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 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the methodology for grouping hospitals adopted by the HCCB pursuant to Sections 4D- 1.03, 4D-1.12(1) and 4D-1.12(2), F.A.C., constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as being arbitrary or capricious? Mercy has also raised one issue as to whether the grouping methodology is violative of constitutional guarantees of administrative equal protection and due process. This issue, however, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Findings Of Fact Introduction. The HCCB and Its Hospital Grouping Function. The HCCB was formed pursuant to Part II of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1979). The HCCB was created pursuant to the specific authority of Section 395.503, Florida Statutes (1979), in order to further the accomplishment of legislative intent contained in Section 395.5025, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.): It is the intent of the Legislature to assure that adequate health care is affordable and accessible to all the citizens of this state. To further the accomplishment of this goal, the Hospital Cost Containment Board is created to advise the Legislature regarding health care costs; inflationary trends in health care costs; the impact of health care costs on the state budget; the impact of hospital charges and third-party reimbursement mechanisms on health care costs; and the education of consumers and providers of health care services in order to encourage price competition in the health care marketplace. The Legislature finds and declares that rising hospital costs and cost shifting are of vital concern to the people of this state because of the danger that hospital services are becoming unaffordable and thus inaccessible to residents of the state. It is further declared that hospital costs should be contained through improved competition between hospitals and improved competition between insurers, through financial incentives which foster efficiency instead of inefficiency, and through sincere initiatives on behalf of providers, insurers, and consumers to contain costs. As a safety net, it is the intent of the Legislature to establish a program of prospective budget review and approval in the event that competition-oriented methods do not adequately contain costs and the access of Floridians to adequate hospital care becomes jeopardized because of unaffordable costs. As a part of its responsibilities the HCCB is required, "after consulting with appropriate professional and governmental advisory bodies and holding public hearings, and considering existing and proposed systems of accounting and reporting utilized by hospitals," to specify a uniform system of financial reporting for hospitals. Section 395.507(1), Florida Statutes Suppl.) to: In order to allow "meaningful comparisons" of data reported by hospitals under the uniform system of financial reporting, the HCCB is required by Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.) to group hospitals according to characteristics, including, but not limited to, a measure of the nature and range of services provided, teaching hospital status, number of medical specialties represented on the hospital staff, percentage of Medicare inpatient days, average daily census, geographical differences, and, when available, case mix. In providing for grouping of hospital, the HCCB is required to establish ten general hospital groups and additional speciality groups "as needed." Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). No hospital group can contain fewer than five hospitals, however. Id. Grouping is to be provided by rule. Id. Pursuant to Section 395.509(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), every Florida hospital is required to file its budget with the HCCB for "approval." The budget is required to be filed on forms adopted by the HCCB and based on the uniform system of financial reporting. Section 395.507(6), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). To determine whether a hospital's budget is to be approved, all hospitals in Florida are to be placed in groups. A hospital's budget is then compared to the budgets of the hospitals assigned to its group. Hospital groups for this purpose are established pursuant to Section 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The provisions of Section 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), are identical to Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). In determining whether a hospital's budget is to be approved, Section 305.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), establishes two initial "screens" which a hospital must meet based upon the hospital's gross revenue per adjusted admission. The term "gross revenue" is defined as: the sum of daily hospital service charges, ambulatory service charges, ancillary service charges, and other operating revenue. Gross revenues do not include contributions, donations, legacies, or bequests made to a hospital without restriction by the donors. Section 395.502(11), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). "Adjusted admission" is defined by Section 395.502(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), as: the sum of acute admissions and intensive care admissions divided by the ratio of inpatient revenues generated from acute, intensive, ambulatory, and ancillary patient services to gross revenues. Gross revenues per adjusted admission (hereinafter referred to as "GRAA") is therefore the total hospital ambulatory and ancillary service charges and other operating revenue for all acute and intensive care admissions divided by the ratio of inpatient revenues from acute, intensive, ambulatory and ancillary patient services to gross revenue; or, stated more simply , inpatient revenue per admission. The "screens" which must be met in order for a hospital's budget to be approved upon initial determination are: (1) the hospital's GRAA must not be in the upper 20th percentile of the hospitals within its group; and (2) the rate of increase in a hospital's GRAA as contained in its current budget compared to the hospital's GRAA as reported in its most recently approved budget must not exceed a "maximum allowable rate of increase" if the hospital's GRAA is in the 50th to 79th percentile of the hospitals in its group. If a hospital's GRAA is in the 49th percentile or less of the hospitals in its group, its budget is automatically approved. In determining whether a hospital's GRAA fails the screens, Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), provides: Percentile values for gross operating revenue per adjusted admission shall be determined monthly by the board for each group established pursuant to s. 395.507(2) by ranking projected gross operating revenues per adjusted admission contained in the most recently approved or submitted budgets for the hospitals in each group, including any hospital that is contesting its grouping assignment. In determining the applicability of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), the board shall consider the basis of the projections by the hospital, including consideration of the following factors: any increase in patient admissions caused by the creation of preferred provider organizations or health maintenance organiza- tions, population increases, changes in the hospital case mix or in services offered, changes in technology, or other similar factors. If a hospital's GRAA fails either of the screens (its GRAA is in the upper 20th percentile of its group or its GRAA rate of increase is excessive and its GRAA is in the 50th to 79th percentile of its group) that hospital's budget must be reviewed by the HCCB "to determine whether the rate of increase contained in the budget is just, reasonable, and not excessive." Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Pursuant to Section 395.509(6), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), the HCCB is authorized, if it first determines under Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), that the hospital's rate of increase is not just, reasonable and not excessive, to amend or disapprove any hospital's budget which does not meet the two screens of Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), to establish a rate of increase which is "just, reasonable, and not excessive." The HCCB's authority under Section 395.509(6), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), applies only if the HCCB first complies with the following pertinent provisions of Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.): The board shall disapprove any budget, or part thereof, as excess that contains a rate of increase which is not necessary to maintain the existing level of services of the hospital or, if the hospital increases its existing level of services, any amount not necessary to accomplish that increase. In making such deterioration . . . the board shall consider the following criteria: The efficiency, sufficiency, and adequacy of the services and facilities provided by the hospital. The cost of providing services and the value of the services to the public. The ability of the hospital to improve services and facilities. The ability of the hospital to reduce the cost of services. The ability of the hospital to earn a reasonable rate of return. The accuracy of previous budget submissions by the hospital compared to the actual experience of the hospital the The number of patient days reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid. The number of patient days attributable to the medically indigent. The research and educational services provided by the hospital if it is a teaching hospital. The projected expenditures or revenues for or from construction of facilities or new services which are subject to regulation under s. 381.494 may not be included in the budget of a hospital until the construction or services are approved or authorized by the state health planning agency. The cost of opening a new hospital, for first 3 years. The Challenged Rules. In carrying out its duty to establish a uniform system of financial reporting, the HCCB adopted Section 4D- 1.03, F.A.C., which provides: The Board, pursuant to Section 395.505, Florida Statutes, hereby adopts and establishes a uniform system for hospitals to file the prior year audited actual data report, the interim report of financial and statistical information. This system is described and the forms, instructions, and definitions therefor are contained in the Board's publication entitled Hospital Uniform Reporting System Manual. The Chart of Accounts adopted pursuant to Section 395.507(1), Florida Statutes, and this Chapter 4D-1, and as hereafter modified, shall be utilized by each hospital for submitting the prior year audited actual data report, the interim report and the budget report. In order to determine whether a hospital's budget should be automatically approved under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), the HCCB adopted Section 4D-1.12, F.A.C. Sections 4D-1.12(1) and (2), F.A.C., provide: The staff shall review the budget report based upon the hospital's ranking for gross revenue per adjusted admission within its group and upon its rate of change in gross revenue per adjusted admission in the proposed budget as required in Section 395.507(6), Florida Statutes, and the most recently Board approved budget. As part of the budget report review process, groupings of hospitals shall be established according to the characteristics and methodology as outlined in Chapter V, Section B, Hospital Unit Uniform Reporting System Manual and as outlined in Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes. Percentile values for gross revenue per adjusted admission shall be determined monthly for each group by ranking projected gross revenue per adjusted admission contained in the most recently approved or submitted budgets for the hospitals in each group, including any hospital that is contesting its grouping assignment. 