearing. The proposed CON condition to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial does nothing to address the big picture issues that LMHS faces regarding the Lee Memorial campus. According to different LMHS witnesses, either some or nearly all of those licensed beds are not operational or available to be put in service, so the license is meaningless and delicensing them would accomplish nothing. To the extent any of those beds are operational, delicensing them might cause Lee Memorial to suddenly have throughput problems and drop below the EMS offload time goal, when it has been one of the system’s best performers. The proposed piecemeal dismantling of Lee Memorial, without a plan to address the bigger picture, reasonably causes AHCA great concern. As Mr. Gregg explained, “[I]t raises a fundamental concern for us, in that the area around Lee Memorial, the area of downtown Fort Myers is the lower income area of Lee County. The area around the proposed facility, Estero, Bonita, is one of the upper income areas of Lee County.” (Tr. 1410). The plan to shift resources away from downtown caused Mr. Gregg to pose the unanswered question: “[W]hat is to become of Lee Memorial?” Id. Recognizing the physical plant challenges faced there, nonetheless AHCA was left to ask, “[W]hat about that population and how does [the proposed new hospital] relate? How does this proposed facility fit into the multihospital system that might exist in the future?” (Tr. 1410-1411). These are not only reasonable, unanswered questions, they are the same questions left hanging when LMHS interrupted the ten-year master planning process to react to HMA’s LOI with the CON application at issue here. Balanced Review of Pertinent Criteria In AHCA’s initial review, when it came time to weigh and balance the pertinent criteria, “It was difficult for us to come up with the positive about this proposal.” (Tr. 1432). In this case, AHCA’s initial review assessment was borne out by the evidence at hearing. The undersigned must agree with AHCA that the balance of factors weighs heavily, if not entirely, against approval of the application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a Final Order denying CON application no. 10185. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2014.
The Issue Whether Promise Healthcare of Florida III, Inc.'s (Promise) Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 9870 should be approved to establish a 40-bed freestanding Long Term Care Hospital (LTCH) in Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Agency) Service District 3.
Findings Of Fact Parties AHCA. The Agency for Health Care Administration is the state agency authorized to evaluate and render final determinations on CON applications to pursuant to Section 408.034(1), Florida Statutes. Promise. Promise Healthcare of Florida, III, Inc. (Promise) is the applicant in this proceeding. Promise is a newly-formed and wholly-owned subsidiary of Promise Healthcare, Inc. (Promise Healthcare). Promise Healthcare is a Florida corporation headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Promise Healthcare was established in July 2003 when it acquired the assets of Camelot Healthcare. Promise Healthcare owns and operates 13 LTCHs in six other states; seven freestanding facilities and six hospitals- within-hospitals. One additional freestanding LTCH is scheduled to begin operation in 2007 in Bossier, Louisiana. Promise Healthcare does not presently operate any facilities, including LTCHs, in Florida. CON applications and preliminary agency action Promise timely filed an appropriate letter of intent, which contained the information requested by AHCA. Promise timely applied for a CON to establish a 40-bed freestanding LTCH in Lake County, one county of the 16 counties in District 3. The project will consist of 47,951 square feet at construction costs of $11,244,400 and a total project cost estimated at $20,901,826. As a condition of approval, Promise agreed to provide two percent of patient days of Medicaid and charity care. During the same batching cycle, Select Specialty and Leesburg Regional filed CON applications to provide LTCH services in District 3. All applications were deemed complete and comparatively reviewed by AHCA. The numbers and assumptions in Schedule 1 of Promise's CON application represent reasonable projections. The information contained in Schedule 2, 3, and 6, and the assumptions relating to Schedule 3 and 6 represent reasonable projections. The information contained in Schedule 4 is not required. The information contained in Schedules 9 and 10 represent reasonable estimates, including the days required to complete the project. The Agency's review of the CON application complied with all statutory and regulatory requirements. The Agency's review of the CON applications resulted in the issuance of a State Agency Action Report (SAAR) on December 16, 2005. The Agency recommended the denial of the three CON applications. Leesburg Regional and Select Specialty requested formal administrative hearings, but dismissed their cases prior to the final hearing. Promise argues there is a need for additional LTCH beds and services in District 3 and AHCA disagrees. AHCA also argues Promise cannot obtain the required funds to build and operate the LTCH. LTCH services The classes of facilities licensed as hospitals by the Agency, "Class I or general hospitals" include long term care hospitals, which are identified as having an average length of patient stay (ALOS) of 25 days for all beds, Section 408.032(13), Florida Statutes, and also comply with 42 C.F.R. Section 412.23(e)(1994). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.002(28). Some hospital patients need acute care services on a long-term basis. A long-term basis is 25 to 34 days of additional acute care service after the typical stay in a short- term hospital. Although some of these patients are "custodial" in nature and not in need of LTCH services, many of these long- term patients may be better served in a LTCH than in a traditional short-term acute care hospital. LTCHs typically furnish extended medical and rehabilitation care for patients who are clinically complex and have multiple acute or chronic conditions. Patients appropriate for LTCH services are differentiated from other hospital patients in that, by definition, they have multiple co- morbidities that require concurrent treatment. Patients appropriate for LTCH services tend to be elderly, frail, and are usually regarded as catastrophically ill. Generally, Medicare patients admitted to LTCHs have been transferred from general acute care hospitals and receive a range of services at LTCHs, including cardiac monitoring, ventilator support, and wound care. These patients require daily physician involvement, extensive nursing care, and appropriate respiratory, occupational, speech, and physical therapies, usually accompanied by some type of technologically advanced support. Quite commonly, the technological support includes a ventilator. The level of care provided in an LTCH is generally analogous to that provided in an ICU (Intensive Care Unit) in a short-term acute care hospital. However, the staff at general acute care hospitals has different orientations than staff at LTCHs. The staff at general acute care hospitals is geared toward shorter lengths of stay (five days or less) than are more typical in an LTCH, where extended lengths of stay are more appropriate. An LTCH is distinguished within the health care continuum by the high level of care the patient requires, the interdisciplinary treatment model it follows, and the duration of the patient's hospitalization, which averages 25 days or more for patients requiring complex medical care. Within the continuum of care, LTCHs occupy a niche between traditional acute care hospitals that provide initial hospitalization care on a short-term basis and post-acute care facilities such as nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), skilled nursing units (SNUs), and comprehensive medical rehabilitation facilities (CMRs). The complex medical, nursing, and therapeutic requirements necessary to serve the LTCH patient with a high acuity level are generally beyond the capability of these other post-acute care facilities on a sustained basis, i.e., 25 days or more. Services provided in LTCHs are also distinct from those provided in SNFs or SNUs. The latter are not oriented generally to patients who need daily physician visits or the intense nursing services or observations needed by an LTCH patient. Additionally, most nursing homes provide two to three hours of nursing care per patient per day, whereas LTCHs provide on average in excess of seven hours of nursing care per patient day. Families and other caregivers play a critical role regarding the delivery of care to LTCH patients. Many LTCH patients are elderly and are a special population, with special needs. They commonly have to manage multiple problems, including financial difficulties, drug management, transportation logistics, and sometimes fragile mental and physical conditions. Older patients as well as older caregivers also have a more difficult time driving, for example, two hours and over long distances. The federal government recognition of LTCHs Within the continuum of care, the federal government's Medicare program recognizes LTCHs as distinct providers of services to patients with high levels of acuity. The federal government treats LTCH care as a discrete form of care and provides a separate Medicare payment system of diagnostic related groups (DRGs) and case mix reimbursement that provides Medicare payments at rates different from what the Prospective Payment System (PPS) provides for other traditional post-acute providers. Under the LTCH reimbursement system, each patient is assigned a DRG with a corresponding payment rate that is weighted based upon the patient's diagnosis. LTCHs are reimbursed the predetermined payment rate for that DRG, regardless of the costs of care. These rates are higher than what the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provides for other traditional post-acute care providers. Effective October 1, 2002, CMS established a new prospective payment system for long-term care hospital providers, the "LTC-DRG". CMS recognizes the patient population of LTCHs as separate and distinct from the population treated by short-term acute care hospitals and by other post-acute care providers, as well as costs of care, resources consumed by the patients and health care delivery. Since the establishment of the PPS for LTCHs, concerns about the high reimbursement rate for LTCHs, as well as about the appropriateness of the patients treated in LTCHs, have been raised by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and CMS. CMS administers the Medicare payment program for LTCHs, as well as the reimbursement programs for acute care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and comprehensive rehabilitation hospitals. MedPAC's role is to help formulate federal policy on Medicare regarding services provided to Medicare beneficiaries (patients) and the appropriate reimbursement rates to be paid to the health care providers. The 2006 MedPAC report found that LTCHs were making a good margin or profit, and recommended against an annual increase in the Medicare reimbursement rate for the upcoming fiscal year. In 2006, CMS adopted a reimbursement rate rule for LTCHs for 2007 that did not raise the base rate and made other changes that reflect the ongoing concerns of CMS regarding LTCHs. AHCA's concerns regarding long term care hospitals In deciding on whether to approve or deny new health care facilities, the Agency is responsible for the "coordinated planning of health care services in the state." AHCA looks to federal rules and reports to assist in making health care planning decisions for the state. MedPAC has reported, and CMS has noted that, nationwide, there has been a recent, rapid increase in the number of LTCHs. Nationwide there has also been a huge increase in Medicare spending for LTCH care from $398 million in 1993 to $3.3 billion in 2004. Because of what it perceives to be a lack of specific data from applicants with regard to the composition and acuity level of LTCH patient populations, AHCA is not convinced that there is a need for additional LTCHs in the state. AHCA believes there may be an overlap between the LTCH patient populations and the population of patients served in other healthcare settings, such as SNFs and CMR facilities. AHCA also believes some long-term patients can be appropriately served in the short-term acute care hospitals, rather than requiring LTCH care. In the absence of the applicants better identifying the acuity level of the LTCH patient population, AHCA has reached the conclusion that there may be other health care options available to those patients targeted by the LTCH applicants, and there are enough approved and operating LTCHs in each District of the state, including District 3. Applicable statutory and rule criteria The parties stipulated that Subsections 408.035(1)-(9), Florida Statutes, apply in this proceeding. In addition, in the absence of agency policy regarding long-term care hospital beds and services, the criteria under Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e) 2.a.-d., apply and include consideration of the following topics, except where they are not inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Population, demographics, and dynamics and medical treatment trends and market conditions Promise plans to develop its LTCH in Lake County and to target and serve Leesburg Regional and its sister hospital, The Village's Regional Hospital, and secondarily to serve the Citrus and Hernando Counties, located to the west of Sumter County and in the most southern portion of District 3. Promise plans to offer a full array of LTCH services. The Leesburg Regional Medical Center, Inc. health care facilities Leesburg Regional (owned by Leesburg Regional Medical Center, Inc. (LRMC)) is a 309-bed (including a 32 intensive care unit (ICU)) acute care hospital located in the City of Leesburg, Lake County, Florida (east of Sumter County). It serves primarily Lake and Sumter Counties. Leesburg Regional provides a variety of primary and tertiary care services, including obstetrics and comprehensive rehabilitation. It is the only provider of neurosurgery and open heart services in the area. LRMC also owns a 120-bed skilled nursing facility located one mile from Leesburg Regional providing oncology services. Leesburg Regional is the safety net provider for the community it serves. There is evidence that patients stay longer at Leesburg Regional, i.e., exceeding an ALOS of five days, which affects not only patient care, but causes the facility to incur additional costs. Leesburg Regional's emergency room relies on the availability of beds to place patients. The inability to move patients from its cardiac intensive care and critical care units to more appropriate settings like an LTCH affects the care patients receive. Sixteen of the 32 intensive care beds are located on the third floor of Leesburg Regional and eight of these beds are used exclusively for open heart patients and seven of these eight beds must be available on an almost constant basis because of the large open heart surgery volume. Adding more ICU beds is not likely to resolve the problems experienced at Leesburg Regional. Fourteen ICU beds, including a four-bed dialysis unit, are located on the second floor and will be expanded to 16 beds in March 2007 with the relocation of the dialysis unit. Patients on the second floor face conditions similar to those patients on the third floor ICU. Leesburg Regional performed approximately 865 open heart surgery cases in 2005 and expects to perform 1,000 to 1,250 open heart surgery cases annually during the next five years. Leesburg Regional ranks the third largest, by volume, open heart surgery provider in the state. At the time of hearing, Leesburg Regional ICU was operating at 100 percent occupancy and was expected to continue at that level until April 2007. Leesburg Regional is designated as a "primary stroke center" by the federal government, serving as the first responder for stroke patients in the LRMC service area. Leesburg Regional is also designated as a Medicare disproportionate share hospital, indicative of a large population of Medicare patients. The average age of a patient treated at Leesburg Regional's cardiac unit is between 75 and 85 years. These patients often have co-morbidities, i.e., multiple health problems, such as congestive heart failure, diabetes, obesity, and respiratory issues. Over the past several years, over 16 percent of the patients served by LRMC's hospitals were Medicaid or low income patients. The patient transport process from Leesburg Regional to an existing LTCH is lengthy and potentially labor intensive. It requires at least 24 hours advance notice to the only emergency medical services (EMS) provider. The planned transport is subject to change due to the number of EMS vehicles available and emergencies. Also, the transferring hospital may need to provide, for example, a respiratory therapist to accompany the patient to an LTCH. Patients referred by Leesburg Regional to LTCHs are usually unable to be weaned from ventilators, often require complex wound care, wound vacs, extensive intravenous (IV) therapy, and extensive therapy care. The Village's Regional Hospital (Villages Regional) also owned by LRMC, is a 62-bed acute care facility, including 12 ICU beds, located within the development known as The Villages. The Villages is located in Lake, Sumter, and Marion Counties (north of Leesburg). By 2008, Villages Regional will expand to a 198-bed hospital. The Villages is a large development which currently comprises approximately 40,000 people and is projected to increase to approximately 100,000 when it is fully built out. The Village's limits residents to persons who are at least 55 years old. By comparison, Weston, Florida, in Broward County, is fully built out at 40,000 residents. District 3 District 3, comprised of 13 counties, is the largest geographical AHCA service district in the state with approximately 11,000 square miles. The main population centers in District 3 are Gainesville, Ocala, and Leesburg. Lake and Sumter Counties are projected to be the fastest growing counties by population in District 3. Lake County is the fastest growing county in terms of resident growth about 38,200 new residents are projected between 2005 and 2010 or about one out of every four new residents in District is projected to reside in Lake County. Promise expects a significant portion of LTCH referrals from Lake and Sumter Counties. Between 2005 and 2010, the 65 and older population is predicted to grow by 14.2 percent statewide, but 21 percent in Lake County and 22 percent in Sumter County. The same age group is projected to grow at 16.8 percent on a district-wide basis. T 359-360; PE 2 at 30. The total population is growing at a high rate and the elderly rate is growing at a higher rate. Due to the location of the Ocala National Forest, the projected growth in District 3 is projected to occur along the southeastern portion of District, i.e., the general corridor of Interstate 4, the Florida Turnpike, and US Highways 441. Other than the primary roads of US Highway 441 and 27, the roads are open with few street lights. Except for Alachua County (mainly because of the University of Florida), there is no mass transportation system available to the residents of District 3. The aging of the population limits somewhat the times of day that family members can travel. The road configuration, travel times, lack of public transportation and the age of the patients and families in the Leesburg service area make access to LTCHs in Gainesville and Ocala difficult. Quantifying the need for additional LTCH beds in District 3 Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes The Agency has not adopted a need methodology for LTCH services. There is no published fixed need pool for LTCHs. Need is determined on a district-wide basis, here District 3. In order to determine whether there is a need for its project, Promise examined the population estimates and the number of acute care beds for District 3, discharge data from area acute care hospitals, and the lengths of stay of the patients treated at those hospitals. (Since the application was filed, the number of long term stay days of care in acute care hospitals in District 3 increased from 63,429 in 2004 to 68,602 in 2005.) Promise performed its analysis on a district-wide basis and also offered an analysis based on its targeted primary service area Lake and Sumter Counties and secondary area, Citrus and Hernando Counties. Promise used the Geometric Mean Length of Stay + 15 (GMLOS + 15) analysis of long stay patients in acute care short stay hospitals in District 3 to demonstrate need for additional LTCH beds in District 3. The Agency has accepted the GMLOS + 15 methodology to show need for an additional LTCH. See generally Select Specialty Hospital - Escambia, Inc. vs. Agency for Health Care Administration, DOAH Case No. 05-0319CON, 2005 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 1095 (DOAH June 17, 2005; AHCA July 11, 2005); Select Specialty Hospital - Marion, Inc. vs. Agency for Health Care Administration, DOAH Case No. 03-2483CON, 2004 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 1658 (DOAH July 14, 2004; AHCA Sept. 15, 2004). Promise identified the number of long-stay patients discharged from the District 3 hospitals as a starting point to quantify the number of patients who have used LTCH services in the past. Long-stay discharges were defined using the following criteria: age of patient was 18 years or older; the discharge DRG was consistent with discharge DRGs from a Florida LTCH; and the ALOS in the acute care hospital was at the GMLOS for the specific DRG plus 15 days or more. Applying these criteria reduced the number of DRGs used and the potential patient pool. In 2004, there were 1,667 acute care hospital discharges from District 3 hospitals that met the above criteria. These 1,667 discharges averaged a length of stay of 38 days, significantly higher than the overall ALOS (approximately five days) for patients discharged from short- term acute care hospitals. Applying the weighted average annual growth rate of the population 18 years or older to District 3 2004 LTCH discharges resulted in a total of 1,978 potential acute care discharges in the five-year planning horizon (2005-2010) and specifically for 2010. Promise then reduced the 1,978 discharges by 25 percent to 1,484, anticipating the effect of CMS policies which, according to Mr. Balsano, would restrict admissions to LTCHs and encourage LTCHs to care for the more complex patients or would provide alternatives to patients who would otherwise be admitted to an LTCH. (A high percentage of LTCH patients are Medicare recipients. Approximately 80 to 85 percent of admissions to Promise Healthcare LTCHs are Medicare patients. Promise projects 87.9 percent of its patient days will be Medicare and Medicare HMO.) Promise held the ALOS of 34.5 days constant and then multiplied the ALOS times the projected number of admissions in 2010 resulting in 51,198 LTCH patient days (1,484 x 34.5). Promise assumed that the proposed facility would experience an ALOS of 34.5 days reflecting 2004 LTCH experience in Florida, and would operate at 80 percent occupancy. These assumptions yielded a need for 175 LTCH beds by 2010. However, the net bed need by 2010 is 100 after deducting 75 LTCH beds which are approved and operational in District 3. If the number of potential LTCH patients is reduced by 50 percent rather than 25 percent and the occupancy standard is increased to 85 percent, the methodology yields a need for approximately 47 beds (122 minus 75 beds). On Schedules 7B and 8A for the second year of operation, Promise projected it would provide 11,216 patient days with an average occupancy of 76.8 percent in order to achieve a net profit of $1,048,236 in year two of operation. In order to break even in year two, Promise used a sensitivity analysis and updated data and projected it would need approximately 9,551 patient days at an ALOS of 34.5 or approximately 17 to 19 percent of the total projected patient days for District 3 (56,090). T 475, 489, 820. Promise assumed a loss of approximately 15 percent of patient days from the 11,216 patient days projected. T 450-451. Stated otherwise, Promise needs approximately 276 discharges by year two (2010) to break even. T 472-475, 825. Notwithstanding the above, the Agency is concerned with the type of patients (acuity levels) who are appropriate for LTCH services, suggesting in part that admitted LTCH patients are not always appropriate for that level of care and that LTCH applicants have traditionally overstated the need for additional LTCH beds. The basis of this concern lies in part on information obtained by the Agency from CMS which, as interpreted by the Agency, indicates that 37 percent of patients historically admitted to LTCHs are short-term outliers, and that 29 percent of patients admitted were totally inappropriate for such admissions. In 2002, CMS adopted a rule intended to assure that if an LTCH did not expend funds to treat a patient, CMS would receive the benefit of the lower cost and/or more efficient care. For reimbursement purposes, the rule defined short-term as the admission of any patient who stayed in an LTCH no loner than 5/6ths, or 83 percent, of the ALOS at a particular LTCH. The rule generates a number of short-term outliers equal to approximately 37 percent of all admissions. Mr. Balsano considered this rule in reducing the potential number of admissions at the District 3 LTCHs in the future by 25 percent as well as reducing the projected Medicare reimbursement rates the proposed facility would receive. The Agency also relied on a 2004 study of LTCH admissions which found that 29 percent of the patients were inappropriate for hospital care and that CMS supported the study's findings. However, within the same exhibit, CMS recognized that 17.4 percent of the admissions reviewed in the survey involved payment errors and only 5.9 percent involved admission denials. Payment errors involve billing and coding errors not whether an admission was appropriate. The percentage of admission or payment denial claims for acute care hospitals during 2004 was 4.6 percent, similar to the LTCH percentage. In order to ensure patients are appropriate for LTCH care, Promise has implemented a number of programs including an increased level of patient admission scrutiny. Promise uses a standardized model for its admission criteria known as InterQual. InterQual is a set of measurable, clinical indicators that reflect a patient's need for hospitalization. Rather than being based on diagnosis, InterQual criteria consider the level of illness of the patient and the level of services required. InterQual measures the acuity levels of LTCH patients. Using InterQual criteria provides some assurance that patients will be suitable for LTCH care, i.e., actually need LTCH care because of the severity of the patient's illness. InterQual criteria include discharge screens, which require an LTCH to continuously determine whether a patient can be more appropriately cared for in an alternative setting. Approximately 35 to 60 percent of patient referrals are admitted at Promise Healthcare LTCHs. Promise has used InterQual criteria since the summer of 2004, and at the time of hearing, used the criteria in all of its facilities. (However, Promise did not specifically offer proof of actual results of using InterQual in its LTCHs. T 718.) Thirty-nine of 52 Quality Improvement Organizations (QIO) have adopted InterQual as their criteria to review the appropriateness of LTCH admissions. Notwithstanding Promise's use of InterQual criteria, the Agency is still concerned regarding inappropriate admissions at Promise's proposed facility as well as existing LTCHs. But see AHCA 13. During a 2004 site visit to SemperCare Hospital in Orlando (Select Specialty Hospital - Orlando), AHCA obtained information which identified patients' severity of illness. The Agency viewed this report favorably and suggested that this information is the type of evidence which should be included in a LTCH CON application to establish the segment of patients appropriate for admission to an LTCH. See AHCA 17. During rebuttal, Promise called Dr. Grigonis as a witness. Dr. Grigonis' firm was retained by SemperCare to generate the data and analysis presented to the Agency in AHCA Exhibit 17. Dr. Grigonis was retained by Promise to analyze data similar to AHCA Exhibit 17. T 742-743. According to Dr. Grigonis, the severity of illness of a patient can be determined by using a product developed by 3M Corporation and is part of a system known as APR-DRG (all patient refined (APR)) patient classification system. The DRG is the standard classification system developed by Medicare and others to classify patients into broad diagnostic groups. The APR is a further refinement of the DRG system and is used by CMS and is in use in many acute care hospitals in the country. A patient's severity of illness is broken down into four categories: minor, moderate, major, and extreme and ranked from a low of one to a high of four along these categories. Patients with the highest severity (major and extreme/ three and four) have the highest probability of being admitted into an LTCH. Dr. Grigonis was asked to determine the severity of a potential pool of LTCH patients considering only Medicare patients. First, he used a database of Medicare patients known as MedPAR data and for the period October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005. Second, filters were applied to the data based upon both clinical and length of stay information. Only patients who stayed the GMLOS plus 15 days for similar patients in that DRG category were considered. This filter was provided by Mr. Balsano. Patients were also eliminated who based on their DRG were not appropriate for an LTCH. Patients who expired were also eliminated. When these stringent filters were applied to the MedPAR data from 2004-2005, the potential patient population was reduced to less than one half of one percent of all Medicare patients discharged from the four acute care hospitals studied, Leesburg Regional, Villages Regional, Florida Hospital Waterman, and Citrus Memorial Hospital,1 which are not LTCHs, serving Lake, Sumter, Citrus, and Hernando Counties within District 3. T 751-753, 794. This exercise was followed to determine the reasonable number of candidates who were appropriate for admission to an LTCH from this geographic area. Once the patients were separated using the filters, Dr. Grigonis applied the same algorithm obtained from the 3-M Corporation to determine the APR/DRG and severity of illness, i.e., determine the proportion of patients falling within each severity level. This is the same methodology he used for the SemperCare study. The data generated by Dr. Grigonis indicated that during October 2004 to September 2005, the four acute care hospitals generated 192 Medicare only filtered patients who would be appropriate for admission to an LTCH (but did not receive LTCH care) and 87.5 percent of the 192 patients were in the major and extreme severity of illness categories - levels three and four. (Patient origin data was not included as part of the data or analysis.) Of the 192 patients, Leesburg Regional, Villages Regional, Citrus Memorial, and Florida Hospital Waterman accounted for 69, 13, 60, and 50 patients, respectively. Leesburg Regional and Villages Regional had a very high proportion of high severity cases. Dr. Grigonis compared the SemperCare study (AHCA 17) with his recent four-hospital study (Promise R 3) and concluded that the population of patients selected for the four-hospital study had an overall higher degree of severity than patients who were typically treated at the SemperCare LTCH. T 760. Dr. Grigonis ultimately concluded that the results from the four-hospital study indicate a group of patients that are suitable for LTCH admissions. T 765. Dr. Grigonis also opined that the range of the total number of patients appearing on Promise Exhibit 29 is consistent with his findings. T 767-777.2 He also stated that "over time there are likely to be higher severity patients in certain areas, and that would also be consistent with the fact that the data we analyzed from the pure Medicare file was a year older." T 768. During its surrebuttal case, in response to Promise Rebuttal Exhibit 3, the Agency reviewed Florida statewide LTCH actual discharge data for calendar year 2005. This exhibit provided the number of discharges/cases and percentages by DRG code of patients who were discharged from an LTCH. AHCA SR 1. The data was not limited to Medicare patients. T 830-849. The Agency compared this data set with Promise Rebuttal Exhibit 3 and concluded that many of the patients treated at the four acute care facilities would not necessarily be candidates for LTCH care. For example, for LTCH statewide discharges, approximately 50 percent of the discharges were from DRGs 475 (respiratory system diagnosis with ventilator support/22.40 percent); 87 (pulmonary edema and respiratory failure/8.55 percent); 271 (skin ulcers/5.97 percent); 416 (septicemia age greater than 17/4.44 percent); 88 (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/4.26 percent); and 79 (respiratory infections and inflammation greater than age 17 with CC/3.91 percent). AHCA SR 1. For these same DRGs, for the patients discharged from the four acute care facilities, the percentages were: 1.6 percent/475; 1.04 percent/87; 0 percent/271; 6.2 percent/416; 2 percent/88; and 5.2 percent/79. Only three patients were classified within DRG 475. The percentages of patients classified within DRGs 416, 88, and 79 are closer in comparison than the others. The Agency reiterated that the purpose of this surrebuttal exhibit was to show the DRGs of patients actually admitted to an LTCH. T 849. The data used by Dr. Grigonis is different from the data used by the Agency, in part, because the patient pools are different and the point of discharge is different. T 847. The Agency also pointed out that, although there has been a steady increase in the state's population for the past ten years, and an increase in the number of LTCHs starting in 2003, there has been a decline in the utilization of LTCHs. See, e.g., AHCA 13 and 14. (The expansion of LTCHs statewide has been significant. As of 2003, there were 740 licensed LTCH beds in 10 facilities statewide. The number of beds rose to 876 by 2005 in 14 facilities and, as of July 2006, there were 475 additional LTCH beds approved statewide in nine facilities. Id.) Past occupancy numbers assist somewhat in predicating future need for future health care services in general. However, the needs of each service district should be analyzed, not lumped into one category of need because of the wide variation in bed occupancy in the various districts and because the numbers do not necessarily indicate whether access or bed availability is a problem. Despite the Agency's concerns, Promise's methodology is more conservative than those applied in other LTCH CON applications in part because Promise considered the potential impact of future CMS actions which would tend to remove the lower acuity patients from being admitted or considered appropriate for admission to LTCHs. Also, the study performed by Dr. Grigonis, see also endnote 2, is persuasive that there is a pool of potential patients who need LTCH services within Promise's service area. Availability, extent of utilization, accessibility, and quality of care of like services in District 3 - Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes LTCHs Kindred - Hospital East (Kindred Marion) is the only operational LTCH in District 3 and is located in Ocala, Marion County, Florida, north of Lake and Sumter Counties. The drive time from Leesburg Regional to the Kindred Marion LTCH is approximately one hour to one hour and 15 minutes. (It takes approximately 30 minutes to drive from Leesburg Regional to Villages Regional and thus approximately 30 minutes north to Kindred Marion from Villages Regional.) Kindred Marion is a "hospital within a hospital" (HIH) because it is physically located in Munroe Regional Medical Center (Munroe Regional), an acute care hospital. Kindred Marion has 30 beds in 15 semi-private rooms and one bed in an isolation room. Kindred Marion's short-term hospital Medicare provider number became effective November 30, 2005, and its long-term hospital Medicare provider number became effective June 1, 2006. Notwithstanding its status as an HIH, it is separately licensed.3 From October 2005 through November 2006, Kindred Marion reported 147 admissions to its LTCH, of which 42, 21, and 20 came from Munroe Regional, Shands Hospital, and Ocala Regional, respectively, and no referrals from Village's Regional and two admissions from Leesburg Regional. During the same time period, Kindred Marion received 6.8 and 2.7 percent of its patients from Lake and Sumter Counties, respectively, or about two patients a day from these two counties.4 Since it opened, Kindred Marion's average daily census (ADC) has experienced an upward trend. By October 2006, Kindred Marion's ADC reached as high as 20 to 22 patients, with an occupancy rate of approximately 71 percent. Utilization and inefficiencies may result when a facility is composed solely of semi-private rooms. These include assuring that patients of different sexes are not housed in the same room; that contagious diseases or infections are appropriately considered; the location of additional equipment, such as monitoring devices, for patients with co-morbidities; and that the preferences of patient's families are taken into consideration. In light of some these limitations, unlike facilities with private bed configurations, facilities with semi-private bed configurations have more limited capacity. Kindred Marion's realistic occupancy threshold is approximately 70 to 75 percent. (However, Kindred Marion can add LTCH beds without CON review by notifying the Agency of the addition. Kindred Marion can also become a freestanding LTCH without CON review. It is not certain whether Kindred Marion intends to expand or whether it has the capacity to expand or whether it intends to become a freestanding LTCH.) There is some evidence that Leesburg Regional's personnel have not been successful in placing patients at Kindred Marion, although the attempts were not quantified with any precision. See, e.g., T 224-225, 241-242. One additional LTCH (Select Alachua) has been approved and is under construction by Select in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida, close to the Shands Hospital System (Shands). It will be a freestanding LTCH with 44 beds and is expected to open in 2008. Select Alachua was approved on the basis that the majority of its patients would be generated by Shands and would serve patients in Alachua County and surrounding counties. AHCA expects Shands will refer the large majority of its patients requiring LTCH services to Select Alachua. See Finding of Fact 119 regarding the ability to expand. The drive time to Select Alachua from Leesburg Regional is approximately one hour and a half to two hours. Kindred Marion and Shands Alachua are closer to Leesburg Regional and the residents of Lake and Sumter Counties than the Kindred Tampa LTCHs. However, given the relationship between Shands and Select Alachua, the evidence is not persuasive that Select Alachua will be a viable alternative for the residents of Lake and Sumter Counties and potential patients from, for example, from Leesburg Regional and Villages Regional, needing LTCH services. CMRs, SNFs, SNUs, and Home Health Agencies The CMR unit in the Leesburg Regional service area has not been available for ventilator patients. Also, CMR units are rarely appropriate for the LTCH patient, in part, because LTCH patients are not able to tolerate the minimum three hours of daily therapy associated with CMR care. The services offered at SNFs and SNUs and by home health agencies in District 3 are not appropriate substitutes for the services offered at an LTCH and needed by typical LTCH patients. LTCH services outside District 3 For calendar year 2004 and prior to the operation of an LTCH in District 3, over half (143 out of 259) of the District 3 resident/patients receiving LTCH services were discharged from the Kindred - North Florida LTCH in Green Cove Springs, Florida. An additional 25 percent of the District 3 resident/patients were discharged from Kindred - Central Tampa and Kindred - Tampa. Kindred Hospital - Bay Area - Tampa (Kindred Tampa), in District 6 to the west of District 3, is an existing LTCH with 73 licensed LTCH beds. Patients at Leesburg Regional requiring LTCH services are transported two hours away to the Kindred Tampa facility. Kindred Tampa terminated its family bus shuttle service in the Leesburg Regional service area so family members (of patients admitted to Kindred Tampa) must provide or find transportation and travel two hours each way to visit patients at Kindred Tampa. Patients are transported by EMS. Kindred also operates another LTCH in District 6 known as Kindred Hospital - Central Tampa with 102 licensed LTCH beds. For calendar years 2002 through 2005, the occupancy levels for Kindred Tampa were 67.50, 65.93, 62.64, and 59.49, respectively. For the same time period, the occupancy levels for the Kindred Hospital - Central Tampa LTCH were 79.42, 70.33, 69.52, and 63.05, respectively. (Both Kindred LTCHs have been operational at least since 1995.) The two Kindred LTCHs in the Tampa area are potential alternatives for the residents in Lake and Sumter Counties, but the driving time to and from these facilities is problematic both for the patients and caregivers and costs are incurred by the transferring facility. For example, a respiratory therapist from Leesburg Regional will often accompany the patients, which keeps the therapists out of the hospital for six to seven hours. T 218. There is one LTCH (opened in 2003) in Orlando known as Select Specialty Hospital - Orlando (formerly SemperCare - Orlando), with 35 LTCH beds and another LTCH under construction in southern Orange County within a few miles of the current LTCH known as Select Specialty Hospital - Orange with 40 approved, but not operational LTCH beds. The approximate drive time from Leesburg Regional to the Orlando LTCH is approximately one hour and 20 minutes and one hour and 50 minutes to the LTCH (Orange County) under construction. For calendar year 2004 and 2005, the occupancy levels at the Select Specialty - Orlando LTCH were 71.28 and 73.37 percent, respectively, compared to the statewide average of 67.14 and 64.70 percent, respectively. Select Specialty - Orlando is associated with the Florida Hospital5 System, whereas the approved Select Specialty Hospital - Orange facility is associated with the Orlando Regional Health System. Both LTCHs were approved in part based on patients residing in the Orlando/Orange County area within District 7 needing LTCH services and on the specific needs of these large hospital systems and the patients they serve.6 T 627, 690, 700-705, 709, 729-731. (Select Specialty - Orlando is an LTCH within the multiple buildings of Florida Hospital in Orlando. T 627). Given the special relationships forged by these Orlando/Orange County LTCHs with existing health care systems, the evidence is not persuasive that they are viable alternatives for the residents of Lake and Sumter Counties or, for that matter, other residents in District 3, except perhaps LTCH eligible patients from Florida Hospital Waterman. Also, Leesburg Regional has tried to place patients with the Select Orlando but bed availability has been a problem. Travel is also problematic. As of July 2006, University Community Hospital, Inc. has been approved to operate a 50-bed LTCH in Pasco or Pinellas County, Florida. T 714. The record is scanty on any details regarding this facility and its proposed service area. The ability of Promise to provide quality of care - Section 408.035(3), Florida Statutes Promise is a new development stage corporation without a track record in Florida. However, Promise demonstrated that it can provide quality of care should its project be approved and that its parent company has a history of providing quality of care. About one-half of Promise Healthcare's facilities are accredited by the Joint Commission of Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO). Promise Healthcare expects the remaining facilities will be similarly accredited within the next 18 months. LTCHs must go through a six-month demonstration period (unless extended) when they are treated like an acute care hospital. During this period, they must demonstrate that they are caring for medically complex patients who have an ALOS of more than 25 days. The hospital is reimbursed at the acute care hospital rate. In addition to JCAHO accreditation and the use of InterQual admission measures indicated above, Promise Healthcare utilizes a number of other outcome measurement systems, including JCAHO's ORYX performance measurement system, medication error rate determinations and best practices standards. ORYX is a national clinical outcome database operated by Healthcare Data, Inc., under a contract with JCAHO, which enables providers like Promise to evaluate and compare themselves to others in the industry by reporting indicators, such as infection control, ventilator dependency and weaning, and wound healing. In order to maintain JCAHO accreditation, JCAHO requires LTCH facilities to report nine indicators on a quarterly basis. T 41-48. The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital, and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation-- Section 408.035(4), Florida Statutes The parties agree that Promise has or will be able to recruit or otherwise obtain sufficient resources, including health and management personnel, to accomplish the project. The parties have differing views on the availability of funds for capital and operating expenditures discussed herein. The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district -- Section 408.035(5), Florida Statutes Based primarily on the experiences of personnel at Leesburg Regional, the need assessment performed by Mr. Balsano, and the study performed by Dr. Grigonis, see also endnote 2, approval of the project is likely to enhance access to LTCH services for the residents of District 3. The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal -- Section 408.035(6), Florida Statutes Promise is required to prove its project will be financially feasible in the short-term by establishing its ability to fund the project, and in the long-term by establishing a positive net revenue or profit at the end of the second full year of its projected operation. In other words, can Promise obtain financing to fund the project and is the project likely to generate a profit at the end of its second year of operation? AHCA argues that Promise is a development stage company with assets of $60,000 and no results from operations. In addition, AHCA argues that Promise did not provide audited financial statements for its parent company, Promise Healthcare, and that, as a result, AHCA cannot perform a review of Promise's short and long-term position. In essence, AHCA questions Promise's ability to obtain financing necessary to fund this project and associated working capital. Promise noted that it intends to fund the project through debt financing and provided a letter of interest. AHCA does not consider a letter of interest a firm commitment to lend. Promise is a start-up company. Promise included an audited financial statement of itself in its CON application, but not for its parent company. There is nothing unusual about establishing a separate start-up company. At the time of the hearing, Promise Healthcare, the parent company, generated net patient revenues in excess of $200 million. Promise Healthcare is viable and profitable, as indicated in its financial documents and financial history. With the exception of its first year of operation, Promise Healthcare has been profitable, and, in 2005, Promise Healthcare generated positive retained earnings in excess of $10 million. In 2006, Promise Healthcare's profits "are just about the same for 2005." Mr. Leder stated that there were some changes in reimbursement that lowered some of the revenue and also one company was in a start-up mode with a six month loss, which was absorbed, but if considered a start-up, net income for the year would have been approximately $5 million. T 147. Mr. Leder explained that audits are being done now which "hopefully will be completed within the next six or eight weeks." He further explained that when Promise Healthcare purchased other companies, there was a significant amount of financial information unavailable to list on statements which were auditable. Nevertheless, he opined that their financial statements "are fairly accurate" and the balance