12. Sections 4D-1.03 and 4D-1.12(1) and (2), F.A.C., are the rules challenged by Mercy. These rules, as quoted herein, were effective as of November 5, 1984. The rules were originally adopted effective June 30, 1980. The rules were amended to their present wording in response to "major" legislation enacted in 1984 which amended Part II, Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1983), and granted authority to the HCCB for the first time to approve, disapprove or amend hospital budgets under certain circumstances. Chapter 79-106, Laws of Florida. The challenged rules essentially provide that the HCCB, when grouping of hospitals for purposes of the uniform system of financial reporting and for purposes of reviewing and comparing budgets to determine if they should be automatically approved under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), will apply the grouping methodology outlined in Chapter V, Section B of the Hospital Uniform Reporting System Manual (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual"). Section 4D-1.18, F.A.C., also adopted effective November 5, 1984, incorporates by reference the Manual within each rule in Chapter 4D-1, F.A.C., which references the Manual. This rule has not been challenged in this proceeding. The Hospital Grouping Methodology and Its Development. Generally, Chapter V, Section B of the Manual, sets out the objective of the grouping methodology, the procedure for forming groups, a list of the variables considered in forming groups and the weight to be accorded each variable. The goals of the grouping methodology, as provided in the Manual, are to "facilitate comparison of hospitals with similar patient mix and market conditions" and to "develop groups of sufficient size . . . to assure statistically valid comparisons." Based upon the procedure for forming groups contained in the Manual, hospitals are grouped into nine, non-teaching, short-term hospital groups, one Major teaching hospital group and a number of specialty hospital groups. It is the method of grouping hospitals into nine short-term hospital groups which is at issue in this proceeding. Assignment of hospitals to the nine short-term hospital groups is accomplished through the use of the "McQueen's K-means clustering algorithm included in the cluster analysis t computer program package CLAN developed by T.D. Klastorin and Robert Ledingham (June, 1980 version)." A clustering analysis is a method of grouping a set of objects (in this case, hospitals) into relatively homogeneous groups. The goal of a clustering algorithm is to minimize the differences between the members of the group. The objects are grouped based upon a set of variables which are considered significant for purposes of comparing the objects. In order to account for the significance of each variable, the variables are weighted. The variables have a numerical score and after weighing, the weighted sum of the variables for each object is compared and the objects are grouped based upon their variable scores. There are a number of clustering algorithms which can be used to group hospitals. The HCCB chose to use the "McQueen's K-means" clustering algorithm. The use of McQueens K-means clustering algorithm has not bean challenged in this proceeding. Nor does the evidence establish that the selection of McQueen's K-means clustering algorithm is arbitrary and capricious. The clustering algorithm is performed by computer. The computer program utilized by the HCCB to perform the algorithm is called "CLAN" and was developed by T.D. Klastorin and Robert Ledingham. The evidence at the hearing supports a finding that the selection of this computer program is reasonable. Once hospitals are grouped, they are notified of their group designation and allowed to request reconsideration of their group assignment. The request must made within thirty days after notification. Following the creation of the HCCB in 1979, Price Waterhouse & Company was engaged by the HCCB as a consultant to assist in still establishing an appropriate hospital grouping methodology. The HCCB also created an advisory committee to assist the HCCB and Price Waterhouse & Company in developing the grouping methodology. This committee, designated as the Technical Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "TAC") was comprised of individuals from the hospital industry and academia and certified public accountants. The TAC worked with Price Waterhouse & Company in developing the grouping methodology and the uniform reporting system. Because of time constraints, the TAC's involvement with evaluating the methodology was limited. The HCCB ultimately decided to pattern the grouping methodology it adopted after the grouping methodology then being used by the State of Washington, as recommended by Price Waterhouse & Company. The Washington system was not adopted exactly; a number of changes to Washington's methodology were made to the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB. Mercy has proposed several findings of fact beginning on page 35 and ending on page 38 of its proposed order concerning the "Differences in Washington Hospital Characteristics and Grouping Methodology Model." Those proposed findings of fact can be and are hereby disposed of by the following finding of fact: because of differences in the hospital industries of the States of Florida and Washington and other differences between the two States, Florida's grouping methodology cannot be justified solely on the basis that Washington's grouping methodology was used as a starting point in developing Florida's grouping methodology. Those differences, however, do not support a finding of fact that Florida's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious since the Washington system was not adopted without substantial modifications, including a reduction of Washington's eighteen variables initially to fourteen and ultimately to seven, and the use of unequal weighting of the variables. The TAC reviewed and discussed the grouping methodology initially approved by the HCCB prior to its approval. Some of Mercy's witnesses, who were members of the TAC, indicated during their testimony that the TAC never decided anything because no "vote" was ever taken of TAC members and that the TAC did not advise the HCCB but instead advised the staff of the HCCB. Their testimony in this regard has been given little weight. The fact that no formal "vote" was taken of TAC members does not mean that the TAC did not take a position on matters it discussed. The consensus of the TAC could be, and was, gleaned from its discussions. The staff of the HCCB in fact reported decisions of the TAC to the HCCB verbally and by minutes of TAC meetings. Although the accuracy of staff's reports was sometimes questioned, no question was raised about whether TAC had taken positions. The fact that the HCCB staff reported TAC actions to the HCCB also disputes the testimony to the effect that TAC did not advise the HCCB but instead advised the staff of the HCCB. While it may be true that TAC did not deal directly with the HCCB, its analysis was reported, to the HCCB. The HCCB ultimately adopted rules effective June 30, 1980, which incorporated by reference to the Manual, the general outline of the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB. The TAC ceased to exist following adoption of the HCCB's initial rules. Two new advisory committees were formed: a Technical Advisory Panel (hereinafter referred to as "TAP") on grouping and a TAP for financial analysis. The grouping TAP was made up of individuals from the hospital industry. The grouping TAP met in November and December of 1980 and reviewed the results of test runs of the grouping methodology initially adopted by the HCCB. The results of the initial run were described as "bizarre." This run used equal weighting of the variables. Equal weighting was abandoned and three to four more test runs were made and reviewed by the grouping TAP. After each run the variable weights were adjusted until the results appeared to be "reasonable." The HCCB also established a committee consisting of members of the HCCB designated as the Research and Development Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "R & D Committee"). The R & D Committee reviewed the results of test runs and also found the final groups reasonable. The HCCB met in January, 1981, and adopted the grouping methodology with the adjusted variable weights arrived at as a result of the test runs for use in establishing hospital groups for use in 1981. The grouping methodology was reviewed every year after its initial adoption in 1980. The methodology was reviewed by the HCCB, HCCB's staff, the TAP's and the R & D Committee each year. Throughout the period from 1980 to the present, criticisms of the grouping methodology have been made. Some of these criticisms were agreed with and others were rejected by the HCCB or its staff. Following review of the grouping methodology by the TAP's and the R & D Committee in 1981, the original fourteen variables were reduced to eight. In January, 1982, the weight of one of the variables was changed and one variable was replaced by another variable. In December, 1982, a variable was deleted; seven variables remained. In 1983, clustering analysis was limited in its application to the formation of short-term acute care general hospital groups. In 1984, following the significant amendment of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1983), the HCCB adopted the present challenged rules. The rules were effective November 5, 1984. The only change in the grouping methodology approved by the HCCB was the substitution of the Florida price level index variable for percent of population over age 65. The weight assigned to the Florida price level index was the same as the weight that had been assigned to the percent of population over age 65. The changes made to the grouping methodology in 1984 were first suggested by the staff of the HCCB to the grouping TAP in June of 1984. The grouping TAP met on July 11, 1984 and considered and discussed the proposed changes. A number of problem areas were discussed. Although no test run results were presented at this TAP meeting, they were provided to TAP members before the HCCB adopted the grouping methodology changes. Concerns about the geographic or exogenous variables expressed at the grouping TAP meeting suggested a belief that too much or too little emphasis was being placed on geographic considerations. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact beginning on page 33 and ending on page 35 of its proposed order concerning the significance of the changes made by the Legislature in 1984 to Part II of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1983). Those proposed findings of fact essentially deal with the fact that the powers of the HCCB after the 1984 amendments may have a more significant impact on hospitals and that, therefore, the grouping methodology is of greater interest to hospitals. Mercy's proposed findings of fact are not, however, relevant in determining whether the challenged rules are arbitrary and capricious. The fact that the effect of the grouping methodology on a hospital may now be different does not mean that the use of the grouping methodology, as modified after the 1984 legislative changes to the law, which was developed when the purpose of grouping was different, is not an appropriate methodology. The evidence does not support such a conclusion. Therefore, to the extent that Mercy's proposed findings of fact under Section II, A, of its proposed order have not already been made, they are rejected as unnecessary. Mercy and the HCCB have proposed findings of fact as to whether Mercy has ever questioned the HCCB's grouping methodology since it was first adopted prior to instituting this proceeding. Those proposed findings of fact are not deemed relevant in determining whether the grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious. If the grouping methodology is in fact arbitrary and capricious, the fact that Mercy did not challenge the methodology when it was first adopted will not make it any less arbitrary and capricious today. Mercy's Challenge. A. Introduction. Mercy is a not-for-profit, general acute care hospital with 550 licensed beds located in Dade County, Florida. Mercy has raised a number of points in this proceeding and its proposed order in challenging the rules in question. All of those points, according to Mercy, prove that the rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. In determining whether the facts support such a conclusion, the following standard must be kept in mind: [I]n a 120.54 hearing, the hearing officer must look to the legislative authority for the rule and determine whether or not the proposed rule is encompassed within the grant. The burden is upon one who attacks the proposed rule to show that the agency, if it adopts the rule, would exceed its authority; that the requirements of the rule are not appropriate to the ends specified in the legislative act; that the requirements contained in the rule are not reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation or that the proposed rule or the requirements thereof are arbitrary or capricious. A capricious action is one which is taken without thought or reason or irrationally. An arbitrary decision is one not supported by facts or logic or despotic. Administrative discretion must be reasoned and based upon competent substantial evidence. Competent substantial evidence has been described as such evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Agrico Chemical Company v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So.2d 759, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So.2d 74 (1979). Additionally, the following must be kept in mind: The well recognized general rule is that agencies are to be accorded wide discretion in the exercise of their lawful rulemaking authority, clearly conferred or fairly implied and consistent with the agencies' general statutory duties. . . . An agency's construction of the statute it administers is entitled to great weight and is not to be overturned unless clearly erroneous. . . . Where, as here, the agency's interpretation of a statute has been promulgated in rulemaking proceedings, the validity of such rule must be upheld if it is reasonably related to the purposes of the legislation interpreted and it is not arbitrary and capricious. The burden is upon petitioner in a rule challenge to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the rule or its requirements are arbitrary and capricious. . . . Moreover, the agency's interpretation of a statute need not be the sole possible interpretation or even the most desirable one; it need only be within the range of possible interpretations. Department of Professional Regulation v. Durrani, 455 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The witnesses who testified in this proceeding who were accepted as experts were qualified in a number of different areas. Those witnesses qualified as experts in statistical analysis or related areas and health care finance rendered opinions as to the appropriateness of the HCCB's grouping methodology. The method of grouping hospitals adopted by the HCCB is a statistical method. Therefore, the determination of whether the HCCB's methodology is arbitrary and capricious depends largely upon whether the methodology is statistically sound. Mercy and the HCCB therefore presented the testimony of witnesses qualified in the area of statistics: Rick Zimmerman, Ph.D., an expert in statistical analysis and social science statistics (for Mercy), and Duane Meeter, Ph.D., an expert in economics and applied statistical analysis and Frank Fox, Jr., Ph.D., an expert in applied statistics (for the HCCB). All three witnesses were knowledgeable and credible. Dr. Zimmerman testified that the HCCB's grouping methodology was "clearly inappropriate." Dr. Zimmerman's opinion was based upon a three step analysis in which he determined: (1) whether the variables selected by the HCCB are appropriate; (2) whether the weights assigned to the variables by the HCCB are appropriate; and, (3) the effect changing the variables and/or weights would have on hospital groups. The results of Dr. Zimmerman's analysis, which formed the basis for his opinion that the HCCB's grouping methodology is not appropriate, are discussed, infra. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact in its proposed order concerning the credibility of Dr. Meeter's and Dr. Fox's testimony. Some of those proposed findings of fact have been considered in determining the weight given to their testimony. Both Dr. Meeter and Dr. Fox were, however, knowledgeable and credible. In addition to the opinion of its statistical expert, Mercy presented the testimony of three witnesses who were accepted as experts in health care finance: Messrs. Lawrence R. Murray, Jerry A. Mashburn and Anthony Krayer. All three are certified public accountants. All testified that it was his opinion that the HCCB's grouping methodology was arbitrary. The bases for their opinions are discussed, infra. Selection of "Seed" Hospitals. In order to use a clustering algorithm, a starting point is needed; the first object (hospital) to be placed in each group must be selected. The first objects selected are called "seed" objects. Mercy has attached the HCCB's method of selecting the nine "seed" hospitals in initially performing the McQueen's K-means clustering algorithm. Mercy has proposed the following findings of fact with regard to this point: While none of the parties challenged the use of McQueen's and the CLAN program, no support was offered during the hearing for the method by which the HCCB had selected the nine seed hospitals as initial clustering points. The HCCB's own statistician criticized the HCCB's selection method. The Rankis-Zimmerman report indicates that the final groupings based upon the HCCB's seed hospitals were vastly different than groupings based upon the utilization of seed hospitals selected on a statistical basis. Both the HCCB's and Mercy's statisticians proposed statistically sound methods for selecting seed hospitals, which had not been employed by the HCCB in the Grouping Methodology. [Citations omitted] These proposed findings of fact are not relevant to this proceeding. The burden is on Mercy to show that the selection of "seed" hospitals was arbitrary and capricious; the HCCB is not required to show "support" for its method of selecting the seed hospitals. Additionally, whether there are other methods of selecting seed hospitals is not the test. The HCCB's interpretation of the statute need not be the sole interpretation or even the most desirable one; it only needs to be within the range of possible interpretations. Durrani, supra. Therefore, even if the Rankis-Zimmerman report does indicate that the final groupings of hospitals of the HCCB were vastly different than groupings based upon other methods of selecting seed hospitals, it does not automatically follow that the HCCB's method of selecting seed hospitals was not "within the range of possible interpretations. The weight of the evidence does not prove that the HCCB's method of selecting seed hospitals was arbitrary and capricious. Selection of the Variables. In delegating legislative authority to the HCCB to establish a grouping methodology, the Legislature provided that the following relevant characteristics are to be taken into account: A measure of the nature and range of services provided; Number of medical specialties represented on the hospital staff; Percentage of Medicare inpatient days; Average daily census; Geographic differences; and Case mix, "when available." In response to the Legislature's mandate, the HCCB has adopted seven variables or characteristics. The variables selected by the HCCB include five hospital- specific (endogenous) variables and two geographic (exogenous variables). The variables are as follows: Endogenous Variables: Average occupied beds. Available services. Physician mix. Number of residents. Percent Medicare days. Exogenous Variables: Florida price level index. Personal income. The following findings of fact are made with regard to each of the specific characteristics required to be taken into account by the Legislature and the variables adopted by the HCCB: 1. A measure of the nature and range of services provided. The HCCB has provided in the Manual that "available services" or a service index will be considered. The specific services considered are listed on Table B, Chapter V, of the Manual. Table B also weights or provides a score for each of the various services listed. Each hospital gets the specified score if it has a particular service available. The available services listed are based upon a survey of hospital administrators and chief financial officers in New York, New York, made in the 1970's. Problems with the list of available services have been pointed out to the HCCB and its staff. The primary problem is that the volume of services provided is not taken into account. The problems with the service index, however, relate to the fact that the service index is a proxy for case mix. To date, there is no alternative available which would be a better proxy for case mix. The Legislature contemplated this fact by providing that a measure of the services provided by a hospital will be considered and that case mix will be taken into account "when available." Therefore, while there are "problems" with the service index, consideration of available services is mandated by the Legislature and there are no acceptable alternatives available use for by the HCCB. 2. Number of medical specialties represented on the hospital staff. 52. The HCCB has provided that a physician specialties mix be considered in grouping hospitals. This physician specialties mix is based upon a list of twenty- six specialties for which a hospital gets a single credit for each specialty available regardless of the number of physician specialists available in each specialty or the volume of patients admitted by a physician. 52. Like the service index, the physician specialties mix is a proxy for ease mix and has problems associated with its use. Also like the service index, consideration of this factor is mandated and there are no acceptable alternatives available for use by the HCCB. 3. Percentage of Medicare inpatient days. 53. The HCCB has provided that "percentage Medicare days be considered in grouping hospitals. Consideration of this variable has not been shown to be arbitrary and capricious. 4. Average daily census. 53. The HCCB has provided that "average occupied beds" is to be considered in grouping hospitals. It does not appear that this variable's use was proper, as discussed, infra. 5. Geographic differences. The HCCB has provided that geographic differences be considered in grouping hospitals by providing for the inclusion of the Florida price level index, by county, and median income, by county, as variables to be considered. The only thing that the evidence established with regard to these variables was that they are not "very good" predictors, that "if" they are intended as a measure of input prices they are "poor substitutes," and that there may be "better" measures of the cost of doing business. The evidence does not, however, show that the use of these variables is arbitrary and capricious. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact concerning geographic influences in part II, H of its proposed order. The proposed findings of fact begin on page 29 and end on page 33. Most of these proposed findings of fact are not made in this Final Order because they are not deemed relevant or material and are unnecessary to the resolution of this proceeding. The proposed findings of fact contained in part II, H of Mercy's proposed order purportedly show that the HCCB has inadequately accounted for geographic influences. The evidence does establish that the financial characteristics of Florida hospitals and GRAA are affected by the geographic location of a hospital. This is especially true in Florida because of the impact on parts of the State from tourism, language barriers, the number of elderly residents, the available labor markets, and competition. It is also true that the combined weights of the two geographic variables the HCCB has selected for consideration in the grouping methodology--the Florida price level index and median income--is only one-seventh of the combined weights of all the HCCB's variables. It is also true that the grouping methodology results in hospitals from different areas of the State being grouped together, i.e., Mercy's hospital group includes twenty- three hospitals, four of which are located in Dade County and three of which are located in Escambia County. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the HCCB has been arbitrary and capricious in designating only two variables to take into account geographic differences between hospitals. The evidence also does not support a conclusion that it was not proper for the HCCB to limit the weight of the geographic variables to one-seventh of the total weight of the variables. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the inclusion of hospitals from different areas of the State in the same group is not a proper result just because geographic influences are important. The fact that a large percentage of Dade County and south Florida hospitals do not qualify for automatic approval of their budgets under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), because they are in the upper 20th and the upper 50th to 79th percentiles does not necessarily prove that geographic influences have not been adequately accounted for either, as suggested be Mercy on page 30 of its proposed order. The evidence simply does not support such a conclusion. Nor does it necessarily follow that because Dade County hospitals are "efficient" in the minds of some of Mercy's witnesses and yet are unable to achieve automatic approval of their budgets that the grouping methodology does not adequately account for geographic influences, as suggested by Mercy on pages 30 and 31 of its proposed order. First, the Legislature has provided that factors other than geographic differences are to be considered, which the HCCB has provided for. It may therefore be that some Dade County hospitals do not achieve automatic approval of their budgets because of the other variables. The fact that not all Dade County hospitals fail to achieve automatic approval of their budgets supports such a conclusion. Also, even though a hospital's budget is not automatically approved it does not necessarily mean that it is considered inefficient. If that were the case, its budget would probably be subject automatically to amendment or disapproval. That is not the case. If a hospital's budget is not automatically approved its budget is subject to further review under Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). It may still be determined that the hospital is "efficient" based upon this review. The Legislature, in enacting Part II of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, did indicate that it intended to promote competition and efficiency among hospitals in order to contain hospital costs. Section 395.5025, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The grouping methodology and, in particular, the comparison of hospitals' GRAA under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), does not alone achieve that intent. Therefore the opinion of several of Mercy's witnesses that Dade County hospitals and in particular, Mercy, are efficient does not support a conclusion that the methodology is arbitrary and capricious or that geographic influences are not adequately considered. On pages 31 and 32 of its proposed order, Mercy suggests that Dade County hospitals only compete with other Dade County hospitals and therefore grouping hospitals from all sections of the State is illogical. In support of this suggestion, Mercy proposes findings of fact to the effect that the HCCB has recognized that consumers are interested in comparing hospital charges on a regional basis and has provided information about hospital cost on a county-by- county basis in the past. Mercy's proposed findings of fact are not accepted for essentially the same reasons that its proposed findings of fact with regard to the efficiency of hospitals were rejected. These proposed findings of fact do not support a finding that the HCCB's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious or that geographic differences have not been adequately taken into account. Mercy's has also proposed findings of fact with regard to geographic differences to the effect that after the Legislature specifically required that "geographic differences" be considered in an amendment to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1981), in 1982, the HCCB has not added any additional geographic factors to be considered. Although no additional geographic variables have been added, geographic variables have been reviewed and have been changed since 1982. More importantly, these proposed findings of fact do not prove that the existing variables are not adequate. 6. Case Mix. 66. Case mix is to be taken into account "when available." The evidence does not establish that case mix is available at this time. 7. Other variables. The HCCB is not limited to a consideration of the factors which the Legislature specifically provided are to be considered. Sections 395.507(2) and 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The only other variable the HCCB has provided for consideration is "number of residents." No evidence of significance concerning this variable was presented at the hearing. There was testimony at the hearing that there are other variables which would be appropriate for consideration in grouping hospitals. The evidence does not, however, establish that failure to consider other variables means that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is arbitrary and capricious. Dr. Zimmerman opined that he had determined that the variables selected by the HCCB were not appropriate. Dr. Zimmerman based his opinion upon the fact that he had conducted a "multiple regression analysis." According to Dr. Zimmerman, a "multiple regression analysis is a statistical procedure used to evaluate the relationship of a given set of independent, predictor variables (the HCCB's seven variables) to a single dependent variable (GRAA)." Based upon his application of multiple regression analysis, Dr. Zimmerman concluded that three of the variables used in the HCCB's grouping methodology are not statistically significant predictors of GRAA: available services, average occupied beds and median income. Two of these variables (available services and average occupied beds) are required by Sections 395.507(2) and 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), to be taken into account in the grouping methodology. These Sections also require that geographic factors, which median income is, be taken into account. This does not, however, mean that median income must be included as a variable by the HCCB. Dr. Meeter testified that the statistical significance of the HCCB's variables can be determined by the use of "log transformation." Based upon Dr. Meeter's use of log transformation, median income and available services are statistically significant variables; average occupied beds is not statistically significant. Although the HCCB was required to include "average daily census" as a factor in grouping hospitals, the HCCB was not required to use "average occupied beds." Based upon Dr. Zimmerman's and Dr. Meeter's testimony, the use of average occupied beds as a variable was not proper. Whether the use of available services and median income as variables was proper depends upon whether log transformation is a proper method of determining the statistical significance of variables. Although the evidence on this question was in conflict, it appears that the use of log transformation was proper. The inclusion of available services and median income is therefore not arbitrary and capricious. A second problem with the variables used by the HCCB suggested by Dr. Zimmerman involves the correlation between the seven predictor variables or "multicollinearity." The existence of multicollinearity can invalidate a clustering program. Dr. Zimmerman determined that the correlation between the physician mix, available services and average occupied beds variables and between the Florida price level index and median income variables is large enough that there is a "potential" problem. Dr. Zimmerman's determination that there is a "potential" problem was made through two techniques. He first used "paired correlation." Based upon paired correlation, Dr. Zimmerman used a "rule of thumb" that a paired correlation of 0.7 or higher should be looked at closer. Finding a paired correlation between physician mix, available services and average occupied beds of .74 and between the Florida price level index and median income of .71, Dr. Zimmerman then calculated "R squared" to determine if a potential problem did in fact exist. Dr. Zimmerman indicated that the calculation of R squared is the most highly recommended method of determining if multicollinearity is a problem but agreed there are other methods of making such a determination. Dr. Meeter indicated that Dr. Zimmerman's rule of thumb that based upon paired correlations of 0.7 or higher indicates the problem should be looked at more closely is too strict. Other than Dr. Zimmerman's "experience" (which according to Dr. Zimmerman, consisted of a class he took), Dr. Zimmerman did not cite any authority which supported his rule of thumb. The only other source Dr. Zimmerman referred to--the "SPSS" manual--only indicates that the .82-1.0 range indicates that extreme collinearity exists. Another problem raised by Dr. Meeter with Dr. Zimmerman's conclusions as to multicollinearity, involves the use of "variance inflation factors" (hereinafter referred to as VIF is another technique used by statisticians to determine if multicollinearity is a problem. Dr. Zimmerman did not look at VIF. VIF can be determined by transforming R squared: VIF 1/1- R2. A VIF in excess of 5 or 10 is an indication that multicollinearity exists. One source quoted by Dr. Meeter even indicates that a much higher VIF is necessary to conclude that multicollinerity exists. Transforming Dr. Zimmerman's R squared calculations indicates that VIF is in excess of 5 in only one instance. As discussed more fully, infra, Dr. Zimmerman used a number of alternative methods of grouping hospitals which he designated as "Schemes." Based upon Dr. Zimmerman's "Scheme 3," Dr. Zimmerman found an R squared value of .819. The VIF for an R squared value of .819 is in excess of 5. Scheme 3, however, is not an application of the HCCB's grouping methodology; it is a grouping methodology in which the variables are assigned different weights. As indicated by Dr. Meeter, the weights used in grouping can effect the correlation of the variables. Therefore, the fact that Scheme 3 indicates a possible multicollinearity problem does not prove that multicollinearity is in fact a problem with the HCCB's grouping methodology. Based upon the foregoing it is found that multicollinearity does not exist sufficiently to conclude that the variables used by the HCCB are arbitrary and capricious. Dr. Zimmerman only testified that there was a "potential" problem. Additionally, although multicollinearity may invalidate a clustering program, the evidence does not prove that the HCCB's clustering program is in fact invalid because of any existing "potential" problem. In light of the foregoing findings of fact, it is clear that the HCCB's variables are appropriate with the exception of average occupied beds. The fact that this one variable is not statistically significant, however, does not by itself support a finding that the grouping methodology is inappropriate. The Lack of Testing of the Grouping Methodology. A third point raised by Mercy is entitled "Lack of Testing" in its proposed order and includes several proposed findings of fact on pages 17 and 18 of Mercy's proposed order. Mercy has essentially proposed findings of fact that: (1) it had been recommended to the HCCB when it originally adopted its grouping methodology in 1980 that a statistician be hired to test the grouping methodology; (2) that the failure to do so had been criticized in the past; that it had been recommended that the HCCB obtain assistance of individuals knowledgeable in Florida hospital characteristics to evaluate the grouping process but had failed to do so; (4) that the HCCB had not, until just prior to the hearing of this case, hired a statistician; (5) that the HCCB has not used multiple regression analysis or within-cluster co- variance weighting; and, (6) that the State of Washington's State Hospital Commission has employed a statistician to test its methodology and has effectively been advised by individuals knowledgeable with Washington's hospital characteristics. These proposed findings of fact do not establish that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is arbitrary and capricious even if they were all correct findings of fact. All that these proposed findings of fact show is that the HCCB may not have gone about the adoption of its grouping methodology in the most appropriate manner. Any such shortcomings, based upon 20/20 hindsight, in the manner in which the methodology was adopted do not prove that the grouping methodology itself is not appropriate. Additionally, the evidence does not support all of these proposed findings. In particular, as was discussed, supra, the HCCB did in fact look to individuals knowledgeable in Florida hospital characteristics to evaluate its grouping methodology. The Weight of the Variables. The most significant and troublesome challenge made by Mercy to the HCCB's grouping methodology involves the weights assigned to the variables considered in grouping hospitals. The weights assigned by the HCCB to the seven HCCB variables are: Variable Weight Endogenous: Average occupied beds. 1.0 Available services. 