sheet and income statement have "always been fair and reasonable." T 148. Through the years, Promise Healthcare has been successful in securing financing as needed. Promise Healthcare's "sister" company, Sun Capital, obtained in excess of $250 million in loans through the efforts of Founding Partners Capital Management Company (Founding) and its principal, Mr. Gunlicks. Founding acts as the general partner in managing investment funds. Founding is registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and the Florida Division of Securities. Promise Healthcare has obtained approximately $15 million in loans from Founding for two facilities in Nederland (by mortgage) and Bossier City (by construction loan). T 148-149. It is not uncommon for health care companies to rely on letters of intent to finance their facilities at this stage of the CON process. Mr. Gunlicks and his associates have conducted extensive due diligence into Promise Healthcare's plans to expand in Florida. If approved, Mr. Gunlicks and the entities that he controls stand ready, willing, and able to provide the necessary financing for the Promise project. According to AHCA's financial expert, Mr. Fitch, there has not been a CON project which, if approved, was not developed due to lack of financing. If the Agency approves the application, it is reasonable to expect that the project will be financed appropriately. Promise produced credible evidence in this regard. Promise, by and through the testimony of witnesses employed at Leesburg Regional, proved that it had strong support from LRMC. Promise's projected occupancy rates are based on the methodology proposed by Mr. Balsano, including the adjustments contained in the projected number of patients who would likely be admitted to District 3 LTCHs. The projected occupancy rates for years one and two, although presenting a challenge for Promise in today's LTCH/health care climate, are reasonable. The projected Medicare revenues as well as the overall net revenues per patient day included in the application are reasonable. The proposed costs per patient day are reasonable. Overall, the projections that Promise's project will at least break even and potentially generate a profit in excess of $1.2 million at the end of the second year of operations, although challenging, is reasonable. The Agency raised legitimate concerns regarding the financial ability of Promise and its parent. The lack of audited financial statements for the parent is troubling, but not dispositive. The financial ability of Promise and its parent to fund and operate this project presents a credibility issue in this de novo hearing. Based on the totality of the evidence presented, Promise proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the project is likely to be financially feasible in the short-term and long-term. The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness -- Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes Approval of Promise's application would provide competition in the District 3 LTCH market and reduce expensive and time consuming patient transfers. In addition, it is likely to provide efficiencies in various departments of hospitals, such as those operated by LRMC. Access to the proposed Promise project is likely to decompress LRMC's emergency departments and intensive care units, reduce hospital stays, and provide better care for patients. The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction -- Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes The parties agree that the estimated construction costs of the Promise project are reasonable and that the architectural plans submitted by Promise comply with all statutory and rule requirements. The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent -- Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes If awarded a CON, Promise agreed to provide a combined two percent of the facility's total annual patient days to Medicaid and charity patients. At hearing, Promise reiterated its commitment contained in the application. In some states in which Promise operates, the Medicaid program does not provide any benefits for LTCH patients. In its Shreveport facility, the percentage of Medicaid patients averages between five and ten percent. It is even higher in Promise's Phoenix facility. Promise provides care to patients who do not have any reimbursement available-allowing its facilities to do so on a case-by-case basis. Promise's commitment to Medicaid and charity care is accounted for in the application's projections. Promise's commitment compares favorably with the level of similar care provided by existing LTCH facilities in Florida. The applicant's designation as a Gold Seal Program nursing facility pursuant to s.400.235, when the applicant is requesting additional nursing home beds at that facility -- Section 409.035(10), Florida Statutes The parties agree this criterion does not apply.
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 granting Promise Healthcare of Florida III, Inc.'s CON Application No. 9870. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 10th day of April, 2007.
The Issue Whether an application for a new hospital to be constructed in Agency for Health Care Administration Planning District 9, Subdistrict 2, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Parties AHCA is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the CON program for the state of Florida. The Agency serves as the state heath planning entity. See § 408.034, Fla. Stat. (2007). As such, it was charged to review the CON application at issue in this proceeding. AHCA has preliminarily approved Martin's CON application No. 9981. The Petitioners are existing providers who oppose the approval of the subject CON. St. Lucie is a 194-bed acute care hospital located on U. S. Highway 1 in Port St. Lucie, Florida, that opened in 1983. Included in the bed count are 17 obstetric beds and 18 intensive care beds. St. Lucie utilizes 7 operating rooms and provides a varied list of surgical services. Although St. Lucie does not provide tertiary services, it offers an impressive array of medical options including general and vascular surgery, orthopedics, spine surgery, neurosurgery, and gynecology. Furthermore, St. Lucie is a designated stroke center and it is fully accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). The JCAHO mission is to improve the safety and quality of care provided to the public through the provision of health care accreditation and related services that support performance improvement in health care organizations. St. Lucie uses a hospitalist program 7 days per week, 12 hours per day. The hospitalist program is a group of physicians who are employed by the hospital to manage the care of its patients. St. Lucie believes the hospitalist program moves patient cases more quickly and efficiently. St. Lucie has committed financial resources to its hospitalist program and hopes to expand its use in the future. The emergency department (ED) at St. Lucie handles approximately 42,000 visits per year. The ED has 24 beds comprised of 16 regular beds and 8 "fast track" beds. All areas are either curtained or separated by dividers to provide for patient privacy. Historically, St. Lucie has expanded the ED to provide for additional space for emergent patients. One of the strategies it has used includes the installation of special chairs in a waiting triaged area. The other Petitioner, Lawnwood, is located in Ft. Pierce, Florida, near I-95 and the Florida Turnpike. Lawnwood has 341 beds and, in additional to traditional medical/surgical options, provides tertiary services such as neurosurgery and open heart. Lawnwood also provides Level II neonatal intensive care services. Like St. Lucie, Lawnwood is fully accredited by JCAHO. Lawnwood has provided quality health care services to its region for over 30 years. The Lawnwood ED handles approximately 40,000 visits per year in a 28-bed unit. At its current location Lawnwood can expand its facilities should it desire to do so. At the current time, however, it has no plans for expansion of its main campus. It does plan to initiate an expansion of its intensive care unit. Financing for that expansion was anticipated to become more definite in 2009. In furtherance of its efforts to promote itself as a regional provider of quality medical services, Lawnwood has begun the arduous process of becoming a Level I trauma program for a multi-county area. In this regard, Lawnwood asserts that its service area for trauma patients encompasses Indian River County, St. Lucie County, parts of Okeechobee County, and portions of Martin County, Florida. Lawnwood has invested in the capital improvements needed to fully implement this program. The Petitioners are owned and operated by Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), a for-profit corporation headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. HCA has input into the decisions affecting Petitioners and can influence when the improvements they hope to implement will be finalized. In addition to the Petitioners, other providers in the district include Indian River Hospital located in Vero Beach, Florida, and Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc. with two hospitals in Martin County, Florida. It is the latter competitor that seeks to establish a new hospital in the western portion of St. Lucie County, Florida. Martin is a private, not-for-profit Florida corporation licensed to operate Martin Memorial Hospital North, in Stuart, Florida, and Martin Memorial Hospital South, in Port Salerno, Florida. The northern facility has 244 licensed beds; the southern hospital has 100 licensed beds. The northern hospital is the older provider and has served patients from St. Lucie and Martin Counties for over 70 years. Like Lawnwood, Martin offers a broad range of acute care hospital services including tertiary services. The options available at Martin include open-heart surgery, complex wound care, oncology, obstetrics, neonatal intensive care, pediatrics, and orthopedics. Martin provides high-quality medical services to its patients in both outpatient and inpatient venues. To that end Martin has been active in the western portion of St. Lucie County for a number of years and has solidified relationships with physicians in that area of the district. In this regard, Martin established an urgent care center in Port St. Lucie back in 1984. Since that time it has repeatedly sought to expand its provision of medical care to the residents of St. Lucie County. Martin constructed a physicians complex that employs and provides offices for physicians most of whom are on staff at St. Lucie. Over 80 percent of the patients from the Martin physician complex get admitted to St. Lucie. Martin also established a second outpatient facility in the western portion of St. Lucie County. This 70,000 square foot center provides 500-600 treatments per month to its patients. Among the services provided at this facility include a broad range of diagnostic and laboratory services, radiation therapy, rehabilitation therapy, and pediatric medicine. Finally, Martin also intends to establish a freestanding ED in the western portion of St. Lucie County in 2009. This facility will provide another access point for patients in the western portion of the county to facilitate a quicker response for patients who seek emergency care. Martin views this proposed freestanding ED as an interim measure and will convert it to an urgent care or other non-acute use if the proposed hospital it seeks to construct is approved. The Proposal Martin seeks to construct a general acute care hospital consisting of 80 beds, with intensive care, an ED, telemetry, and obstetrics. It will not offer tertiary services. The site for the proposed hospital is in an area known as "Tradition," a planned community in the western portion of St. Lucie County. The City of Port St. Lucie has annexed the geographical area into what residents consider "West Port St. Lucie" and have designated an area of Tradition to promote the life sciences industry. Accordingly, Tradition has areas reserved for medical office buildings, research facilities, as well as the hospital site to be used by Martin. Martin's proposed site is adjacent to the Torrey Pines Molecular Research Institute. The entire Tradition and West Port St. Lucie area is within AHCA's District 9, Subdistrict 2. By locating the new hospital in the western portion of the county, Martin maintains it will promote and enhance access for current and future residents of the developing area without adversely impacting St. Lucie and Lawnwood. Another advantage to a hospital in the western portion of the county is the option of having a haven in the event of a hurricane or natural disaster in the eastern portion of the county. Since the site is located to the west of the coastline, storm surges would not likely impact the facility or dictate evacuation. Further, the site provides excellent geographic access for traffic and the population of the expanding western portions of the county. Like other geographical areas, the coastal portion of the county faces “build out” that will limit the population expansion anticipated in that area. The proposed area has yet to face any limitation in that regard. It is the most likely geographic area that will expand as the population grows. HCA also recognized the benefits of the western area for future expansion of its medical facilities. It unsuccessfully negotiated to acquire a hospital site at or near the proposed location. In relation to the other parties, the proposed site is north and west of the Martin hospitals in Martin County, west of St. Lucie, and south and west of Lawnwood. The size of the parcel is adequate to construct the hospital. In reaching its decision to seek the approval of the new hospital, Martin considered input from many sources, including, but not limited to: physicians who practice in the vicinity of the proposed hospital; emergency response personnel who transport patients to the various district hospitals; medical researchers who have located to or are locating to the proposed area; elected officials familiar with the medical needs of the community; and health care planning professionals. The St. Lucie River divides St. Lucie County east to west. Only the areas west of the river have been designated as the primary service area for the proposed hospital. The primary service area comprises the land within zip codes 34983, 34984, 34986, 34953, 34987, and 34988. The secondary service area comprises those lands encompassed by zip codes 34981, 34982, 34952, and 34957. These primary and secondary service areas have been reasonably determined to project admissions and other relevant use data. As is later addressed in more detail, the population projected for the service area will reasonably support the utilization required to make the proposed hospital financially feasible. Review Criteria Every new hospital project in Florida must be reviewed pursuant to the statutory criteria set forth in Section 408.035, Florida Statutes (2007). Accordingly, the ten subparts of that provision must be weighed to determine whether or not a proposal meets the requisite criteria. In this case, the parties have identified the provisions of law that pertain to this matter. Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes (2007) requires that the need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed be considered. In the context of this case, "need" will not be addressed in terms of its historical meaning. The Agency no longer calculates "need" pursuant to a need methodology. Therefore, looking to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008, requires consideration of the following pertinent provisions: . . . If an agency need methodology does not exist for the proposed project: The agency will provide to the applicant, if one exists, any policy upon which to determine need for the proposed beds or service. The applicant is not precluded from using other methodologies to compare and contrast with the agency policy. If no agency policy exists, the applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and, Market conditions. The existence of unmet need will not be based solely on the absence of a health service, health care facility, or beds in the district, subdistrict, region or proposed service area. According to Martin, "need" is evidenced by a large current and projected growing population in the proposed service area (PSA), sustained population growth that exceeds the district and state averages, capacity constraints at the existing providers, geographic access barriers including traffic congestion and the St. Lucie River, the need for improved access for emergency medical services, enhanced geographic and financial access to obstetrical services for residents of the western portion of the county, growth to offset impact on existing providers, and the financial health of existing providers. As previously stated, St. Lucie County is divided by the St. Lucie River. The river is crossed west-to-east by a limited number of bridges that can back up and delay the traffic utilizing them for access to St. Lucie. The county is traveled north to south by two major roadways: U.S. Highway 1 and I-95. To travel from the western portions of the county and the Tradition community, vehicles cross I-95, the river, and travel U.S. Highway 1 to St. Lucie. The PSA is the fastest growing portion of the county. The older areas to the east are not growing at the rate associated with the development of Tradition and other communities to the west. Some of the coastal areas to the east have become "saturated." That is to say, building and growth restrictions along the coast have limited the population in those areas. The western portion of the county is one of the most rapidly growing communities in the state and has become one of the focal areas of growth for the region. Although the rate of growth has slowed in the recent economic decline, the St. Lucie County area is still predicted to grow at an increased pace in the near future. Population projections prepared by the Bureau of Economics and Business Research at the University of Florida demonstrate that the growth reasonably expected for the PSA is fairly dramatic. According to Dr. Smith, whose testimony has been credited, the primary service area population is expected to reach or exceed 180,977 by 2015. If underestimated (as is typical of these types of projections), the growth could easily exceed that projection. The projection was based upon the most currently available data and has not been contradicted by more reliable data. Claritas data also suggested that the projections produced by Dr. Smith's work were reasonable. The projected growth rate in the primary service area exceeds the projected growth rate of the district as well as for Florida for the period 2007-2015. This finding is supported by the credible weight of the data admitted into evidence. Although the population growth has slowed due to economic conditions, the county will experience renewed growth in the PSA with the projected reversal of slowing trends. Development in the PSA continues to be the most likely geographic area that will be improved first and faster than other areas of the county. Looking at the age component of the population projected for the PSA, the age 65 and over cohort is the fastest growing segment of the population; the second is the 45-64 population segment. These segments are the majority of the acute care hospital utilization. Additionally, females ages 15- 44 also reflect a high rate of growth for the primary service area. This latter statistic supports the notion that a demand for obstetrics is likely. Acute care hospital utilization in the subdistrict increased from 2003 through June 2008. The non-tertiary discharges within the primary service area increased by 42 percent for the period 2003 to 2007. Birth volume in the primary service area increased for the same period and doubled the number of obstetric admissions for the time noted. This increase in utilization supports the likelihood that population growth for the area will further increase the utilizations expected for the PSA. Historically, St. Lucie has observed this utilization and growth of demand for its services. St. Lucie has responded by adding beds to its ED but the projections would suggest that past and future growth will result in capacity constraints for St. Lucie. Demand for intensive care, medical surgical beds, and progressive care beds at St. Lucie has been high. The ICU occupancy rate at St. Lucie in particular has been at or above 85 percent capacity a significant portion of the time. Capacity issues are more pronounced during the months from November through May of each year. The subdistrict enjoys a strong seasonal influx of residents who require all the amenities of a community including medical care. In this regard, St. Lucie has seen a "bed crunch" in order to accommodate the seasonal patients. This crunch results in longer ED waits, longer waits for admissions for those requiring acute care, longer waits for those seeking elective admissions, and longer waits for some services such as blood transfusions. Although hospitals are not intended to be like fast food restaurants (providing all services on a expedited basis), extended waits for bed placement can place waiting patients on gurneys in less than optimal conditions. This scenario does not promote efficient or the most effective form of providing health care services to those in need. The bed crunch at St. Lucie is expected to continue due to increasing demand for acute care hospital services in the county. Capacity constraints are similarly demonstrated at Lawnwood and Martin. Like St. Lucie, Lawnwood and Martin experience the seasonal crunch associated with the increased population during the winter months. In Lawnwood's case, the ED has delays through out the year. This means that patients wait for a bed assignment in the ED until a suitable room placement can be made. Additionally, the intensive care unit at Lawnwood experiences high occupancy. As Lawnwood transitions to a trauma center, the demand for acute care beds will also increase. Lawnwood will be the sole trauma center for the region and will likely receive an increase in utilization from that patient source. Martin also has experienced high utilization and has operated at or near capacity for extended periods during the season. Further, the birth volume growth for Martin supports the conclusion that additional obstetric beds are needed for the subdistrict. The majority of Martin's increased birth volume has come from the PSA. Martin has also established that obstetrics patients travel from areas closer to Lawnwood or St. Lucie to seek services at Martin. This demand for obstetrical services in the PSA also suggests that the proposed hospital would enhance access to obstetrics in the subdistrict. Patients who might be induced (as the mother is past her due date) for labor must, at times, wait for a delivery bed. Additionally, patients who present in labor do not always have a labor bed. The new facility would ease these constraints. The location of the hospital at Tradition will also improve geographic access to medical facilities. The traffic and natural barriers to health care services (limited west to east roadways and the river) would be eliminated by the proposed facility. Additionally, during periods of storm events, residents throughout the subdistrict would have access to an acute care hospital without driving to the coastal area. The demand for emergency medical response and transport in St. Lucie County has increased dramatically. The St. Lucie County Fire Department transports all patients requiring advanced life support services in the county. When traveling from the western portions of the county, the emergency transports use the same roadways to cross the river as the general population. Delays are common. Even after delivering a patient to the St. Lucie ED, the transport must return west from its point of origin in order to return to service. The delays in traversing the county result in delays for the unit to be able to respond to the next call. Although it is impractical to have a hospital on every corner, the establishment of a hospital at Tradition would greatly enhance the response times for emergency vehicles and enhance their ability to return to service more quickly. To respond to the increased population and need in the Tradition community, the county has established two new fire stations in the area. The primary service area has