2.0 Physician mix. 0.5 Number of residents. 0.5 Percent Medicare days. 2.0 Exogenous: Florida price level index. 0.5 Personal income. 0.5 The determination of whether the weights selected by the HCCB are arbitrary and capricious depends largely upon the evidence presented at the hearing by those witnesses knowledgeable in the field of statistics. Three witnesses were qualified as experts in statistically related fields. All three were well qualified in their fields and were credible and persuasive. According to Dr. Zimmerman, "the weights used currently by the HCCB are clearly inappropriate." In Mercy exhibit 17, Dr. Zimmerman reaches the following conclusion with regard to the HCCB's variable weights: These weights clearly do not reflect the relationship of the various variables to GRAA and thus appear as arbitrary and inappropriate for use in clustering hospitals on the basis of cost-related variables. Dr. Zimmerman's opinion is based upon the use of "multiple regression analysis," which, according to Mercy exhibit 17, "assesses the relationship of each of the predictor variables to the dependent measure (GRAA)." The evidence, however, does not support a finding of fact that multiple regression analysis is the only statistically valid method of establishing weights to be used in clustering analysis. In fact, there are a number of statistically valid methods of establishing variable weights. One of those acceptable methods is the "subjective" method which was used by the HCCB. Doctors Meeter and Fox substantiated this finding of fact. The use of the subjective method involves the participation of individuals knowledgable in the Florida hospital industry in reviewing and commenting on the weights used. The evidence clearly supports a finding that individuals with such knowledge participated in the process of developing the HCCB's grouping methodology including the selection of variable weights. Even one of Mercy's witnesses provided testimony which supports this conclusion: Mr. Kenneth G. McGee testified that "[i] t was just a trial and error process of changing weights until we ended up with something that people considered more reasonable than what had been produced in the past." Mercy has questioned Dr. Meeter's testimony with regard to the use of the subjective method of weighting variables based upon a number of proposed findings of fact. First, Mercy has proposed findings of fact to the effect that Dr. Meeter indicated that the subjective method is "bad" if not carefully applied. What Dr. Meeter actually said was that any method should be applied carefully. Secondly, Mercy has proposed a finding of fact that in a book relied upon by Dr. Meeter in rendering his opinion about the subjective method--John Hardigan's 1975 book, Clustering Algorithms--the author describes the subjective method as an "unsatisfactory" one. What Dr. Meeter's testimony proves is that Hardigan's comment was a tongue- in-cheek comment that there are several appropriate methods of weighting variables all of which are unsatisfactory, including regression analysis (used by Dr. Zimmerman) and the subjective method (use by the HCCB). Dr. Meeter also relied upon other statistical literature in rendering his opinion as to the use of the subjective method in determining variable weights. Finally, Mercy has suggested that Dr. Meeter did not undertake any independent "statistical" analysis which would support his opinions. Based upon the nature of Dr. Meeter's testimony, it does not appear that such a statistical analysis is a prerequisite to concluding that the use of the subjective method is an acceptable method of determining variable weights. Mercy has proposed a finding that the subjective method of weighting is inappropriate based upon Dr. Zimmerman's testimony. Dr. Zimmerman was asked the following questions and gave the following responses concerning the subjective method: Q Now, in your understanding of how the Board arrived at its weights, is it your opinion that that is totally inappropriate methodology for clustering? Yes or no or maybe? A I am looking to counsel for counsel here. MR. PARKER: Do you understand the questions? THE WITNESS: I do understand the question. And let me give you my full answer as I best understand it. The weights -- and I think what I have commented on at great length -- the weights used by the Hospital Cost Containment Board are clearly on statistical grounds inappropriate. There's no question about that. BY MR. COLLETTE: Now, on these clustering grounds, you testified as to your familiarity with clustering grounds, on clustering grounds, are they totally inappropriate? A If the question is -- I wouldn't say that. Hearing that there is no objection, I will continue. I would rule out the use of a purely subjective weighting scheme as a final solution for cluster analysis. I think it might be one that would be considered at a very early step, but never used, as kind of a preliminary idea. However, I would clearly rule out the use of a purely subjective weighting scheme as something to be proud of and actually put into application. So, if that means yes to your question, I guess yes in that specific way. Dr. Zimmerman's responses are not totally clear with regard to whether the subjective method is, in his opinion, an acceptable method of determining variable weights. Nor would his response, if totally clear, overcome the weight of the evidence in support of a conclusion that the HCCB's method of determining variable weights is not arbitrary and capricious. Alternative Methods of Grouping Hospitals. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact under a section of its proposed order entitled "Alternative Variables and Weights Indicated by Statistical Analyses." Pages 22 to 29 of Mercy's proposed order. Some of the proposed findings included therein have been dealt with in other portions of this Final Order, including those findings of fact dealing with the use of multiple regression analysis and multicollinearity. In Dr. Zimmerman's report (Mercy exhibit 17) and during his testimony a number of alternative methods of grouping hospitals were tested and evaluated. Dr. Zimmerman concluded that a number of these alternative methods would be preferable to the methodology adopted by the HCCB. Dr. Zimmerman tested twelve different methods (referred to as "Schemes" by Dr. Zimmerman): the HCCB's, the State of Washington's and ten other methods which used some or all of the seven variables designated by the HCCB. Scheme 3 used all seven variables selected by the HCCB but with different weights. Dr. Zimmerman rejected this scheme because of multicollinearity. In Scheme 4, Dr. Zimmerman used only the four variables which he found to be statistically significant: physician specialties mix, number of residents, percent Medicare days and the Florida price level index. Dr. Zimmerman recognized that this Scheme was not acceptable because of the statutory mandate as to the types of factors which must be taken into account. In order to recognize the requirement of Sections 395.507(2) and 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), that certain variables be taken into account and to alleviate the purported multicollinearity problem, Dr. Zimmerman combined the variables he considered highly correlated into two "scales." "Scale 1" combined physician specialties mix, available services and average occupied beds and "Scale 2" combined the Florida price level index and median income. The weights assigned to these scale were based upon the weights Dr. Zimmerman felt were more appropriate as discussed, supra. Dr. Zimmerman then used multiple regression analysis and a variety of combinations of variables and Scales in Schemes 6-12. Of these Schemes, Dr. Zimmerman testified that Schemes 6 and 10 were preferable, if Scheme 4 could not be used. Scheme 6 involved the use of all of the variables: percent Medicare days, number of residents and Scales 1 and 2. Scheme 10 involved the use of all of the variables except median income: percent Medicare days, number of residents, the Florida price level index and Scale 1. Dr. Zimmerman compared the results of using the HCCB's grouping methodology to the results from using Schemes 3,4,6 and 10. The results showed that more Dade County hospitals had GRAA's, in comparison to the hospitals in the resulting groups under Schemes 3,4,6 and 10, which would result in automatic approval of their budgets than under the HCCB's methodology. Mercy's position within its group also improved as a result of using Schemes 3,4,6 and 10. These proposed findings of and Mercy's proposed findings of fact concerning alternatives considered by Dr. Meeter do not prove that the HCCB's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious. As found, supra, six of the seven variables selected by the HCCB are reasonable. The weights assigned to those variables have also been found to be reasonable and Mercy's suggested findings of fact with regard to multicollinearity have been rejected. Mercy has failed to prove that the HCCB's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, any alternative methods or Schemes and the results of using such methods cannot and do not overcome such findings. Conclusions. Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that the bases for the opinions that the HCCB's grouping methodology is inappropriate are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Dr. Zimmerman's opinion, which was based upon a number of conclusions, was only supported by the fact that one of the variables selected by the HCCB is not proper. The evidence, however, does not support a finding that this fact alone means that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is inappropriate. The facts do not support a conclusion that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is arbitrary and capricious.
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 Rule 59C-1.038, the acute care bed need rule, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Whether this rule challenge should be dismissed as an untimely attack on a published fixed need pool.