the greatest need for additional fire and emergency services according to Chief Parrish. To help address the problem of having rescue units out of service for extended periods of time while transporting patients to an existing hospital east of the river (or while they are returning west to their service area), the Fire Department has doubled rescue trucks and paramedics at two stations in the western portion of the county. This duplication of manpower and equipment increases emergency costs for the county. Although there are plans for the construction of another bridge across the river that would ease some of the congestion in crossing the county, it is unknown when that bridge will be funded and constructed. City personnel do not expect the bridge to be started prior to 2017. The proposed hospital will provide improved access for emergency medical services. The proposed hospital will provide enhanced access to obstetrical services for the residents of the PSA. With regard to financial access, the weight of the credible evidence supports the finding that residents of the PSA are able to adequately access medical services. Existing providers are meeting the needs of the needy and those without ability to pay. Although the new hospital would provide a closer point of service for the indigent or Medicaid recipients who may lack transportation advantages of the more affluent, the needy are currently being served by existing providers. The existing providers are financially healthy and are well able to meet the needs of the indigent. Should the new hospital siphon off the more desirable patients (ie. the insured, Medicare, self-pay, etc.), the existing providers should be able to continue to provide the indigent care needed by the subdistrict. Additionally, the new hospital would also be expected to accept Medicaid or indigent patients. Travel times within the subdistrict further suggest that the addition of a new hospital would reduce the time for all residents to arrive at an acute care hospital. Although the travel times currently suggest that patients could access an existing provider within 40 minutes, the addition of the new facility would ensure that during crunch times or times of traffic congestion or other times when factors extend the time for access to service, any patient from the PSA can be assured of prompt medical care. Establishment of the new hospital will also improve access in the event of a catastrophe or disaster. Given the recent history of hurricanes in the state, improved access to medical facilities in times of crisis can be critical to the patient as well as the emergency crews working during such events. To the extent that any existing provider loses admissions to the new hospital, the growth in population and projected admissions will adequately offset the loss of admissions. Further, the utilization expected by all providers will adequately assure their financial stability as the new provider achieves or exceeds its projected goals. Martin has demonstrated a strong financial position for a number of years. The establishment of the new hospital will not compromise Martin's financial strength or detract from its provision of services at the two hospital campuses it currently utilizes. The new, third campus will complement and enhance the Martin Health Care System. Martin has demonstrated the project is financially feasible both in the short and long term. Martin's past financial performance and continued strong financial position assure that it will be able to obtain financing for the proposed hospital construction and start up. Moreover, the projected patient days to be captured by the new hospital will assure that the hospital will achieve its "break even" financial point at a reasonable future date. The project should achieve revenues in excess of expenses by its third year of operation. The projections for utilization are reasonable and are based upon reasonable assumptions including the premise that Martin will redirect admissions from its southern facilities to services more geographically accessible at the new hospital. Martin has an established presence in the PSA and should be able to achieve its expected admissions without adversely impacting St. Lucie or Lawnwood. The revenue projections for the new hospital are reasonable and should be achieved. Martin has the resources, the workforce, and physician coverage to provide for the new hospital. Additionally, it is expected that new physicians will seek privileges at the new hospital and will provide emergency on-call coverage as may be needed. St. Lucie and Lawnwood have coverage for the medical specialties and ED departments at their facilities. Martin has a low vacancy and turnover rate for both nursing and non-nursing personnel. It partners with the community to sponsor initiatives that promote continued success in these areas. It is a favored employer among those in Martin County. The staffing projections for nursing and clinical support for the new hospital are reasonable. The projected salaries are also in line with those currently offered and should be reasonable and easily achieved. In short, the applicant has demonstrated that Schedule 6A of the application is supported by the record in this cause. Martin has demonstrated it is able to implement the project and to staff its needs at the levels projected by the application. St. Lucie County will grow at a sufficient rate to assure that all providers, including the proposed hospital, will have admissions to meet the financial needs of the institutions. Moreover, the growth anticipated is sufficient to fund the future improvements or expansions that may be required by the providers. Essentially, when considered as a whole, west to east, the county has sufficient growth potential to support the additional acute care hospital beds proposed by the applicant. Competition for the future beds will be enhanced by the additional provider. St. Lucie and Lawnwood will continue to perform well in the market. St. Lucie will continue to achieve the lion's portion of the market east of the river while Lawnwood will continue to serve the region as it has with tertiary and the newly added trauma services. If anything, Martin will take the largest hit from the establishment of the new hospital as it will seek to allow its patients from the PSA that currently travel south and east to Martin hospitals to remain in their community at the new facility. Acting as the "mother ship," Martin is willing to promote the new hospital so that the stresses it has at the Martin County hospitals may be alleviated. The Martin system as a whole will continue to grow and benefit from the addition of the new hospital. Martin is the chief initiator of medical services to the western St. Lucie County community. No HCA hospital has attempted to establish a presence in the Tradition area that matches or exceeds the commitment Martin has made to the residents of western St. Lucie County. St. Lucie and Lawnwood will continue to provide quality care to their patients and will continue to be financially strong should the new hospital come on line. The adverse impact suggested by the HCA hospitals is not supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. In short, the market projections are adequate to assure all providers will continue to share a significant portion of the health care pie. The growth in population, growth in admissions and utilization, the demographics of the population, and the reputation of all providers to provide quality care support the long term success of all providers in the subdistrict. The establishment of the new hospital will also promote competition as medical and clinical research also come into play. Should the new hospital located near the research facilities promote clinical trials, all providers in the subdistrict would benefit from any successful achievements. Martin has agreed to the following conditions for the CON: Martin will partner with Torrey Pines Institute for Molecular Studies for the provision of resources associated with clinical trials and life science research. Martin will continue to support the Volunteers in Medicine program with free inpatient and outpatient hospital services, outpatient laboratory, diagnostic and treatment services at a value of not less than $750,000 of charges per year for the next 10 years. Martin will support other community social services organizations in the form of cash, goods and services valued at not less than $75,000 annually for the next 10 years. This represents a commitment of $750,000 to support organizations such as Meals on Wheels, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, etc. Martin will support Florida Atlantic University Nursing School, Indian River Community College and other area nursing and allied health schools with at least $75,000 per year in services or goods for the next 10 years to help ensure an adequate supply of well-trained health care professionals. Martin will establish a volunteers program (based on its current successful program in Martin County) in Port St. Lucie area to involve local high schools in encouraging teens to volunteer in health care settings and to encourage health care careers. Martin will partner with the St. Lucie school system in the development of a High School Medical Academy. Martin will make the West Port St. Lucie Hospital available as a training site for area nursing and allied health schools and for the Florida State University physician training program. Martin will locate the new hospital south of Tradition Parkway, east of Village Parkway, adjacent to the Torrey Pines headquarters and the I-95 Gatlin Boulevard exit. Martin will provide a minimum of 11.1 percent of its total annual patient days in the new hospital to Medicaid and Medicaid HMO patients. Martin will also provide a minimum of $250,000 per year for Medicaid and/or charity outreach programs within the western Port St. Lucie area for the first five years of operation. This is not the first CON application submitted by Martin to establish a hospital in the western portion of St. Lucie County. The current application differs from others in that the updated population and utilization data more clearly establish that the projected growth for the subdistrict will support the new facility without unduly impacting the existing providers. The planning horizon for the instant application and the pertinent data show that the western portion of the county more closely resembles areas that have been granted satellite or new hospital facilities in other areas of the state. The growth projected for the county mandates additional healthcare resources be devoted to the PSA. Additionally, similar to its commitment to the Martin County residents, the applicant has demonstrated it will partner with the St. Lucie County resources to establish the same programs that have benefited other areas of the subdistrict. Finally, while the Torrey Pines affiliation was represented in prior applications, that facility is now a reality and operational. The benefits of having the Martin hospital adjacent to its facility is no longer speculative. Torrey Pines is a nationally recognized research entity. The State of Florida and St. Lucie County governmental entities have pursued this type of research facility for location to the state and this area. According to the Torrey Pines leadership, the location of the Martin hospital in proximity to its facility would enhance their efforts. The architectural schematics, project completion schedule, design narratives, and code compliance information set fort in Martin's application are reasonable. The site preparation and construction costs set forth on Schedule 9 are reasonable for the project proposed. Additionally, the equipment costs are reasonable. There is no financial barrier to access hospital services by the residents of the PSA. The quality of care rendered by all hospitals in the subdistrict is excellent. Although there may be some impact on the admissions and utilization at St. Lucie, the impact is not of such a magnitude so as to adversely impact the quality of care and provision of health services at that hospital. The impact expected at Lawnwood should be less than St. Lucie, nevertheless, it too is not of such a magnitude so as to adversely impact the quality of care and provision of health services at that hospital. Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes (2007), specifies that the availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district must be considered. As noted above, there is no barrier to services in the subdistrict. Nevertheless, Martin has demonstrated that access to additional services will be enhanced by the establishment of the new hospital in the western area of the county. Additionally, delays in admissions and capacity constraints at the existing hospitals although not chronic or at a critical juncture are evidenced in the record. Section 408.035(3), Florida Statutes (2007), requires the consideration of the ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. This criterion is not in dispute in this cause. Section 408.035(4), Florida Statutes (2007), requires the review of the availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. In this regard, Martin has established that it is able to provide the resources necessary for this project. Additionally, it has shown that projected salaries for the nurses (as depicted on Schedule 6A) are reasonable and within the general guidelines of Martin's provision of those services at its other hospitals. Section 408.035(5), Florida Statutes (2007), specifies that the Agency must evaluate the extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district. In the findings reached in this regard, the criteria set forth in Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.030(2) have been fully considered. Those provisions are: (2) Health Care Access Criteria. The need that the population served or to be served has for the health or hospice services proposed to be offered or changed, and the extent to which all residents of the district, and in particular low income persons, racial and ethnic minorities, women, handicapped persons, other underserved groups and the elderly, are likely to have access to those services. The extent to which that need will be met adequately under a proposed reduction, elimination or relocation of a service, under a proposed substantial change in admissions policies or practices, or by alternative arrangements, and the effect of the proposed change on the ability of members of medically underserved groups which have traditionally experienced difficulties in obtaining equal access to health services to obtain needed health care. The contribution of the proposed service in meeting the health needs of members of such medically underserved groups, particularly those needs identified in the applicable local health plan and State health plan as deserving of priority. In determining the extent to which a proposed service will be accessible, the following will be considered: The extent to which medically underserved individuals currently use the applicant’s services, as a proportion of the medically underserved population in the applicant’s proposed service area(s), and the extent to which medically underserved individuals are expected to use the proposed services, if approved; The performance of the applicant in meeting any applicable Federal regulations requiring uncompensated care, community service, or access by minorities and handicapped persons to programs receiving Federal financial assistance, including the existence of any civil rights access complaints against the applicant; The extent to which Medicare, Medicaid and medically indigent patients are served by the applicant; and The extent to which the applicant offers a range of means by which a person will have access to its services. In any case where it is determined that an approved project does not satisfy the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) through (d), the agency may, if it approves the application, impose the condition that the applicant must take affirmative steps to meet those criteria. In evaluating the accessibility of a proposed project, the accessibility of the current facility as a whole must be taken into consideration. If the proposed project is disapproved because it fails to meet the need and access criteria specified herein, the Department will so state in its written findings. AHCA does not require that a CON applicant demonstrate that the existing acute care providers within the PSA are failing in order to approve a new hospital. Also, AHCA does not have a travel time standard with respect to the provision of acute care hospital services. In other words, there is no set geographical distance or travel time that dictates when a hospital would be appropriate or inappropriate. In fact, AHCA has approved hospitals when residents of the PSA live within twenty minutes of an existing hospital. As a practical matter this means that travel time or distance do not dictate whether a satellite should be approved based upon access. With regard to access to emergency services, however, AHCA does consider patient convenience. In this case, the proposed hospital will provide a convenience to residents of western St. Lucie County in terms of access to an additional emergency department. Further, physicians serving the growing population will have the convenience of admitting patients closer to their residences. Medical and surgical opportunities at closer locations is also a convenience to the families of patients because they do not have to travel farther distances to visit the patient. Patients and the families of patients seeking obstetrical services will also have the convenience of the hospital. Patients who would not benefit from the convenience of the proposed hospital would be those requiring tertiary health services. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.002(41) defines such services as: (41) Tertiary health service means a health service which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost effectiveness of such service. Examples of such service include, but are not limited to, organ transplantation, specialty burn units, neonatal intensive care units, comprehensive rehabilitation, and medical or surgical services which are experimental or developmental in nature to the extent that the provision of such services is not yet contemplated within the commonly accepted course of diagnosis or treatment for the condition addressed by a given service. In terms of tertiary health services, residents of the subdistrict will continue to use the existing providers who offer those services. The new hospital will not compete for those services. Lawnwood will continue to provide tertiary services to the PSA and will continue to be a strong candidate for any patient in the PSA requiring trauma services when that service comes on line. Section 408.035(6), Florida Statutes (2007) provides that the financial feasibility of the proposal both in the immediate and long-term be assessed in order to approve a CON application. In this case, as previously indicated, the utilizations expected for the new hospital should adequately assure the financial feasibility of the project both in the immediate and long-term time frames. Population growth, a growing older population, and technologies that improve the delivery of healthcare will contribute to make the project successful. The new Martin hospital will afford PSA residents a meaningful option in choosing healthcare and will not give any one provider or entity an unreasonable or dominant position in the market. Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes (2007) specifies that the extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness must be addressed. This subdistrict enjoys a varied range of healthcare providers. All demonstrate strong financial stability and utilization. A new hospital will promote continued quality and cost-effectiveness. Physicians will have another option for admissions and convenience. Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes (2007), notes that the costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction should be reviewed. The methodology used to compute the construction costs associated with this project were reasonable and accurate at the time prepared. No more effective method of construction has been proposed. The financial soundness of the proposal should cover the actual costs associated with the construction of the project. Additionally, the free-standing ED that Martin is constructing will be transitioned to a urgent care clinic or some other health care facility, it will not continue to provide emergent services when the new hospital is on line. Therefore, it should not be considered a less costly alternative for ED services. Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes (2007), provides that the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent should be weighed in consideration of the proposal. Martin has a track record of providing health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent without consideration of any patient's ability to pay. The new hospital would be expected to continue this tradition. Moreover, this criterion is adequately addressed by the proposed conditions to the CON approval. Section 408.035(10), Florida Statutes, relates to nursing home beds and is not at issue in this proceeding. The Agency's Rationale The SAAR set forth the Agency's rationale for the proposed approval of the CON application. The SAAR acknowledged that the proposal received varied support from numerous sources. Further, the SAAR acknowledged that funding for the project would be available; that the short-term position, long-term position, capital requirements, and staffing for the proposal were adequate; that the project was financially feasible if the applicant meets its projected occupancy levels; that the project would have a positive effect on competition to promote quality and cost-effectiveness; and that the construction schedule is reasonable. The SAAR also recognized the improved access for obstetrical services for residents of the growing western St. Lucie County. This also reinforced the generally recognized improvements to access geographically given the limitations in east-west traffic access. Finally, the SAAR recognized that Martin is the provider that has invested in the western portion of the subdistrict by establishing clinics and physician networks to provide care to the residents of the PSA. Opponents to the new hospital have not similarly committed to the residents of western St. Lucie County. The opponents maintain that enhanced access for residents of the PSA does not justify the establishment of a new hospital since the residents there already have good access to acute care services.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Agency for Health Care Administration that approves CON Application No. 9981 with the conditions noted in the SAAR. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul H. Amundsen, Esquire Julie Smith, Esquire Amundsen & Smith 502 East Park Avenue Post Office Drawer 1759 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Karin M. Byrne, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Station 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 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 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire J. Stephen Menton, Esquire David Prescott, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, & Purnell 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Justin Senior, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Holly Benson, Secretary Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Kindred Hospitals East, LLC ("Kindred") and Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc. ("Select-Palm Beach"), filed applications for Certificates of Need ("CONs") with the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or the "Agency") seeking approval for the establishment of long-term care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9. Select-Palm Beach's application, CON No. 9661, seeks approval for the establishment of a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in "east central" Palm Beach County about 20 miles south of Kindred's planned location. Kindred's application, CON No. 9662, seeks approval for the establishment of a 70-bed LTCH in the "north central" portion of the county. The ultimate issue in this case is whether either or both applications should be approved by the Agency.