Findings Of Fact In August 1994, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") published a numeric need of zero for additional acute care beds in AHCA District 9, Subdistrict 5, for southern Palm Beach County. Pursuant to Subsection 408.034(3), Florida Statutes, AHCA is the state agency responsible for establishing, by rule, uniform need methodologies for health services and facilities. In September 1994, NME Hospitals, Inc. d/b/a Delray Community Hospital, Inc. ("Delray") applied for a certificate of need ("CON") to add 24 acute care beds for a total construction cost of $4,608,260. AHCA published its intent to approve the application on January 20, 1995, in Volume 21, No. 3 of the Florida Administrative Weekly. By timely filing a petition, Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc. ("Bethesda") challenged AHCA's preliminary decision in DOAH Case No. 95-0730. Bethesda is also located in AHCA District 9, Subdistrict 5. On May 24, 1995, Bethesda also filed the petition in this case challenging Rule 59C-1.038, Florida Administrative Code, the acute care bed need rule. Pursuant to the acute care bed need rule, AHCA's August 1994 notice published its finding that zero additional acute care beds will be needed in the southern Palm Beach County subdistrict by July, 1999. The data, formulas, and calculations used in arriving at the number zero were not published. AHCA and Delray argue that the publication put persons on notice to inquire into the population data, occupancy rates, or the calculations leading to the published need number. An AHCA rule bars a person from seeking, and AHCA from making, any adjustments to the fixed need pool number if the person failed to notify AHCA of errors within ten days of publication. Still another rule defines "fixed need pool" as the " . . . numerical number, as published. " Bethesda is not contesting and, in fact, agrees that the fixed need pool number as published, zero, is correct. Using AHCA's definition of the fixed need pool, Bethesda's challenge is not barred because it failed to notify AHCA of an error in the fixed need pool number within 10 days of publication. Bethesda is challenging as irrational and invalid subsections (5), (6), and (7) of the acute care bed need rule. Subsection (5) directs the local health councils to determine subdistrict bed need consistent with the methodology for determining district bed need. Under that provision, total projected patient days of acute care needed in a district is calculated by adding together the projected patient care days needed in medical/surgical, intensive care, coronary care, obstetric, and pediatric beds. Each of these separate bed need projections is computed, in general, by multiplying projected population in the district for the appropriate age or gender group times a factor which is the product of the statewide discharge rate and the average length of stay for that particular type of care. After the total projected acute care patient days for district residents is computed, the number is adjusted to reflect historical patient flow patterns for acute care services, for out-of-state residents served in the district, for residents of other districts served in the district, and for residents of the district served outside the district. The rule includes specific percentages to apply for each patient flow group for each of the eleven districts. After the total number of beds needed in the district is derived, that number is decreased by the number of existing licensed or approved beds to get the number of additional acute care beds needed in the district, if any. Bethesda is challenging subsections (7)(a), (b), and (c) of the acute care rule, which authorize adjustments to the calculations from subsections (5) and (6) to achieve desired occupancy levels, based on historic utilization of acute care beds in a district. Bethesda is also seeking a determination that subsections 7(d) and (e) are invalid. Each of those subsections of the rule refer to (5)(b), although AHCA's expert witness testified that they should refer to (6)(b). Subsection (7)(d) requires at least 75 percent occupancy in all hospitals in the district before new acute care beds normally are approved, regardless of the net need projected by the formulas. Subsection (7)(e) allows approvals under special circumstances if net need is projected by the formulas and the applicant facility's occupancy rate equals or exceeds 75 percent. Subsection (7)(e), the provision directly related to the Delray application, is as follows: (e) Approval Under Special Circumstances. Regardless of the subdistrict's average annual occupancy rate, need for additional acute care beds at an existing hospital is demonstrated if a net need for beds is shown based on the formula described in paragraphs (5)(b), (7)(a), (b), (c), and (8)(a), (b), (c), and provided that the hospital's average occupancy rate for all licensed acute care beds is at or exceeds 75 percent. The determination of the average occupancy rate shall be made based on the average 12 months occupancy rate made available by the local health council two months prior to the beginning of the respective acute care hospital batching cycle. Phillip C. Rond, III, Ph.D., was the primary architect of the rule, beginning in 1981. The rule was initially published in 1982, and adopted in 1983. Constants in the rule formulas, including use rates, average lengths of stay, occupancy standards and patient flow patterns were taken from a 1979 survey of some state hospitals. Because data used for the constants in the formulas was expected to change, subsection (6) also provides, in pertinent part, that: Periodic updating of the statewide discharge rates, average lengths of stay and patient flow factors will be done as data becomes available through the institution of statewide utilization reporting mechanisms. Patient flow factors were updated in March 1984 to reflect a change in the realignment of counties in Districts 5 and 8. No other constants have been updated since the rule was adopted in June 1983. More current data is available. The Hospital Cost Containment Board ("HCCB") began collecting statewide hospital inpatient discharge data in the fourth quarter of 1987, which became available by the fall of 1988. AHCA now collects the data. Using the rule, the projected net need for acute care beds in 1999 in District 9 is 1,442 additional beds. By contrast, with the factors updated by Dr. Rond, the projected net need is a negative 723 or, in other words, District 9 has 723 more acute care beds than it will need in 1999. The updated formulas show a need for a total of 3,676 beds in District 9, which already has 4,399 licensed or approved acute care beds. Since 1983, hospital utilization has declined in both rates of admissions or discharges, and in average lengths of stay. Although the occupancy goals in the rule are 75 to 80 percent, depending on the type of hospital service, the occupancy rate achieved by using the number of beds projected by the rule methodology is 45 to 52 percent. The statewide occupancy rate in acute beds is approximately 50 percent in 49,215 licensed beds. The formulas in the rule show a statewide net need for 6,000 more beds in 1999, but updated constants in the same formulas result in a total statewide need for approximately 36,000 acute care beds in 1999, or 13,000 fewer beds than currently exist. Statewide utilization of acute care hospital beds declined from 1187.2 days per 1000 population in 1983 to 730.5 days per 1,000 in 1993, despite increases in the percentage of the elderly population. By 1987, AHCA's predecessor realized that the need methodology in the rule was grossly overestimating need and inconsistent with its health planning objectives. Subsection (7)(d) was added to the rule to avoid having a published fixed need based on the outdated methodology in subsections (5), (6) and 7(a)- (c). The occupancy data is also, as the 1987 amendment requires, that reported for the most recent 12 months, available 2 months before the scheduled application cycle. In August 1994, AHCA published a numeric need of zero for District 9, Subdistrict 5, rather than 1,442, the calculated net need predicted by the formulas in the rule, because all subdistrict hospital occupancy rates did not equal or exceed 75 percent. Elfie Stamm of AHCA, who is responsible for the publication of fixed need pools, confirmed that the 1987 amendment to the rule was an efficient and cost-effective way to avoid publishing need where there was no actual need. She confirmed Dr. Rond's conclusions that the formulas are no longer valid and produce excessive need numbers, as in projecting a need for 6,000 or 7,000 more acute care beds in the state. She also confirmed that none of the constants in the formula have been updated as required by subsection 6. Ms. Stamm claims that the information needed to update the formulas cannot be obtained easily from any statewide utilization reporting mechanism. One problem, according to Ms. Stamm, is the possibility of including patients in acute care beds with comprehensive rehabilitation, psychiatric, or substance abuse problems, although it is not lawful for acute care providers to place patients with these primary diagnoses in licensed acute care beds and all data bases have some miscoding of diagnoses. She also testified that some factors required in the formulas are not included in HCCB data base. In addition, she testified that AHCA is in the process of filing a notice to repeal the acute care bed need rule. The filing of the notice of repeal, published in Volume 21, Florida Administrative Week, pp. 4179-4180 (6/23/95) was confirmed by Bethesda's Request For Official Recognition, which was filed on July 20, 1995, and is granted. Ms. Stamm also noted that rules for other need-based health services have facility-specific special circumstances provisions, which are not tied to numerical need, otherwise the special circumstances are not really facility- specific. Need rules make no sense, according to Ms. Stamm, without an exception in the absence of a determination of need. Subsection (7)(e) of the acute care rule requires a finding of numeric need and a 75 percent occupancy rate at the applicant facility. Ms. Stamm's records indicate that AHCA's predecessor adopted the facility-specific provisions tied to net need at the same time it adopted the 75 percent average district occupancy standard to overcome the problems with the net need formula. AHCA asserts that the admittedly irrational need methodology when combined with the 1987 amendment achieves a rational result. Because the need methodology always over estimates numeric need, facilities exceeding 75 percent occupancy have an opportunity to demonstrate special circumstances. Daniel Sullivan, Delray's expert, also testified that problems exist in extracting acute care bed from specialty bed utilization data, in hospitals which have both. He also agreed with Ms. Stamm that the 1987 amendment corrects the erroneous projections of the formula to give a rational outcome from the rule as a whole when not all hospitals in a subdistrict equal or exceed 75 percent occupancy and when one hospital, over 75 percent occupancy, attempts to establish a special circumstance, despite the fact that the need methodology itself is always wrong in projecting numeric need. Ms. Stamm testified that one district is approaching 75 percent occupancy in all hospitals. Mr. Sullivan testified that, if and when that occurs, then the formula is intended to, but does not, reflect the number of additional beds needed. An alternative methodology is required to determine bed need. AHCA, with its responsibility for the data base formerly collected by the HCCB, receives discharge data and financial worksheets from every hospital in the state. The claim that AHCA cannot update the formulas because its data may be unreliable is rejected as not credible. The data now available is more reliable than the 1979 data used in developing the rule, which was not collected from a formalized statewide reporting system, but from a sample of hospitals. The claim that AHCA cannot use its data base from mandatory statewide reporting mechanisms to extract the data needed to update the formulas is also rejected. The rule contemplated ". . .the institution of statewide utilization reporting mechanisms." Dr. Rond's work to update the formulas before the final hearing began on May 23, 1995. Dr. Rond used a total of approximately 1.5 million acute care discharges from the AHCA (formerly, HCCB) data base for the 1992 calendar year. At the time of the final hearing, Dr. Rond had not separated days of care for medical/surgical, intensive and coronary care. The data can be taken from hospital financial data, including detailed budget worksheets which are submitted to AHCA. Separate data are anticipated in the formula because the