Findings Of Fact Long Term Care Hospitals Of the four classes of facilities licensed as hospitals by the Agency, "Class I or general hospitals," includes: General acute care hospitals with an average length of stay of 25 days or less for all beds; Long term care hospitals, which meet the provisions of subsection 59A-3.065(27), F.A.C.; and, Rural hospitals designated under Section 395, Part III, F.S. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.252(1)(a). This proceeding concerns CON applications for the second of Florida's Class I or general hospitals: LTCHs. A critically ill patient may be admitted and treated in a general acute care hospital, but, if the patient cannot be stabilized or discharged to a lower level of care on the continuum of care within a relatively short time, the patient may be discharged to an LTCH. An LTCH patient is almost always "critically catastrophically ill or ha[s] been." (Tr. 23). Typically, an LTCH patient is medically unstable, requires extensive nursing care with physician oversight, and often requires extensive technological support. The LTCH patient usually fits into one or more of four categories. One category is patients in need of pulmonary/respiratory services. Usually ventilator dependent, these types of LTCH patients have other needs as well that requires "complex comprehensive ventilator weaning in addition to meeting ... other needs." (Tr. 26). A second category is patients in need of wound care whose wound is life-threatening. Frequently compromised by inadequate nutrition, these types of LTCH patients are often diabetic. There are a number of typical factors that may account for the seriousness of the wound patient's condition. The job of the staff at the LTCH in such a case is to attend to the wound and all the other medical problems of the patient that have extended the time required for care of the wound. A third category is patients with some sort of neuro-trauma. These patients may have had a stroke and are often elderly; if younger, they may be victims of a car accident or some other serious trauma. They typically have multiple body systems that require medical treatment, broken bones and a closed head injury for example, that have made them "very sick and complex." (Tr. 27). The fourth category is referred to by the broad nomenclature of "medically complex" although it is a subset of the population of LTCH patients all of whom are medically complex. The condition of the patients in this fourth category involves two or more body systems. The patients usually present at the LTCH with "renal failure ... [and] with another medical condition ... that requires a ventilator ..." Id. In short, LTCHs provide extended medical and rehabilitative care to patients with multiple, chronic, and/or clinically complex acute medical conditions that usually require care for a relatively extended period of time. To meet the definition of an LTCH a facility must have an average length of inpatient stay ("ALOS") greater than 25 days for all hospital beds. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.065(34). The staffs at general acute care hospitals and LTCHs have different orientations. With a staff oriented toward a patient population with a much shorter ALOS, the general acute care hospital setting may not be appropriate for a patient who qualifies for LTCH services. The staff at a general acute care hospital frequently judges success by a patient getting well in a relatively short time. It is often difficult for general acute care hospital staff to sustain the interest and effort necessary to serve the LTCH patient well precisely because of the staff's expectation that the patient will improve is not met in a timely fashion. As time goes by, that expectation continues to be frustrated, a discouragement to staff. The LTCH is unlike other specialized health care settings. The complex, medical, nursing, and therapeutic requirements necessary to serve the LTCH patient may be beyond the capability of the traditional comprehensive medical rehabilitation ("CMR") hospital, nursing home, skilled nursing facility ("SNF"), or, the skilled nursing unit ("SNU"). CMR units and hospitals are rarely, if ever, appropriate for the LTCH patient. Almost invariably, LTCH patients are not able to tolerate the minimum three (3) hours of therapy per day associated with CMR. The primary focus of LTCHs, moreover, is to provide continued acute medical treatment to the patient that may not yet be stable, with the ultimate goal of getting the patient on the road to recovery. In comparison, the CMR hospital treats medically stable patients consistent with its primary focus of restoring functional capabilities, a more advanced step in the continuum of care. Services provided in LTCHs are distinct from those provided in SNFs or SNUs. The latter are not oriented generally to patients who need daily physician visits or the intense nursing services or observations needed by an LTCH patient. Most nursing and clinical personnel in SNFs and SNUs are not experienced with the unique psychosocial needs of long-term acute care patients and their families. An LTCH is distinguished within the healthcare continuum by the high level of care the patient requires, the interdisciplinary treatment model it follows, and the duration of the patient's hospitalization. Within the continuum of care, LTCHs occupy a niche between traditional acute care hospitals that provide initial hospitalization care on a short-term basis and post-acute care facilities such as nursing homes, SNFs, SNUs, and comprehensive medical rehabilitation facilities. Medicare has long recognized LTCHs as a distinct level of care within the health care continuum. The federal government's prospective payment system ("PPS") now treats the LTCH level of service as distinct with its "own DRG system and ... [its] own case rate reimbursement." (Tr. 108). Under the LTCH PPS, each patient is assigned an LTC- DRG (different than the DRG under the general hospital DRG system) with a corresponding payment rate that is weighted based on the patient diagnosis and acuity. The Parties The Agency is the state agency responsible for administering the CON Program and licensing LTCHs and other hospital facilities pursuant to the authority of Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. Select-Palm Beach is the applicant for a free-standing 60-bed LTCH in "east Central Palm Beach County," Select Ex. 1, stamped page 12, near JFK Medical Center in AHCA District 9. Its application, CON No. 9661, was denied by the Agency. Select-Palm Beach is a wholly owned subsidiary of Select Medical Corporation, which provides long term acute care services at 83 LTCHs in 24 states, four of which are freestanding hospitals. The other 79 are each "hospitals-in-a- hospital" ("HIH" or "LTCH HIH"). Kindred is the applicant for a 70-bed LTCH to be located in the north central portion of Palm Beach County in AHCA District 9. Its application, CON No. 9662, was denied by the Agency. Kindred is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kindred Healthcare, Inc. ("Kindred Healthcare"). Kindred Healthcare operates 73 LTCHs, 59 of which are freestanding, according to the testimony of Mr. Novak. See Tr. 56-57. Kindred Healthcare has been operating LTCHs since 1985 and has operated them in Florida for more than 15 years. At the time of the submission of Kindred's application, Kindred Healthcare's six LTCHs in Florida were Kindred-North Florida, a 60-bed LTCH in Pinellas County, AHCA District 5; Kindred-Central Tampa, with 102 beds, and Kindred-Bay Area- Tampa, with 73 beds, both in Hillsborough County, in AHCA District 6; Kindred-Ft. Lauderdale with 64 beds and Kindred- Hollywood with 124 beds, both in Broward County, ACHA District 10; and Kindred-Coral Gables, with 53 beds, in Dade County, AHCA District 11. The Applications and AHCA's Review The applications were submitted in the first application cycle of 2003. Select-Palm Beach's application is CON No. 9661; Kindred's is CON No. 9662. Select-Palm Beach estimates its total project costs to be $12,856,139. Select-Palm Beach has not yet acquired the site for its proposed LTCH, but did include in its application a map showing three priority site locations, with its preferred site, designated "Site 1," located near JFK Medical Center. At $12,937,419, Kindred's estimate of its project cost is slightly more than Select-Palm Beach's. The exact site of Kindred's proposed LTCH had not been determined at the time of hearing. Kindred's preference, however, is to locate in the West Palm Beach area in the general vicinity of St. Mary's Hospital, in the northern portion of Palm Beach County along the I-95 corridor. This is approximately 15 to 20 miles north of Select's preferred location for its LTCH. There is no LTCH in the five-county service area that comprises District 9: Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties. There are two LTCHs in adjacent District 10 (to the south). They have a total of 188 beds and an average occupancy of 80 percent. The Agency views LTCH care as a district-wide service primarily for Medicare patients. At the time of the filing of the applications, the population in District 9 was over 1.6 million, including about 400,000 in the age cohort 65 and over. About 70 percent of the District 9 population lives in Palm Beach County. More than 70 percent of the District's general acute care hospitals are located in that county. Kindred's preferred location for its LTCH is approximately 40 to 50 miles from the closest District 10 LTCH; Select-Palm Beach is approximately 25 to 35 miles from the closest District 10 LTCH. The locations of Select Palm-Beach's and Kindred's proposed LTCHs are complementary. The SAAR Following its review of the two applications, AHCA issued its State Agency Action Report ("SAAR"). Section G., of the report, entitled "RECOMMENDATION," states: "Deny Con #9661 and CON #9662." Agency Ex. 2, p. 43. On June 11, 2003, the report was signed by Karen Rivera, Health Services and Facilities Consultant Supervisor Certificate of Need, and Mr. Gregg as the Chief of the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation. It contained a section entitled "Authorization for Agency Action" that states, "[a]uthorized representatives of the Agency for Health Care Administration adopted the recommendations contained herein and released the State Agency Action Report." Agency Ex. 2, p. 44. The adoption of the recommendations is the functional equivalent of preliminary denial of the applications. In Section F. of the SAAR under the heading of "Need," (Agency Ex. 2, p. 40), the Agency explained its primary bases for denial; it concluded that the applicants had not shown need for an LTCH in AHCA District 9. The discussions for the two, although not precisely identical, are quite similar: Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc.(CON #9661): The applicant's two methodological approaches to demonstrate need are not supported by any specific discharge studies or other data, including DRG admission criteria from area hospitals regarding potential need. The applicant also failed to provide any supporting documentation from area physicians or other providers regarding potential referrals. It was further not demonstrated that patients that qualify for LTCH services are not currently being served or that an access problem exists for residents in District 9. Kindred Hospitals East, L.L.C. (CON #9662): The various methodological approaches presented are not supported by any specific DRG admission criteria from area hospitals suggesting potential need. The applicant provided numerous letters of support for the project from area hospitals, physicians and case managers. However, the number of potential referrals of patients needing LTCH services was not quantified. It was further not demonstrated that patients that qualify for LTCH services are not currently being served or that an access problem exists for residents in District 9. Id. At hearing, the Agency's witness professed no disagreement with the SAAR and continued to maintain the same bases contained in the SAAR for the denials of the two applications The SAAR took no issue with either applicant's ability to provide quality care. It concluded that funding for each applicant was likely to be available and that each project appeared to be financially feasible once operating. The SAAR further stated that there were no major architectural concerns regarding Kindred's proposed facility design, but noted reservations regarding the need for further study and revision of Select Palm-Beach's proposed surgery/procedure wing, as well as cost uncertainties for Select Palm Beach because of such potential revisions. By the time of final hearing, however, the parties had stipulated to the reasonableness of each applicant's proposed costs and methods of construction. The parties stipulated to the satisfaction of a number of the statutory CON criteria by the two applicants. The parties agreed that the applications complied with the content and review process requirements of sections 408.037 and 409.039, Florida Statutes, with one exception. Select reserved the issue of the lack of a Year 2 of Schedule 6, (Staffing) in Kindred's application. The form of Schedule 6 provided by AHCA to Kindred (unlike other schedules of the application) does not clearly indicate that a second year of staffing data must be provided. The remainder of the criteria stipulated and the positions of the parties as articulated in testimony at hearing and in the proposed orders that were submitted leave need as the sole issue of consequence with one exception: whether Kindred has demonstrated that its project is financially feasible in the long term. Kindred's Long Term Financial Feasibility Select-Palm Beach contends that Kindred's project is not financially feasible in the long term for two reasons. They relate to Kindred's application and are stated in Select Palm Beach's proposed order: Kindred understated property taxes[;] Kindred completely fails to include in its expenses on Schedule 8, patient medical assistance trust fund (PMATF) taxes [citation omitted]. Proposed Recommended Order of Select-Palm Beach, Inc., p. 32, Finding of Fact 97. Raised after the proceeding began at DOAH by Select- Palm Beach, these two issues were not considered by AHCA when it conducted its review of Kindred's application because the issues were not apparent from the face of the application. AHCA's Review of Kindred's Application Kindred emerged from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on April 20, 2001, under a plan of reorganization. With respect to the events that led to the bankruptcy proceeding and the need to review prior financial statements, AHCA made the following finding in the SAAR: Under the plan [of reorganization], the applicant [Kindred] adopted the fresh start accounting provision of SOP 90-7. Under fresh start accounting, a new reporting entity is created and the recorded amounts of assets and liabilities are adjusted to reflect their estimated fair values. Accordingly, the prior period financial statements are not comparable to the current period statements and will not be considered in this analysis. Agency Ex. 2, p. 30. The financial statements provided by Kindred as part of its application show that Kindred Healthcare, Kindred's parent, is a financially strong company. The information contained in Kindred's CON application filed in 2003 included Kindred Healthcare's financial statements from the preceding calendar year. Kindred Healthcare's Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2002, showed "Income from Operations" to be more than $33 million, and net cash provided by operating activities (cash flow) of over $248 million for the period. Its Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2002, showed cash and cash equivalents of over $244 million and total assets of over $1.6 billion. In light of the information contained in Kindred's CON application, the SAAR concluded with regard to short term financial feasibility: Based on the audited financial statements of the applicant, cash on hand and cash flows, if they continue at the current level, would be sufficient to fund this project as proposed. Funding for all capital projects, with the support of its parent, is likely to be available as needed. Agency Ex. 2, p. 30 (emphasis supplied). The SAAR recognized that Kindred projected a "year two operating loss for the hospital of $287,215." Agency Ex. 2, p. Nonetheless, the SAAR concludes on the issue of financial feasibility, "[w]ith continued operational support from the parent company, this project [Kindred's] is considered financially feasible." Id. The Agency did not have the information, however, at the time it reviewed Kindred's application that Kindred understated property taxes and omitted the Public Medicaid Trust Fund and Medical Assistance Trust Fund ("PMATF") "provider tax" of 1.5 percent that would be imposed on Kindred's anticipated revenues of $11,635,919 as contended by Select-Palm Beach. Consistent with Select Palm-Beach's general contentions about property taxes and PMATF taxes, "Kindred acknowledges that it likely understated taxes to be incurred in the operation of its facility." Kindred's Proposed Recommended Order, paragraph 50, p. 19. The parties agree, moreover, that the omitted PMATF tax is reasonably projected to be $175,000. They do not agree, however, as to the impact of the PMATF tax on year two operating loss. The difference between the two (approximately $43,000) is attributable to a corporate income tax benefit deduction claimed by Kindred so that the combination of the application's projected loss, the omitted PMATF tax, and the deduction yields a year two operating loss of approximately $419,000. Without taking into consideration the income tax benefit, Select-Palm Beach contends that adding in the PMATF tax produces a loss of $462,000. Kindred and Select-Palm Beach also disagree over the projection of property taxes by approximately $50,000. Kindred projects that the property taxes in year two of operation will be approximately $225,000 instead of the $49,400 listed in the application. Select-Palm Beach projects that they will be $50,000 higher at approximately $275,000. Whether Kindred's or Select-Palm Beach's figures are right, Kindred makes two points. First, if year two revenues and expenses, adjusted for underestimated and omitted taxes, are examined on a quarterly basis, the fourth quarter of year two has a better bottom line than the earlier quarters. Not only will the fourth quarter bottom line be better, but, using Kindred's figures, the fourth quarter of year two of operations is profitable. Second, and most importantly given the Agency's willingness to credit Kindred with financial support from its parent, Kindred's application included in its application an interest figure of $1.2 million for year one of operation and $1.03 million for year two. Kindred claims in its proposed recommended order that "[i]n reality ... this project will incur no interest expense as Kindred intends to fund the project out of cash on hand, or operating capital, and would not have to borrow money to construct the project." Id., at paragraph 54, p. 20. Through the testimony of John Grant, Director of Planning and Development for Kindred's parent, Kindred Healthcare, Kindred indicated at hearing that its parent might, indeed, fund the project: A ... Kindred [Healthcare] would likely fund this project out of operating capital. Like I said, in the first nine months of this year Kindred had operating cash flow of approximately $180 million. So it's not as if we would have to actually borrow money to complete a project like this. Q And what was the interest expense that you had budgeted in Year Two for this facility? A $1,032,000. Q ... so is it your statement then that this facility would not owe any interest back to the parent company? A That's correct. Tr. 221-222 (emphasis supplied). If the "financing interest" expense is excluded from Kindred's statement of projected expenses in Schedule 8 of the CON application, using Kindred's revised projections, the project shows a profit of approximately $612,0002 for the second year of operation. If Select-Palm Beach's figures and bottom line loss excludes the "finances interest" expense, the elimination of the expense yields of profit for year two of operations in excess of $500,000. If the support of Kindred's parent is considered as the Agency has signaled its willingness to do and provided that the project is, in fact, funded by Kindred Healthcare rather than financed through some other means that would cause Kindred to incur interest expense, Kindred's project is financially feasible in the long term. With the exception of the issue regarding Kindred's long term financial feasibility, as stated above, taken together, the stipulation and agreements of the parties, the Agency's preliminary review contained in the SAAR, and the evidence at hearing, all distill the issues in this case to one overarching issue left to be resolved by this Recommended Order: need for long term care hospital beds in District 9. Need for the Proposals From AHCA's perspective prior to the hearing, the only issue in dispute with respect to the two applications is need. This point was made clear by Mr. Gregg's testimony at hearing in answer to a question posed by counsel for Select-Palm Beach: Q. ... Assuming there was sufficient need for 130 beds in the district is there any reason why both applicants shouldn't be approved in this case, assuming that need? A. No. (Tr. 398). Both applicants contend that the application each submitted is superior to the other. Neither, however, at this point in the proceeding, has any objection to approval of the other application provided its own application is approved. Consistent with its position that both applications may be approved, Select-Palm Beach presented testimony through its health care planner Patricia Greenberg3 that there was need in District 9 for both applicants' projects. Her testimony, moreover, rehabilitated the single Kindred methodology of three that yielded numeric need less than the 130 beds proposed by both applications: Q ... you do believe that there is a need for both in the district. A I believe there's a need for two facilities in the district. Q It could support two facilities? A Oh, absolutely. Q And the disagreement primarily relates to the conservative approach of Kindred in terms of not factoring in out-migration and the narrowing the DRG categories? A Correct. ... Kindred actually had three models. Two of them support both facilities, but it's the GMLOS model that I typically rely on, and it didn't on the surface support both facilities. That's why I reconciled the two, and I believe that's the difference, is just the 50 DRGs and not including the out-migration. That would boost their need above the 130, and two facilities would give people alternatives, it would foster competition, and it would really improve access in that market. Tr. 150-51. Need for the applications, therefore, is the paramount issue in this case. Since both applicants are qualified to operate an LTCH in Florida, if need is proven for the 130 beds, then with the exception of Kindred's long term financial feasibility, all parties agree that there is no further issue: both applications should be granted. No Agency Numeric Need Methodology The Agency has not established a numeric need methodology for LTCH services. Consequently, it does not publish a fixed-need pool for LTCHs. Nor does the Agency have "any policy upon which to determine need for the proposed beds or service." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)1. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2), which governs "Fixed Need Pools" (the "Fixed Need Pools Rule") states that if "no agency policy exist" with regard to a needs assessment methodology: [T]he applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. The Fixed Need Pools Rule goes on to elaborate in subparagraph (e)3 that "[t]he existence of unmet need will not be based solely on the absence of a health service, health care facility, or beds in the district, subdistrict, region or proposed service area." Population, Demographics and Dynamics The first of the four topics to be addressed when an applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology is "population, demographics and dynamics." The Agency has not defined service areas for LTCHs. Nonetheless, from a health planning perspective, it views LTCH services as being provided district-wide primarily for Medicare patients. Consistent with the Agency's view, Select-Palm Beach identified the entire district, that is, all of AHCA District 9, as its service area. It identified Palm Beach County, one of the five counties in AHCA District 9, as its primary service area. In identifying the service area for Select-Palm Beach, Ms. Greenberg drew data from various sources: population estimates for Palm Beach County and surrounding areas; the number of acute care hospital beds in the area; the number of LTCH beds in the area; the types of patients treated at acute care hospitals; and the lengths of stay of the patients treated at those hospitals. AHCA District 9 has more elderly than any other district in the State, and Palm Beach County has more than any other county except for Dade. Palm Beach County residents comprise 71% of the District 9 population. It is reasonably projected that the elderly population (the "65 and over" age cohort) in Palm Beach County is projected to grow at the rate of 8 percent by 2008. The "65 and over" age cohort is significant because the members of that cohort are most likely to utilize hospital services, including LTCH services. Its members are most likely to suffer complications from illness and surgical procedures and more likely to have co-morbidity conditions that require long- term acute care. Persons over 65 years of age comprise approximately 80 percent of the patient population of LTCH facilities. Both Select-Palm Beach and Kindred project that approximately 80 percent of their admissions will come from Medicare patients. Since 90 percent of admissions to an LTCH come from acute care facilities, most of the patient days expected at Select-Palm Beach's proposed LTCH will originate from residents in its primary service area, Palm Beach County. When looking at the migration pattern for patients at acute care facilities within Palm Beach County, the majority (90 percent) come from Palm Beach County residents. Thus, Select- Palm Beach's projected primary service area is reasonable. Just as Select-Palm Beach, Kindred proposes to serve the entire District. Kindred proposes that its facility be based in Palm Beach County because of the percentage of the district's population in the county as well as because more than 70% of the district's general acute care hospitals are in the county. Its selection of the District as its service area, consistent with the Agency's view, is reasonable. Currently there are no LTCHs in District 9. Availability, Utilization and Quality of Like Services The second topic is "availability, utilization and quality of like services." There are no "like" services available to District residents in the District. Select-Palm Beach and Kindred, therefore, contend that they meet the criteria of the second topic. There are like services in other AHCA Districts. For example, AHCA District 10 has at total of 188 beds at two Kindred facilities in Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood. The Agency, however, did not present evidence of their quality, that they were available or to what extent they are utilized by the residents of AHCA District 9. Medical Treatment Trends The third topic is medical treatment trends. Caring for patients with chronic and long term care needs is becoming increasingly more important as the population ages and as medical technology continues to emerge that prolongs life expectancies. Through treatment provided the medically complex and critically ill with state of the art mechanical ventilators, metabolic analyzers, and breathing monitors, LTCHs meet needs beyond the capability of the typical general acute care hospitals. In this way, LTCHs fill a niche in the continuum of care that addresses the needs of a small but growing patient population. Treatment for these patients in an LTCH, who otherwise would be cared for without adequate reimbursement to the general acute care hospital or moved to an alternative setting with staff and services inadequate to meet their needs, is a medical trend. Market Conditions The fourth topic to be addressed by the applicant is market conditions. The federal government's development of a distinctive prospective payment system for LTCHs (LTC-DRG), has created a market condition favorable to LTCHs. General acute care hospitals face substantial losses for the medically complex patient who uses far greater resources than expected on the basis of individual diagnoses. Medicare covers between 80 and 85 percent of LTCH patients. The remaining patients are covered by private insurance, managed care and Medicaid. LTCH programs allow for shorter lengths of stay in a general acute care facility, reduces re-admissions and provide more discharges to home. These benefits are increasingly recognized. Numeric Need Analysis Kindred presented a set of needs assessment methodologies that yielded numeric need for the beds applied for by Kindred. Select-Palm Beach did the same. Unlike Kindred, however, all of the needs assessment methodologies presented by Select-Palm Beach demonstrated numeric need in excess of the 130 beds proposed by both applications. Select-Palm Beach's methodologies, overall, are superior to Kindred's. Select-Palm Beach used two sets of needs assessment methodologies and sensitivity testing of one of the sets that confirmed the methodology's reasonableness. The two sets or needs assessment methodologies are: (1) a use rate methodology and (2) length of stay methodologies. The use rate methodology yielded projected bed need for Palm Beach County alone in excess of the 130 beds proposed by the two applicants. For the year "7/05 - 6/06" the bed need is projected to be 256; for the year "7/06 - 6/07" the bed need is projected to be 261; and, for the year "7/07 - 6/08" the bed need is projected to be 266. See Select Ex. 1, Bates Stamp p. 000036 and the testimony of Ms. Greenberg at tr. 114. If the use rate analysis had been re-computed to include two districts whose data was excluded from the analysis, the bed need yielded for Palm Beach County alone was 175 beds, a numeric need still in excess of the 130 beds proposed by both applicants. The use rate methodology is reasonable.4 The length of stay methodologies are also reasonable. These two methodologies also yielded numeric need for beds in excess of the 130 beds proposed. The two methodologies yielded need for 167 beds and 250 beds. Agency Denial The Agency's general concerns about LTCHs are not without basis. For many years, there were almost no LTCH CON applications filed with the Agency. A change occurred in 2002. The change in the LTCH environment in the last few years put AHCA in the position of having "to adapt to a rapidly changing situation in terms of [Agency] understanding of what has been going on in recent years with long-term care hospitals." (Tr. 358.) "... [I]n the last couple of years long-term care hospital applications have become [AHCA's] most common type of application." (Tr. 359.) At the time of the upsurge in applications, there was "virtually nothing ... in the academic literature about long- term care hospitals ... that could [provide] ... an understanding of what was going on ... [nor was there anything] in the peer reviewed literature that addressed long-term care hospitals" id., and the health care planning issues that affected them. Two MedPAC reports came out, one in 2003 and another in 2004. The 2003 report conveyed the information that the federal government was unable to identify patients appropriate for LTCH services, services that are overwhelmingly Medicare funded, because of overlap of LTCH services with other types of services. The 2004 report gave an account of the federal government decision to change its payment policy for a type of long-term care hospitals that are known as "hospitals-within- hospitals" (tr. 368) so that "hospitals within hospitals as of this past summer [2004] can now only treat 25 percent of their patients from the host hospital." Id. Both reports roused concerns for AHCA. First, if appropriate LTCH patients cannot be identified and other types of services overlap appropriately with LTCH services, AHCA cannot produce a valid needs assessment methodology. The second produces another concern. In the words of Mr. Gregg, The problem ... with oversupply of long-term care hospital beds is that it creates an incentive for providers to seek patient who are less appropriate for the service. What we know now is that only the sickest patient ... with the most severe conditions are truly appropriate for long-term care hospital placement. * * * ... [T]he MedPAC report most recently shows us that the greatest indicator of utilization of long-term care hospital services is the mere availability of those services. Tr. 368-369. The MedPAC reports, themselves, although marked for identification, were not admitted into evidence. Objections to their admission (in particular, Kindred's) were sustained because they had not been listed by AHCA on the stipulation required by the Pre-hearing Order of Instructions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Agency for Health Care Administration that: approves Select-Palm Beach's application, CON 9661; and approves Kindred's application CON 9662 with the condition that financing of the project be provided by Kindred Healthcare. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 2005.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed as a physician in the State of Florida having been issued license number ME0040318. Respondent completed a residency in internal medicine and later was a nephrology fellow at Mayo Clinic. He was recruited to Florida in 1952 by Humana. In 1984 he became associated with a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in an administrative position but took over treating patients when the owner became ill. This HMO was affiliated with IMC who assimilated it when the HMO had financial difficulties. At all times relevant hereto Respondent was a salaried employee of IMC and served as Assistant Medical DIRECTOR in charge of the South Pasadena Clinic. On October 17, 1985, Alexander Stroganow, an 84 year old Russian immigrant and former cossack, who spoke and understood only what English he wanted to, suffered a fall and was taken to the emergency Room at a nearby hospital. He was examined and released without being admitted for inpatient treatment. Later that evening his landlady thought Stroganow needed medical attention and again called the Emergency Medical Service. When the ambulance with EMS personnel arrived they examined Stroganow, and concluded Stroganow was no worse than earlier when he was transported to the emergency Room, and refused to again take Stroganow to the emergency Room. The landlady then called the HRS hotline to report abuse of the elderly. The following morning, October 18, 1985, an HRS case worker was dispatched to check on Stroganow. Upon arrival, she was admitted by the landlady and found an 84 year old man who was incontinent, incoherent, and apparently paralyzed from the waist down, with whom she could not engage in conversation to determine his condition. She called for a Cares Unit team to come and evaluate Stroganow. An HRS Cares Unit is a two person team consisting of a social worker and nurse whose primary function is to screen clients for admission to nursing homes and adult congregate living facilities (ACLF). The nurse on the team carries no medical equipment such as stethoscope, blood pressure cuff, or thermometer, but makes her evaluation on visual examination. Upon arrival of the Cares Unit, and, after examining Stroganow, both members of the team agreed he needed to be placed where he could be attended. A review of his personal effects produced by his landlady revealed his income to be above that for which he could qualify for medicaid placement in a nursing home; that he was a member of IMC's Gold-Plus HMO; his social security card; and several medications, some of which had been prescribed by Dr. Dayton, Respondent, a physician employed by IMC at the South Pasadena Clinic. The Cares team ruled out ACLF placement because Stroganow was not ambulatory, but felt he needed to be placed in a hospital or nursing home and not left alone with the weekend approaching. To accomplish this, they proceeded to the South Pasadena HMO clinic of IMC to lay the problem on Dr. Dayton, who was in charge of the South Pasadena Clinic, and, they thought, was Stroganow's doctor. Stroganow had been a client of the South Pasadena HMO for some time and was well known at the clinic as well as by EMS personnel. There were always two, and occasionally three, doctors on duty at South Pasadena Clinic between 8:00 and 5:00 daily and, unless the patient requested a specific doctor he was treated by the first available doctor. Stroganow had not specifically requested to be treated by Respondent. When the Cares unit met with Respondent they advised him that Stroganow had been taken to Metropolitan General Hospital Emergency Room the previous evening but did not advise Respondent that the EMS squad had refused to return Stroganow to the emergency Room when they were recalled for Stroganow the same evening. Respondent telephoned the Metropolitan General Emergency Room and had the emergency Room medical report on Stroganow read to him. With the information provided by the Cares unit and the hospital report, Respondent concluded that Stroganow needed emergency medical treatment and the quickest way to obtain such treatment would be to call the EMS and have Stroganow taken to an emergency Room for evaluation. When the Cares unit arrived, Respondent was treating patients at the clinic. A clinic, or doctors office, is not a desirable or practical place to have an incontinent, incoherent, and non-ambulatory patient brought to wait with other patients until a doctor is free to see him. Nor is the clinic equipped to perform certain procedures that may be required for emergency evaluation of an ill patient. At a hospital emergency Room such equipment is available. EMS squads usually arrive within minutes of a call being placed to 911 for emergency medical treatment and it was necessary that someone be with Stroganow when the EMS squad arrived. Accordingly, Respondent suggested that the Cares team return to Stroganow and call 911 to transport Stroganow to an emergency Room for an evaluation. Upon leaving the South Pasadena clinic the Cares team returned to Stroganow. Enroute they stopped to call a supervisor at HRS to report that the HMO had not solved their problem with Stroganow. The supervisor then called the Administrator at IMC Tampa Office to tell them that one of their Gold-Plus HMO patients had an emergency situation which was not being property handled. Respondent left the South Pasadena Clinic around noon and went to IMC's Tampa Office where he was available for the balance of the afternoon. There he spoke with Dr. Sanchez, the INC Regional Medical Director, but Stroganow was not deemed to be a continuing problem. By 2:00 p.m. when no ambulance had arrived the Cares Unit called 911 for EMS to take Stroganow to an emergency Room. Upon arrival shortly thereafter the EMS squad again refused to transport Stroganow. The Cares team communicated this to their supervisor who contacted IMC Regional Office to so advise. At this time Dr. Sanchez authorized the transportation of Stroganow to Lake Seminole Hospital for admission. Although neither Respondent nor Sanchez had privileges at Lake Seminole Hospital, IMC had contracted with Lake Seminole Hospital to have IMC patients admitted by a staff doctor at Lake Seminole Hospital. Subsequent to his meeting with the Cares team Respondent received no further information regarding Stroganow until well after Stroganow was admitted to Lake Seminole Hospital. No entry was made on Stroganow's medical record at IMC of the meeting between Respondent and the Cares Unit. Respondent was a salaried employee whose compensation was not affected by whether or not he admitted an IMC Gold-Plus patient to a hospital.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) should approve the application for certificate of need (CON) 7700 filed by Miami Beach Healthcare Group, LTD. d/b/a Miami Heart Institute (Miami Heart or MH).