computation of need for the different bed categories is based on different occupancy goals. For medical/surgical and intensive care beds, the goal is 80 percent occupancy, but it is 75 percent for coronary care for persons age 0 to 64. For persons 65 and older, the rule applies a combined occupancy standard of 79.7 percent for all three bed categories, which assumes that approximately 4 percent of the combined days of older patients will be spent in coronary care. Dr. Rond reasonably applied the 79.7 percent occupancy standard to the combined days for persons under 65, in arriving at the total district bed need for 3,676 beds. To check these results and to assume a worse case scenario of all patient days attributable to coronary care beds, for which more beds are needed to maintain a lower occupancy, Dr. Rond worked the formula using 75 percent occupancy as the goal for medical/surgical, intensive and care coronary care beds combined. Although the base number increased by 100, the calculations and adjustments in the rule yielded the same number of total acute care beds needed in the district, 3,676. That reliably confirms that the maximum number of acute care beds needed in District 9 is 3,676 by 1999. AHCA could use its data base to update formulas and achieve rational results in the rule by using the hospital financial data to distinguish coronary care days for patients 0-64 to include in the formula, or by using a rational blended occupancy standard in a rule amending the existing methodology. AHCA demonstrated that the 1987 amendment overrides the exaggerated numeric need number to yield a rational published fixed need pool in the absence of 75 percent occupancy in all acute care beds in a subdistrict. AHCA also demonstrated that because the projected need is always excessive under the formula, hospitals are allowed to demonstrate special circumstances, although it is absurd to include a requirement of numeric need in a provision for special circumstances. AHCA's claim that the excessive need projection is, therefore, irrelevant is rejected. Net need under the rule formula fails to give any rational indication of the number of beds needed when all hospitals in a subdistrict reach 75 percent occupancy.
The Issue Whether the certificate of need (CON) applications filed by New Port Richey Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Community Hospital of New Port Richey (Community Hospital) (CON No. 9539), and Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc., d/b/a North Bay Hospital (North Bay) (CON No. 9538), each seeking to replace and relocate their respective general acute care hospital, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule criteria.
Findings Of Fact The Parties AHCA AHCA is the single state agency responsible for the administration of the CON program in Florida pursuant to Chapter 408, Florida Statutes (2000). The agency separately reviewed and preliminarily approved both applications. Community Hospital Community Hospital is a 300,000 square feet, accredited hospital with 345 licensed acute care beds and 56 licensed adult psychiatric beds, located in southern New Port Richey, Florida, within Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital is seeking to construct a replacement facility approximately five miles to the southeast within a rapidly developing suburb known as "Trinity." Community Hospital currently provides a wide array of comprehensive inpatient and outpatient services and is the only provider of obstetrical and adult psychiatric services in Sub-District 5-1. It is the largest provider of emergency services in Pasco County with approximately 35,000 visits annually. It is also the largest provider of Medicaid and indigent patient days in Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital was originally built in 1969 and is an aging facility. Although it has been renovated over time, the hospital is in poor condition. Community Hospital's average daily census is below 50 percent. North Bay North Bay is a 122-bed facility containing 102 licensed acute care beds and 20 licensed comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds, located approximately one mile north of Community Hospital in Sub-District 5-1. It serves a large elderly population and does not provide pediatric or obstetrical care. North Bay is also an aging facility and proposes to construct a replacement facility in the Trinity area. Notably, however, North Bay has spent approximately 12 million dollars over the past three years for physical improvements and is in reasonable physical condition. Helen Ellis Helen Ellis is an accredited hospital with 150 licensed acute care beds and 18 licensed skilled nursing unit beds. It is located in northern Pinellas County, approximately eight miles south of Community Hospital and nine miles south of North Bay. Helen Ellis provides a full array of acute care services including obstetrics and cardiac catheterization. Its daily census average has fluctuated over the years but is approximately 45 percent. Mease Mease operates two acute care hospitals in Pinellas County including Mease Dunedin Hospital, located approximately 18 to 20 miles south of the applicants and Mease Countryside Hospital, located approximately 16 to 18 miles south of Community and North Bay. Each hospital operates 189 licensed beds. The Mease hospitals are located in the adjacent acute care sub-district but compete with the applicants. The Health Planning District AHCA's Health Planning District 5 consists of Pinellas and Pasco Counties. U.S. Highway 41 runs north and south through the District and splits Pasco County into Sub- District 5-1 and Sub-District 5-2. Sub-District 5-1, where Community Hospital and North Bay are located, extends from U.S. 41 west to the Gulf Coast. Sub-District 5-2 extends from U.S. 41 to the eastern edge of Pasco County. Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in Florida and steadily grows at 5.52 percent per year. On the other hand, its neighbor to the north, Pasco County, has been experiencing over 15 percent annual growth in population. The evidence demonstrates that the area known as Trinity, located four to five miles southeast of New Port Richey, is largely responsible for the growth. With its large, single- owner land tracts, Trinity has become the area's fuel for growth, while New Port Richey, the older coastal anchor which houses the applicants' facilities, remains static. In addition to the available land in Trinity, roadway development in the southwest section of Pasco County is further fueling growth. For example, the Suncoast Highway, a major highway, was recently extended north from Hillsborough County through Sub-District 5-1, west of U.S. 41. It intersects with several large east-west thoroughfares including State Road 54, providing easy highway access to the Tampa area. The General Proposals Community Hospital's Proposal Community Hospital's CON application proposes to replace its existing, 401-bed hospital with a 376-bed state- of-the-art facility and relocate it approximately five miles to the southeast in the Trinity area. Community Hospital intends to construct a large medical office adjacent to its new facility and provide all of its current services including obstetrical care. It does not intend to change its primary service area. North Bay's Proposal North Bay's CON application proposes to replace its existing hospital with a 122-bed state-of-the-art facility and also plans to relocate it approximately eight miles to the southeast in the Trinity area of southwestern Pasco County. North Bay intends to provide the same array of services it currently offers its patients and will not provide pediatric and obstetrical care in the proposed facility. The proposed relocation site is adjacent to the Trinity Outpatient Center which is owned by North Bay's parent company, Morton Plant. The Outpatient Center offers a full range of diagnostic imaging services including nuclear medicine, cardiac nuclear stress testing, bone density scanning, CAT scanning, mammography, ultrasound, as well as many others. It also offers general and specialty ambulatory surgical services including urology; ear, nose and throat; ophthalmology; gastroenterology; endoscopy; and pain management. Approximately 14 physician offices are currently located at the Trinity Outpatient Center. The Condition of Community Hospital Facility Community Hospital's core facilities were constructed between 1969 and 1971. Additions to the hospital were made in 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1992, and 1999. With an area of approximately 294,000 square feet and 401 licensed beds, or 733 square feet per bed, Community Hospital's gross area-to-bed ratio is approximately half of current hospital planning standards of 1,600 square feet per bed. With the exception of the "E" wing which was completed in 1999, all of the clinical and support departments are undersized. Medical-Surgical Beds And Intensive Care Units Community Hospital's "D" wing, constructed in 1975, is made up of two general medical-surgical unit floors which are grossly undersized. Each floor operates 47 general medical-surgical beds, 24 of which are in three-bed wards and 23 in semi-private rooms. None of the patient rooms in the "D" wing have showers or tubs so the patients bathe in a single facility located at the center of the wing on each floor. Community Hospital's "A" wing, added in 1973, is situated at the west end of the second floor and is also undersized. It too has a combination of semi-private rooms and three-bed wards without showers or tubs. Community Hospital's "F" wing, added in 1979, includes a medical-surgical unit on the second and third floor, each with semi-private and private rooms. The second floor unit is centrally located between a 56-bed adult psychiatric unit and the Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU) which creates security and privacy issues. The third floor unit is adjacent to the Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU) which must be accessed through the medical-surgical unit. Neither intensive care unit (ICU) possesses an isolation area. Although the three-bed wards are generally restricted to in-season use, and not always full, they pose significant privacy, security, safety, and health concerns. They fail to meet minimum space requirements and are a serious health risk. The evidence demonstrates that reconfiguring the wards would be extremely costly and impractical due to code compliance issues. The wards hinder the hospital's acute care utilization, and impair its ability to effectively compete with other hospitals. Surgical Department and Recovery Community Hospital's surgical department is separated into two locations including the main surgical suite on the second floor and the Endoscopy/Pain Management unit located on the first floor of "C" wing. Consequently, the department cannot share support staff and space such as preparation and recovery. The main surgical suite, adjacent recovery room, and central sterile processing are 25 years old. This unit's operating rooms, cystoscopy rooms, storage areas, work- stations, central sterile, and recovery rooms are undersized and antiquated. The 12-bay Recovery Room has no patient toilet and is lacking storage. The soiled utility room is deficient. In addition, the patient bays are extremely narrow and separated by curtains. There is no direct connection to the sterile corridor, and staff must break the sterile field to transport patients from surgery to recovery. Moreover, surgery outpatients must pass through a major public lobby going to and returning from surgery. The Emergency Department Community Hospital's existing emergency department was constructed in 1992 and is the largest provider of hospital emergency services in Pasco County, handling approximately 35,000 visits per year. The hospital is also designated a "Baker Act" receiving facility under Chapter 394, Florida Statutes, and utilizes two secure examination rooms for emergent psychiatric patients. At less than 8,000 total square feet, the emergency department is severely undersized to meet the needs of its patients. The emergency department is currently undergoing renovation which