Findings Of Fact The Agency is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and taking action on CON applications pursuant to Chapter 408, Florida Statutes. The applicant, Miami Heart, operates a hospital facility known as Miami Heart Institute which, at the time of hearing, was comprised of a north campus (consisting of 273 licensed beds) and a south campus (consisting of 258 beds) in Miami, Florida. The two campuses operate under a single license which consolidated the operation of the two facilities. The consolidation of the license was approved by CON 7399 which was issued by the Agency prior to the hearing of this case. The Petitioner, Mount Sinai, is an existing health care facility doing business in the same service district. On February 4, 1994, AHCA published a fixed need pool of zero adult inpatient psychiatric beds for the planning horizon applicable to this batching cycle. The fixed need pool was not challenged. On February 18, 1994, Miami Heart submitted its letter of intent for the first hospital batching cycle of 1994, and sought to add twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at the Miami Heart Institute south campus. Such facility is located in the Agency's district 11 and is approximately two (2) miles from the north campus. Notice of that letter was published in the March 11, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly. Miami Heart's letter of intent provided, in pertinent part: By this letter, Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., d/b/a Miami Heart Institute announces its intent to file a Certificate of Need Application on or before March 23, 1994 for approval to establish 20 hospital inpatient general psychiatric beds for adults at Miami Heart Institute. Thus, the applicant seeks approval for this project pursuant to Sections 408.036(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The proposed capital expenditure for this project shall not exceed $1,000,000 and will include new construction and the renovation of existing space. Miami Heart Institute is located in Local Health Council District 11. There are no subsdistricts for Hospital Inpatient General Psychiatric Beds for Adults in District 11. The applicable need formula for Hospital General Psychiatric Beds for Adults is contained within Rule 59C-1.040(4)(c), F.A.C. The Agency published a fixed need of "0" for Hospital General Psychiatric Beds for Adults in District 11 for this batching cycle. However, "not normal" circumstances exist within District which justify approval of this project. These circumstances are that Miami Beach Community Hospital, which is also owned by Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., and which has an approved Certificate of Need Application to consol- idate its license with that of the Miami Heart Institute, has pending a Certificate of Need Application to delicense up to 20 hospital inpatient general psychiatric beds for adults. The effect of the application, which is the subject of this Letter of Intent, will be to relocate 20 of the delicensed adult psychiatric beds to the Miami Heart Institute. Because of the "not normal" circumstances alleged in the Miami Heart letter of intent, the Agency extended a grace period to allow competing letters of intent to be filed. No additional letters of intent were submitted during the grace period. On March 23, 1994, Miami Heart timely submitted its CON application for the project at issue, CON no. 7700. Notice of the application was published in the April 8, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly. Such application was deemed complete by the Agency and was considered to be a companion to the delicensure of the north campus beds. On July 22, 1994, the Agency published in the Florida Administrative Weekly its preliminary decision to approve CON no. 7700. In the same batch as the instant case, Cedars Healthcare Group (Cedars), also in district 11, applied to add adult psychiatric beds to Cedars Medical Center through the delicensure of an equal number of adult psychiatric beds at Victoria Pavilion. Cedars holds a single license for the operation of both Cedars Medical Center and Victoria Pavilion. As in this case, the Agency gave notice of its intent to grant the CON application. Although this "transfer" was initially challenged, it was subsequently dismissed. Although filed at the same time (and, therefore, theoretically within the same batch), the Cedars CON application and the Miami Heart CON application were not comparatively reviewed by the Agency. The Agency determined the applicants were merely seeking to relocate their own licensed beds. Based upon that determination, MH's application was evaluated in the context of the statutory criteria, the adult psychiatric beds and services rule (Rule 59C-1.040, Florida Administrative Code), the district 11 local health plan, and the 1993 state health plan. Ms. Dudek also considered the utilization data for district 11 facilities. Mount Sinai timely filed a petition challenging the proposed approval of CON 7700 and, for purposes of this proceeding only, the parties stipulated that MS has standing to raise the issues remaining in this cause. Mount Sinai's existing psychiatric unit utilization is presently at or near full capacity, and MS' existing unit would not provide an adequate, available, or accessible alternative to Miami Heart's proposal, unless additional bed capacity were available to MS in the future through approval of additional beds or changes in existing utilization. Miami Heart's proposal to establish twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at its Miami Heart Institute south campus was made in connection with its application to delicense twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at its north campus. The Agency advised MH to submit two CON applications: one for the delicensure (CON no. 7474) and one for the establishment of the twenty beds at the south campus (CON no. 7700). The application to delicense the north campus beds was expeditiously approved and has not been challenged. As to the application to establish the twenty beds at the south campus, the following statutory criteria are not at issue: Section 408.035(1)(c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (m), (n), (o) and (2)(b) and (e), Florida Statutes. The parties have stipulated that Miami Heart meets, at least minimally, those criteria. During 1993, Miami Heart made the business decision to cease operations at its north campus and to seek the Agency's approval to relocate beds and services from that facility to other facilities owned by MH, including the south campus. Miami Heart does not intend to delicense the twenty beds at the north campus until the twenty beds are licensed at the south campus. The goal is merely to transfer the existing program with its services to the south campus. Miami Heart did not seek beds from a fixed need pool. Since approximately April, 1993, the Miami Heart north campus has operated with the twenty bed adult psychiatric unit and with a limited number of obstetrical beds. The approval of CON no. 7700 will not change the overall total number of adult general inpatient psychiatric beds within the district. The adult psychiatric program at MH experiences the highest utilization of any program in district 11, with an average length of stay that is consistent with other adult programs around the state. Miami Heart's existing psychiatric program was instituted in 1978. Since 1984, there has been little change in nursing and other staff. The program provides a full continuum of care, with outpatient programs, aftercare, and support programs. Nearly ninety-nine percent of the program's inpatient patient days are attributable to patients diagnosed with serious mental disorders. The Miami Heart program specializes in a biological approach to psychiatric cases in the diagnosis and treatment of affective disorders, including a variety of mood disorders and related conditions. The Miami Heart program is distinctive from other psychiatric programs in the district. If the MH program were discontinued, the patients would have limited alternatives for access to the same diagnostic and treatment services in the district. There are no statutes or rules promulgated which specifically address the transfer of psychiatric beds or services from one facility owned by a health care entity to another facility also owned by the same entity. In reviewing the instant CON application, the Agency determined it has the discretion to evaluate each transfer case based upon the review criteria and to consider the appropriate weight factors should be given. Factors which may affect the review include the change of location, the utilization of the existing services, the quality of the existing programs and services, the financial feasibility, architectural issues, and any other factor critical to the review process. In this case, the weight given to the numeric need criteria was not significant. The Agency determined that because the transfer would not result in a change to the overall bed inventory, the calculated fixed need pool did not apply to the instant application. In effect, because the calculation of numeric need was inapplicable, this case must be considered "not normal" pursuant to Rule 59C-1.040(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Agency determined that other criteria were to be given greater consideration. Such factors were the reasonableness of the proposal, the ability to afford access, the applicant's ability to provide a quality program, and the project's financial feasibility. The Agency determined that, on balance, this application should be approved as the statutory and other review criteria were met. Although put on notice of the other CON applications, Mount Sinai did not file an application for psychiatric beds at the same time as Miami Heart or Cedars. Mount Sinai did not claim that the proposed delicensures and transfers made beds available for competitive review. The Agency has interpreted Rule 59C-1.040, Florida Administrative Code, to mean that it will not normally approve an application for beds or services unless the statutory and rule criteria are met, including the need determination criteria. There is no list of circumstances which are routinely considered "not normal" by the Agency. In this case, the proposed transfer of beds was, in itself, considered "not normal." The approval of Miami Heart's application would allow an existing program to continue. As a result, the overhead to maintain two campuses would be reduced. Further, the relocation would allow the program to continue to provide access, both geographically and financially, to the same patient service area. And, since the program has the highest utilization rate of any adult program in the district, its continuation would be beneficial to the area. The program has an established referral base for admissions to the facility. The transfer is reasonable for providing access to the medically under-served. The quality of care, while not in issue, would be expected to continue at its existing level or improve. The transfer would allow better access to ancillary hospital departments and consulting specialists who may be needed even though the primary diagnosis is psychiatric. The cost of the transfer when compared to the costs to be incurred if the transfer is not approved make the approval a benefit to the service area. If the program is not relocated, Medicaid access could change if the hospital is reclassified from a general facility to a specialty facility. The proposed cost for the project does not exceed one million dollars. If the north campus must be renovated, a greater capital expenditure would be expected. The expected impact on competition for other providers is limited due to the high utilization for all programs in the vicinity. The subject proposal is consistent with the district and state health care plans and the need for health care facilities and services. The services being transferred is an existing program which is highly utilized and which is not creating "new beds." As such, the proposal complies with Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing services in the district will not be adversely affected by the approval of the subject application. The proposed transfer is consistent with, and appropriate, in light of these criteria. Therefore, the proposal complies with Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The subject application demonstrates a full continuum of care with safeguards to assure that alternatives to inpatient care are fully utilized when appropriate. Therefore, the availability and adequacy of other services, such as outpatient care, has been demonstrated and would deter unnecessary utilization. Thus, Miami Heart has shown its application complies with Section 408.035(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Miami Heart has also demonstrated that the probable impact of its proposal is in compliance with Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes. The proposed transfer will not adversely impact the costs of providing services, the competition on the supply of services, or the improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of services which foster competition, promote quality assurance, and cost-effectiveness. Miami Heart has taken an innovative approach to promote quality assurance and cost effectiveness. Its purpose, to close a facility and relocate beds (removing unnecessary acute care beds in the process), represents a departure from the traditional approach to providing health care services. By approving Miami Heart's application, overhead costs associated with the unnecessary facility will be eliminated. There is no less costly, more efficient alternative which would allow the continuation of the services and program Miami Heart has established at the north campus than the approval of transfer to the south campus. The MH proposal is most practical and readily available solution which will allow the north campus to close and the beds and services to remain available and accessible. The renovation of the medical surgical space at the south campus to afford a location for the psychiatric unit is the most practical and readily available solution which will allow the north campus to close and the beds and services to remain available and accessible. In totality, the circumstances of this case make the approval of Miami Heart's application for CON no. 7700 the most reasonable and practical solution given the "not normal" conditions of this application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order approving CON 7700 as recommended in the SAAR. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 5th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 5th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4755 Note: Proposed findings of fact are to contain one essential fact per numbered paragraph. Proposed findings of fact paragraphs containing multiple sentences with more than one statement of fact are difficult to review. In reviewing for this case, where all sentences were accurate and supported by the recorded cited, the paragraph has been accepted. If the paragraph contained mixed statements where one sentence was an accurate statement of fact but the others were not, the paragraph has been rejected. Similarly, if one sentence was editorial comment, argument, or an unsupported statement to a statement of fact, the paragraph has been rejected. Proposed findings of fact should not include argument, editorial comments, or statements of fact mixed with such comments. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner, Mount Sinai: Paragraphs 1 through 13 were cited as stipulated facts. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 15 it is accepted that Miami Heart made the business decision to move the psychiatric beds beds from the north campus to the south campus. Any inference created by the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 21 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraph 25 is rejected as repetitive, or immaterial, unnecessary to the resolution of the issues. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 27 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 28 is accepted but not relevant. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. Paragraphs 31 through 33 are rejected as argument, comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 35 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact, or irrelevant as the FNP was not in dispute. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 37 is rejected as repetitive, or comment. Paragraph 38 is rejected as repetitive, comment or conclusion of law, not fact, or irrelevant. Paragraph 39 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41, 42, and 43 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence and/or argument. Paragraph 44 is rejected as argument and comment on the testimony. Paragraph 45 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, and/or not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 47 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 48 is rejected as comment, argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 49 is rejected as comment on testimony. It is accepted that the proposed relocation or transfer of beds is a "not normal" circumstance. Paragraph 50 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 51 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 52 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 53 is rejected as argument, comment or recitation of testimony, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 54 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant, comment, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 56 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 57 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 58 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 59 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 60 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 61 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 62 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 63 is accepted. Paragraph 64 is rejected as irrelevant. Mount Sinai could have filed in this batch given the not normal circumstances disclosed in the Miami Heart notice. Paragraph 65 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 66 is rejected as comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 67 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 68 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 69 is rejected as argument, comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 70 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, Agency: Paragraphs 1 through 6 are accepted. With the deletion of the words "cardiac catheterization" and the inclusion of the word "psychiatric beds" in place, paragraph 7 is accepted. Cardiac catheterization is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 8 is accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or an error of law, otherwise, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraphs 11 through 17 are accepted. Paragraph 18 is rejected as conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraphs 19 and 20 are accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 21 are accepted; the remainder rejected as conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 22 is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 23 is accepted. Paragraph 24 is rejected as argument, speculation, or irrelevant. Paragraph 25 is accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, Miami Heart: Paragraphs 1 through 13 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 14 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to law or irrelevant since MS did not file in the batch when it could have. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted as the Agency's statement of its authority or policy in this case, not fact. Paragraphs 17 through 20 are accepted. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 23 through 35 are accepted. Paragraph 36 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 37 through 40 are accepted. Paragraph 41 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence to the extent that it concludes the distance to be one mile; evidence deemed credible placed the distance at two miles. Paragraphs 42 through 47 are accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as comment. Paragraphs 49 through 57 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Wallace, Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 R. Terry Rigsby Geoffrey D. Smith Wendy Delvecchio Blank, Rigsby & Meenan, P.A. 204 S. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lesley Mendelson Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Stephen Ecenia Rutledge, Ecenia, Underwood, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street Suite 420 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551
Findings Of Fact Background On July 31, 1987, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) published in the Florida Administrative Weekly an announcement of the fixed need pools for the subject batching cycle, which pertained to the planning horizon of July, 1992. According to the notice, the fixed need pool, which was calculated pursuant to Rules 10-5.008(6) and 10-5.011(m), (n), (o), and (q), Florida Administrative Code, was adjusted according to the occupancy rate thresholds as prescribed by said rules. The net adjusted need for short-term psychiatric beds in District 7 was zero. By letter to HRS dated August 12, 1987, the North Brevard County Hospital District, doing business as Jess Parrish Memorial Hospital (Jess Parrish), provided notice of its intent to apply for a certificate of need to convert 16 beds from medical/surgical to psychiatric. By Application for Certificate of Need dated September 14, 1987, Jess Parrish requested that HRS grant a certificate of need for the conversion of 16 medical/surgical beds to 16 adult short-term psychiatric beds at a cost of $46,100. Jess Parrish is a tax-exempt organization whose board of directors have been authorized by law to levy ad valorem taxes in a special tax district in north Brevard County for the support of the hospital. The main hospital is located at 951 North Washington Avenue in Titusville, which is in north Brevard County. Brevard County is located in HRS District 7. By letter to Jess Parrish dated October 5, 1987, HRS requested additional information. By response dated November 9, 1987, Jess Parrish supplied the requested responses to omissions. By letter dated November 18, 1987, Jess Parrish provided additional information desired by HRS. By letter dated December 22, 1987, Wuesthoff Hospital (Wuesthoff) informed HRS that it objected to the above-described application because of absence of need. The letter states that Wuesthoff maintained an occupancy rate of 74% during the past year in its 25 short-term psychiatric beds. Wuesthoff is located in Rockledge, which is in central Brevard County. By letter and State Agency Action Report dated January 25, 1988, HRS informed Jess Parrish of its intent to issue the requested certificate of need for the conversion of the 16 beds. By Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed February 23, 1988, Wuesthoff challenged the intent to award the certificate of need to Jess Parrish and requested a formal hearing. The Application and Approval Process The application for the certificate of need states that Jess Parrish has a total of 210 beds, consisting of 172 medical/surgical beds, 10 obstetric beds, 20 pediatric beds, and 8 intensive care unit beds. The application contains all elements required by law, including a resolution authorizing the application and financial statements. The application and omissions response state that Jess Parrish admitted about 100 psychiatric patients in fiscal year ending 1987. The omissions response adds that Jess Parrish would offer the following programs for its short-term psychiatric patients: continual evaluation, screening, and admissions; individual, family, and group therapy; occupational, recreational, and vocational therapy; psychological and psychiatric testing and evaluation; day hospital and day clinic; family and friends education and support groups; and specialized treatment programs for geriatric psychiatric patients. The omissions response reports that the only facility with adult short-term psychiatric beds within 45 minutes of Jess Parrish is Wuesthoff. The omissions response states that Wuesthoff had experienced the following occupancy rates in its adult short-term psychiatric program: 1984--59%; 1985--66%; 1986-- 7l%; and first three quarters of 1987--71%. The omissions response acknowledges that Jess Parrish and Circles of Care, Inc. (Circles of Care) had jointly prepared the application and that Jess Parrish "plans to employ by contract, Circles of Care, Inc. to operate and manage our unit" if the application is approved. The omissions response includes a letter to HRS dated November 10, 1987, from James B. Whitaker, as president of Circles of Care. The letter describes the 12-year relationship between the two parties, which began when Circles of Care leased its first 12 beds from Jess Parrish between 1974 and 1980. Mr. Whitaker states that the two parties thus "work[ed] out a management agreement; for the new sixteen bed unit that Jess Parrish has requested." In the State Agency Action Report, HRS notes that the project does not conform with Policy 4 of the applicable District 7 Local Health Plan. This policy provides that additional short-term inpatient psychiatric beds may be approved when the average annual occupancy rate for all existing facilities in the planning area equals or exceeds the following rates: adult--75% and adolescents/children--70%. HRS reports a similar discrepancy as to the occupancy standard in the State Health Plan, which incorporates at Objective 1.2 the same 70%/75% standards. HRS states in the State Agency Action Report that the 1986 occupancy rates for short-term psychiatric beds, which averaged 69.98% in Brevard County, were 87% at Circles of Care, 70.6% at Wuesthoff, and 14% at a new facility, C. P. C.--Palm Bay. In addition, for the first six months of 1987, the report states that the occupancy rates, which averaged 63.5% in Brevard County, were 76% at Circles of Care, 71.5% at Wuesthoff, and 43% at C. P. C.--Palm Bay. In calculating numeric need under the rule, HRS concludes that there was a net need for a total of 547 beds in the district, consisting of 312 in specialty hospitals and 235 in general hospitals. Addressing the provision of the District 7 Local Health Plan focusing upon need at the county level, HRS finds that there was a net need for a total of 38 beds. Recognizing the "sub- standard utilization" of existing short-term psychiatric beds, HRS states that the application was justified "mainly because of the enhanced access to services that the project would provide." All of the other criteria were fully satisfied with one irrelevant exception, and the State Agency Action Report concludes: Although the district and county utilization of short-term psychiatric beds falls below the 70% [sic) adult standard, this project merits a Certificate of Need because there exists numeric need in the service area and because the project affords greater access and availability to psychiatric services for underserved groups. Need District and State Health Plans Part 3 of the 1985 District 7 Local Health Plan, published by The Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Inc., sets forth policies and priorities for inpatient psychiatric services. Policy 1 establishes each of the four counties of District 7 as a subdistrict for purposes of planning inpatient psychiatric services. Policy 3 of the 1985 District 7 Local Health Plan provides a specific methodology to allocate beds when the numeric need rule methodology indicates a need for inpatient psychiatric beds. A minimum of .15 beds per 1000 projected population should be allocated to hospitals holding a general license. A total of .20 beds per 1000 projected population may be located in specialty hospitals or hospitals holding a general license. The population projections are for five years into the future. Policy 4 of the 1985 District 7 Local Health Plan provides that additional short-term inpatient psychiatric beds may be approved when the average annual occupancy rates for all existing facilities in the planning area equal or exceed 75% for adult facilities and 70% for adolescents/children facilities. The policy concludes: Additional beds should not be added to the health system' until the existing facilities are operating at acceptable levels of occupancy. Good utilization of existing facilities prior to adding beds aids in cost containment by preventing unnecessary duplication. The 1988 District 7 Local Health Plan, although inapplicable to the subject proceeding, refers to the pending application of Jess Parrish. The plan states: [T]he residents of District 7 appear to be well-served by the existing providers with only a few exceptions. First, residents of north Brevard County (Titusville area) currently have no access to any certified, short-term, inpatient psych services in less than 22 miles. In many driving situations this distance takes longer than 30-45 minutes to traverse. . . . If [the CON that has been tentatively approved] is sustained through litigation and the unit is finally opened availability of these 16 beds should ameliorate, to a large degree, the potential geographic access problems for north Brevard adult/geriatric patients at least. Objective 1.1 of the 1985-1987 State Health Plan states that the ratio of short-term inpatient hospital psychiatric beds to population should not exceed .35 beds to 1000 population. Objective 1.2 states that, through 1987, additional short-term psychiatric beds should not normally be approved unless the service districts has an average annual occupancy of 75% for existing and approved adult beds and 70% for existing and approved adolescents/children beds. Numeric Need Pursuant to HRS Rules Net Need Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4., Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the HRS numeric need methodology. The rule provides that the projected number of beds shall be determined by applying the ratio of .35 beds to 1000 population to the projected population in five years, as estimated by the Executive Office of the Governor. The relevant projected population for District 7 is 1,564,098 persons. Applying the ratio, the gross number of beds needed in District 7 is 547. The total number of existing and approved short-term psychiatric beds in District 7 in 1987 was 410. There is therefore a net need for 137 short-term psychiatric beds in District 7. The relevant projected population for Brevard County is 441,593 persons. Applying the ratio, the gross number of beds needed in Brevard County is 155. The total number of existing and approved short-term psychiatric beds in Brevard County in 1987 was 117. There is therefore a net need for 38 short- term psychiatric beds in Brevard County. A minimum of .15 beds per 1000 population should be located in hospitals holding a general license, and .20 beds per 1000 population may be located in specialty hospitals or hospitals holding a general license. The calculations disclose that, for District 7, there is a net need of 73 beds in the former category and 65 beds in the latter category. As to Brevard County, the respective numbers are 41 and 4. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.d., Florida Administrative Code, provides that new facilities for adults must be able to project a 70% occupancy rate for the first year and 80% occupancy rate for the third year. Jess Parrish projects that its short-term psychiatric program will experience a utilization rate of 66% at the end of the first complete year of operation and 82% at the end of the third complete year of operation. These projections are reasonable and substantially conform with the requirements of the rule. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.e., Florida Administrative Code, provides that no additional short-term inpatient beds shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for the preceding 12 months in a "service district" is at least 75% for all existing adult short-term inpatient psychiatric beds and at least 70% for all adolescents/children short-term inpatient psychiatric beds. HRS considered the 70%/75% occupancy standards in making the July, 1987, announcement of a zero fixed need pool for short-term psychiatric beds in Brevard County. The determination of zero fixed need was a reflection that, although numeric need existed, the occupancy standards had not been satisfied. The incorporation of the occupancy standard into the July, 1987, fixed need calculation represented a deviation from nonrule policy deferring computation of the occupancy levels until the application-review process. The prior announcement of a fixed need pool on February 27, 1987, stated that a number of beds were needed even though the occupancy situation in District 7 was about the same. Subsequent announcements likewise deferred consideration of the occupancy standard. HRS has explicated its nonrule policy of excluding occupancy standards from the calculation of numeric need when publishing fixed need pools. Unlike the relatively simple task of determining the relevant population projection and multiplying it by the proper ratio, application of the occupancy standards, especially at the time in question, required numerous determinations and calculations. By attempting to incorporate the occupancy standards into the calculations upon which the fixed need pool were based, HRS increased the potential for error, which occurred in this case, rather than increased the reliability of the information. Although adequate reason exists for revising the July, 1987, published fixed need pool, Rule 10-5.008(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, prohibits revisions to a fixed need pool based upon a change in need methodologies, population estimates, bed inventories, or other factors leading to a different projection of need, if retroactively applied. However, the revision of the July, 1987, fixed need pool does not represent a change in need methodologies, population estimates, bed inventories, or other factors leading to a different projection of need, if retroactively applied. The revision to the fixed need pool, which did not represent a change in need methodology or underlying facts, was a result of three legitimate considerations. First, HRS revised the fixed need pool to implement its policy decision to limit the fixed need pool to the numeric need calculation and reserve the calculations of occupancy standards to the application-review process. This consideration does not involve a change in the methodology of determining numeric need or applying occupancy standards. Second, HRS revised the fixed need pool to correct earlier, erroneous calculations. This consideration does not involve a change in the underlying facts, but merely in the computations based upon the same facts. Third, HRS revised the fixed need pool to reflect developing policy in the application of the occupancy standards. HRS decided to apply the more liberal 70% occupancy standard to facilities serving both adults and adolescents/children, exclude from the determination of occupancy levels any facilities serving only age cohorts not served by the applicant, and restrict the 75% occupancy standard to facilities serving adults only. HRS made these changes, which it felt would not harm existing providers, in recognition of the failure of data provided by health-care suppliers to distinguish between adult and adolescents/children admissions and patient days. These considerations approximate a change in methodology, but the revision resulting from such considerations does not violate the rule because HRS already has shown that consideration of the occupancy standards should not take place until after publication of the fixed need pool. In the present case, two facilities in District 7 serve only adolescents/children. These facilities are C. P. C.-- Palm Bay and Laurel Oaks, which is in Orange County. Eliminating their occupancy rates, the district occupancy rate in the year ending June 30, 1987, was 71.9%. Removing the occupancy rate of C. P. C.--Palm Bay from Brevard County, the county occupancy rate during the same period was over 75%. Under the revised policies, Brevard County had a net need of 38 short- term psychiatric beds, applicable occupancy standards in the county and district were satisfied, and the July, 1987, publication of a fixed need pool of zero did not preclude the finding of need under other than "not normal" circumstances. Accessibility Financial Accessibility The primary service area of Jess Parrish is north Brevard County. A higher percentage of the population of this area lives below the poverty level than does the population of any other sub-region of Brevard County. According to the 1980 Census data, the applicable percentages of area residents living below the poverty level were 12.7% in north Brevard County, 10% in central Brevard County, 8.4% in south Brevard County, and 9.6% in Brevard County overall. Partly as a reflection of the different sub-regions and partly as a reflection of the commitment of Jess Parrish to provide access to underserved populations, Jess Parrish provides considerably more services to Medicaid patients than does either of the other major general hospitals in central and south Brevard County. In 1987, 11.5% of the admissions and 8.9% of the patient days at Jess Parrish were Medicaid. The respective numbers are 7% and 6% for Wuesthoff and 5.8% and 3.9% for Holmes Regional Medical Center, which is in Melbourne. A key component of financial accessibility is the effect of the proposed program on Circles of Care. About 55% of the patients of Circles of Care are indigent. Another 17% of its patients earn between the minimum wage and $15,000 annually. Circles of Care has participated in all phases of the application process on behalf of Jess Parrish. The approval of the new program would not have an adverse effect on Circles of Care. To the contrary, the new program at Jess Parrish would provide Circles of Care with more treatment options, especially with respect to indigent patients, whose need for short-term psychiatric services has proven at times difficult to meet. These options are especially valuable at a time when there is no net need in Brevard County for any more short-term psychiatric beds in specialty hospitals, such as Circles of Care. The 52 psychiatric beds licensed to Circles of Care are in two different units contained within a single hospital facility located in Melbourne, which is in south Brevard County. Sheridan Oaks is a 24-bed, private unit, which cannot accept many Baker Act patients without adversely affecting the other patients and the psychiatrists who refer private-pay patients to this unit. The other unit is a public Baker Act receiving facility with 28 beds, for which Circles of Care receives state funds. Unlike Sheridan Oaks, the public receiving facility employs the psychiatrists who work there. About 85-90% of all Baker Act patients in Brevard County come through this public receiving facility, whose occupancy rate was 98% in the year ending June 30, 1987. In addition to these units, Circles of Care operates a mental health outpatient clinic in Titusville, an outpatient/inpatient treatment center in the Rockledge/Cocoa area, numerous social clubs throughout Brevard County for the chronic mentally ill, and numerous public education and awareness programs concerning the treatability of mental illness. Another limitation of being a specialty hospital is that Circles of Care does not qualify for Medicaid reimbursement. Jess Parrish, as a general hospital, qualifies for such reimbursement and projects in its application that 39% of its patient days will be Medicaid and 9% of its patient days will be indigent. Geographic Access Jess Parrish is located at the north end of Brevard County, which runs about 80 miles north-south. Wuesthoff is about 25 miles south of Jess Parrish, and Titusville is about 40 miles north of Melbourne. Intercity north-south traffic uses Interstate 95, which is west of the above-described cities, and U.S. Route 1, which runs through the center of each of these cities. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)5.g., Florida Administrative Code, provides that short-term inpatient psychiatric services should be located within a maximum travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions for at least 90% of the population of the service area. This criterion is presently met without the addition of short-term psychiatric beds at Jess Parrish. This factor is outweighed, however, by another factor in this case. Jess Parrish projects about half of its patients will be indigent or Medicaid, and north Brevard County has a disproportionate share of the county's impoverished residents. Average travel conditions for these persons require public transportation, which, in north Brevard County, is limited to Greyhound/Trailways and local taxi companies. Exclusive of time waiting for the bus and traveling to and from the bus stations, the time for the 25-mile trip between Titusville and Rockledge, of which there are three or four trips daily (excluding off-hour trips), ranges from 25-35 minutes. There is evidence in the record that mentally ill bus passengers do not always make it to their intended destinations by way of intercity buses. The use of available public transportation is therefore problematic, but in any event adds considerable time to the travel time to Wuesthoff for those individuals who do not own a motor vehicle. Effect on Wuesthoff The effect of the conversion of medical/surgical beds to short-term psychiatric beds will have no material effect on Wuesthoff, even though it did reduce the number of short-term psychiatric beds from 30 to 25 in 1986. The occupancy rate for Wuesthoff's short-term psychiatric unit in 1987 was 70.6%. The prime service areas of Wuesthoff and Jess Parrish as to psychiatric admissions do not substantially overlap. Although Jess Parrish may be expected to draw more patients from Wuesthoff's prime service area following commencement of the new operation, many of Jess Parrish's patients will be from the indigent and Medicaid payor classes for which the competition is not intense. The addition of a 16-bed short-term psychiatric unit at Jess Parrish will not materially influence the availability of qualified personnel for Wuesthoff. It appears that Jess Parrish will be able to staff the relatively small 16-bed unit without employing significant numbers of professional employees of Wuesthoff. Some of the relatively few patients whom Wuesthoff can be expected to lose to Jess Parrish involve referrals from Titusville-area physicians, psychiatrists, and psychologists, who will place their patients in the closer facility once it is opened. The negative impact upon Wuesthoff is outweighed in these cases by gains for the patients in continuity of care and community support. Financial Feasibility The short-term financial feasibility is good. Jess Parrish has available to it sufficient funds to undertake the relatively modest capital outlay in constructing the facility, which will consist of about 8000 square feet on an existing floor of the hospital. The long-term financial feasibility is generally good. The financial projections are based on reasonable assumptions, which are largely derived from the actual experience of Circles of Care. The projections accurately estimate revenue sources and expenses. Jess Parrish reasonably projects an adequate supply of patients from a combination of sources, including Circles of Care, existing patients whose diagnoses include psychiatric components, and numerous health-care professionals in north Brevard County. The financial projections contemplate a material contribution by Circles of Care, but project no compensating expenditures. However, this deficiency is largely offset by the likelihood that the financial participation of Circles of Care will be restricted to a share of any excess of revenues over expenses of the new project, possibly excluding reimbursement of fairly minor expenses. If that is the case, the effect of any management agreement would be only to reduce the excess of revenues over expenses enjoyed by Jess Parrish from the operation of the short-term psychiatric unit. The management agreement would not expose Jess Parrish to losses that would not have otherwise existed but for the agreement to make payments to Circles of Care. Under these circumstances, the omission of the information, although material, does not seriously cast into doubt the long-term financial feasibility of the project. Quality of Care The quality of hospital care offered by Jess Parrish is excellent. The quality of the various psychiatric services offered by Circles of Care is also excellent. Both facilities are accredited by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals. The issue in this case involves the quality of care to be expected in the 16-bed short-term psychiatric unit for which Jess Parrish seeks a certificate of need. Circles of Care and Jess Parrish have agreed that Circles of Care will be responsible for recruiting most of the personnel for the new program and will employ the program's medical director, who will be responsible for treatment decisions. In addition, Circles of Care will advise Jess Parrish as to the adoption of policy, which will remain ultimately the responsibility of Jess Parrish. Jess Parrish will employ the head nurse and all other full-time professional staff working in the unit. The tentativeness of the arrangement between Circles of Care and Jess Parrish is partly explained by the desire of both parties to avoid the time and expense of negotiating an agreement in every detail prior to obtaining final approval of the certificate of need. In addition, both organizations were devoting substantial time to the subject litigation, for which Circles of Care was paying a portion of the expenses. In the final analysis, the failure to work out the agreement, although not a positive feature of the application, is not a serious problem for two reasons. First, Circles of Care and Jess Parrish have a long history of mutual cooperation. The relationship began when Jess Parrish leased Circles of Care 16 hospital beds for psychiatric use. Although the arrangement ended several years ago when Circles of Care constructed its Melbourne facility, the two organizations have since cooperated in several less intensive ways. Second, although Circles of Care has superior expertise in the area of mental health, Jess Parrish qualifies by itself to operate the proposed facility. Circles of Care has already provided much of the necessary technical information required for the preparation of budgets and pro formas. Recruiting would probably take somewhat longer without Circles of Care, but the modest construction budget obviously does not involve significant debt service, so that the delay would not be costly. Perhaps the most significant loss from a quality-of-care perspective would be the medical director, whose expertise will be critical. Again, this would be largely a problem of delay only, as Jess Parrish would have to find a replacement, although it appears likely that the director may be Dr. David Greenblum, who is already a member of the active medical staff at Jess Parrish. Given the quality of care provided by Jess Parrish in the past, there is no basis for any concern that, in the unlikely event that the parties fail to negotiate an agreement, Jess Parrish would jeopardize its reputation as a quality 200-bed general hospital in order to commence prematurely a 16-bed short- term psychiatric unit. Other Factors The record does not demonstrate that there are less costly, more efficient, or more appropriate alternatives to the inpatient services proposed in the subject application. There are no crisis stabilization units or short-term residential treatment programs available in Brevard County. The proposed project will have a measurable impact only upon Circles of Care, whose existing inpatient facilities will be enhanced, and Wuesthoff, whose existing inpatient facilities will not be materially affected. In general, these existing services are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. On the other hand, the beds that Jess Parrish seeks to convert are underutilized in their present designation. The medical/surgical beds at Jess Parrish have been utilized at a rate of less than 60% over the past three years. There are no feasible alternatives to renovation of the existing facilities. The costs and methods of proposed construction are reasonable and appropriate. The approval of the application will foster healthy competition in the area of short-term psychiatric services and promote quality assurance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order granting the application of Jess Parrish for a certificate of need to convert 16 medical/surgical beds to 16 short-term adult psychiatric beds. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1220 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Jess Parrish 1-6 Adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8 Rejected as irrelevant. 9-10 Adopted or adopted in substance. 11 Rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. 12-13 Adopted or adopted in substance. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted to the extent of the finding in the Recommended Order that there likely will be an agreement between Circles of Care and Jess Parrish. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence that such an agreement exists already. Also rejected as unnecessary insofar as the application can stand on its own without the participation of Circles of Care. 15a Adopted or adopted in substance. 15b-15c Rejected as irrelevant. 15d-15g Adopted in substance, although certain proposed facts rejected as subordinate. However, the first sentence of Paragraph 15f is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 15h Rejected as recitation of testimony. 16-18 Adopted or adopted in substance except that all but the last sentence of Paragraph 18g. is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and legal argument. 19 First sentence adopted. 19 (remainder) -22. Rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence. Generally adopted, although most of the facts are rejected as subordinate in the overall finding and cumulative. Adopted except that sixth sentence is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and the seventh sentence is rejected as subordinate. Adopted in substance. First sentence adopted. Remainder rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. 28a Rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 28b-28d Adopted or adopted in substance. and 31 Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary. 32-50 Adopted or adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of HRS 1-11 Adopted or adopted in substance. & 14 Rejected as irrelevant. & 15-16 Adopted. 17 Rejected as unnecessary. 18-74 See rulings on Paragraphs 16-50 in preceding section. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Wuesthoff 1-3 Adopted or adopted in substance. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and legal argument. 6-10 & 12 Adopted or adopted in substance. 11 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as recitation of testimony and cumulative. Rejected as cumulative except that second sentence is adopted. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Rejected as cumulative, subordinate, and legal argument. Rejected as cumulative except that second sentence is adopted. First clause rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Remainder rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as cumulative and subordinate. 20-23 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative. 27-28 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 29 Rejected as legal argument. 30-32 Rejected as irrelevant. 33-41 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and subordinate. 42 and 51 Rejected as recitation of evidence. 43-45 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 46 Rejected as legal argument. 47-50 and 52-54 Rejected as subordinate. 55 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 56-59 Rejected as irrelevant. 60-66 Rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. 67-69 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 70-73 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and subordinate. 74-78 Adopted. 79 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 80-82 Adopted. 83-85 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 86 Rejected as subordinate and against the greater weight of the evidence. 87-91 Adopted or adopted in substance. 92 Rejected as against the greater weight of he evidence. 93-94 Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. 97-98 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as subordinate. 101-102 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as partly cumulative and partly legal argument. Rejected as against the greater weight of the 105 evidence Rejected and irrelevant. as against the greater weight of the 106-108 evidence. Rejected as subordinate. 109 110-113 Rejected evidence. Rejected as against the greater weight of as subordinate. the 114-117 118-120 Rejected evidence. Rejected as against the greater weight of as irrelevant and subordinate. the 121-122 Rejected as subordinate. 123 124-125 First sentence adopted in substance. Remainder rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. 126-129 Rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of evidence. the COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Cleveland W. David Watkins Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 John Rodriguez 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William B. Wiley Darrell White McFarlain, Sternstein, Wiley & Cassedy, P.A. Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Stephen M. Presnell MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