will connect the triage area to the main emergency department. The renovation will not enlarge the entrance, waiting area, storage, nursing station, nor add privacy to the patient care areas in the emergency department. The renovation will not increase the total size of the emergency department, but in fact, the department's total bed availability will decrease by five beds. Similar to other departments, a more meaningful renovation cannot occur within the emergency department without triggering costly building code compliance measures. In addition to its space limitations, the emergency department is awkwardly located. In 1992, the emergency department was relocated to the front of the hospital and is completely separated from the diagnostic imaging department which remained in the original 1971 building. Consequently, emergency patients are routinely transported across the hospital for imaging and CT scans. Issues Relating to Replacement of Community Hospital Although physically possible, renovating and expanding Community Hospital's existing facility is unreasonable. First, it is cost prohibitive. Any significant renovation to the 1971, 1975, 1977, and 1979 structures would require asbestos abatement prior to construction, at an estimated cost of $1,000,000. In addition, as previously noted, the hospital will be saddled with the major expense of complying with all current building code requirements in the 40-year-old facility. Merely installing showers in patient rooms would immediately trigger a host of expensive, albeit necessary, code requirements involving access, wiring, square footage, fireproofing columns and beams, as well as floor/ceiling and roof/ceiling assemblies. Concurrent with the significant demolition and construction costs, the hospital will experience the incalculable expense and loss of revenue related to closing major portions, if not all, of the hospital. Second, renovation and expansion to the existing facility is an unreasonable option due to its physical restrictions. The 12'4" height of the hospital's first floor limits its ability to accommodate HVAC ductwork large enough to meet current ventilation requirements. In addition, there is inadequate space to expand any department within the confines of the existing hospital without cannibalizing adjacent areas, and vertical expansion is not an option. Community Hospital's application includes a lengthy Facility Condition Assessment which factually details the architectural, mechanical, and electrical deficiencies of the hospital's existing physical plant. The assessment is accurate and reasonable. Community Hospital's Proposed Replacement Community Hospital proposes to construct a six- story, 320 licensed beds, acute care replacement facility. The hospital will consist of 548,995 gross square feet and include a 56-bed adult psychiatric unit connected by a hallway to the first floor of the main hospital building. The proposal also includes the construction of an adjacent medical office building to centralize the outpatient offices and staff physicians. The evidence establishes that the deficiencies inherent in Community Hospital's existing hospital will be cured by its replacement hospital. All patients will be provided large private rooms. The emergency department will double in size, and contain private examination rooms. All building code requirements will be met or exceeded. Patients and staff will have separate elevators from the public. In addition, the surgical department will have large operating rooms, and adequate storage. The MICU and SICU will be adjacent to each other on the second floor to avoid unnecessary traffic within the hospital. Surgical patients will be transported to the ICU via a private elevator dedicated to that purpose. Medical-surgical patient rooms will be efficiently located on the third through sixth floors, in "double-T" configuration. Community Hospital's Existing and Proposed Sites Community Hospital is currently located on a 23-acre site inside the southern boundary of New Port Richey. Single- family homes and offices occupy the two-lane residential streets that surround the site on all sides. The hospital buildings are situated on the northern half of the site, with the main parking lot located to the south, in front of the main entrance to the hospital. Marine Parkway cuts through the southern half of the site from the west, and enters the main parking lot. A private medical mall sits immediately to the west of the main parking lot and a one-acre storm-water retention pond sits to the west of the mall. A private medical office building occupies the south end of the main parking lot and a four-acre drainage easement is located in the southwest corner of the site. Community Hospital's administration has actively analyzed its existing site, aging facility, and adjacent areas. It has commissioned studies by civil engineers, health care consultants, and architects. The collective evidence demonstrates that, although on-site relocation is potentially an option, on balance, it is not a reasonable option. Replacing Community Hospital on its existing site is not practical for several reasons. First, the hospital will experience significant disruption and may be required to completely close down for a period of time. Second, the site's southwestern large four-acre parcel is necessary for storm-water retention and is unavailable for expansion. Third, a reliable cost differential is unknown given Community Hospital's inability to successfully negotiate with the city and owners of the adjacent medical office complexes to acquire additional parcels. Fourth, acquiring other adjacent properties is not a viable option since they consist of individually owned residential lots. In addition to the site's physical restrictions, the site is hindered by its location. The hospital is situated in a neighborhood between small streets and a local school. From the north and south, motorists utilize either U.S. 19, a congested corridor that accommodates approximately 50,000 vehicles per day, or Grand and Madison Streets, two-lane streets within a school zone. From the east and west, motorists utilize similar two-lane neighborhood streets including Marine Parkway, which often floods in heavy rains. Community Hospital's proposed site, on the other hand, is a 53-acre tract positioned five miles from its current facility, at the intersection of two major thoroughfares in southwestern Pasco County. The proposed site offers ample space for all facilities, parking, outpatient care, and future expansion. In addition, Community Hospital's proposed site provides reasonable access to all patients within its existing primary service area made up of zip codes 34652, 34653, 34668, 34655, 34690, and 34691. For example, the average drive times from the population centers of each zip code to the existing site of the hospital and the proposed site are as follows: Zip code Difference Existing site Proposed site 34652 3 minutes 14 minutes 11 minutes 34653 8 minutes 11 minutes 3 minutes 34668 15 minutes 21 minutes 6 minutes 34655 11 minutes 4 minutes -7 minutes 34690 11 minutes 13 minutes 2 minutes 34691 11 minutes 17 minutes 6 minutes While the average drive time from the population centroids of zip codes 34653, 34668, 34690, and 34691 to the proposed site slightly increases, it decreases from the Trinity area, where population growth has been most significant in southwestern Pasco County. In addition, a motorist's average drive time from Community Hospital's existing location to its proposed site is only 10 to 11 minutes, and patients utilizing public transportation will be able to access the new hospital via a bus stop located adjacent to the proposed site. The Condition of North Bay Facility North Bay Hospital is also an aging facility. Its original structure and portions of its physical plant are approximately 30 years old. Portions of its major mechanical systems will soon require replacement including its boilers, air handlers, and chillers. In addition, the hospital is undersized and awkwardly configured. Despite its shortcomings, however, North Bay is generally in good condition. The hospital has been consistently renovated and updated over time and is aesthetically pleasing. Moreover, its second and third floors were added in 1986, are in good shape, and structurally capable of vertical expansion. Medical Surgical Beds and ICU Units By-in-large, North Bay is comprised of undersized, semi-private rooms containing toilet and shower facilities. The hospital does not have any three-bed wards. North Bay's first floor houses all ancillary and support services including lab, radiology, pharmacy, surgery, pre-op, post-anesthesia recovery, central sterile processing and supply, kitchen and cafeteria, housekeeping and administration, as well as the mechanical, electrical, and facilities maintenance and engineering. The first floor also contains a 20-bed CMR unit and a 15-bed acute care unit. North Bay's second and third floors are mostly comprised of semi-private rooms and supporting nursing stations. Although the rooms and stations are not ideally sized, they are in relatively good shape. North Bay utilizes a single ICU with ten critical care beds. The ICU rooms and nursing stations are also undersized. A four-bed ICU ward and former nursery are routinely used to serve overflow patients. Surgery Department and Recovery North Bay utilizes a single pre-operative surgical room for all of its surgery patients. The room accommodates up to five patient beds, but has limited space for storage and pre-operative procedures. Its operating rooms are sufficiently sized. While carts and large equipment are routinely stored in hallways throughout the surgical suite, North Bay has converted the former obstetrics recovery room to surgical storage and has made efficient use of other available space. North Bay operates a small six-bed Post Anesthesia Care Unit. Nurses routinely prepare patient medications in the unit which is often crowded with staff and patients. The Emergency Department North Bay has recently expanded its emergency department. The evidence demonstrates that this department is sufficient and meets current and future expected patient volumes. Replacement Issues Relating to North Bay While it is clear that areas of North Bay's physical plant are aging, the facility is in relatively good condition. It is apparent that North Bay must soon replace significant equipment, including cast-iron sewer pipes, plumbing, boilers, and chillers which will cause some interruption to hospital operations. However, North Bay's four-page written assessment of the facility and its argument citing the need for total replacement is, on balance, not persuasive. North Bay's Proposed Replacement North Bay proposes to construct a new, state-of-the- art, hospital approximately eight miles southeast of its existing facility and intends to offer the identical array of services the hospital currently provides. North Bay's Existing and Proposed Sites North Bay's existing hospital is located on an eight-acre site with limited storm-water drainage capacity. Consequently, much of its parking area is covered by deep, porous, gravel instead of asphalt. North Bay's existing site is generally surrounded by residential properties. While the city has committed, in writing, it willingness to assist both applicants with on-site expansion, it is unknown whether North Bay can acquire additional adjacent property. North Bay's proposed site is located at the intersection of Trinity Oaks Boulevard and Mitchell Boulevard, south of Community Hospital's proposed site, and is quite spacious. It contains sufficient land for the facilities, parking, and future growth, and has all necessary infrastructure in place, including utility systems, storm- water structures, and roadways. Currently however, there is no public transportation service available to North Bay's proposed site. Projected Utilization by Applicants The evidence presented at hearing indicates that, statewide, replacement hospitals often increase a provider's acute care bed utilization. For example, Bartow Memorial Hospital, Heart of Florida Regional Medical Center, Lake City Medical Center, Florida Hospital Heartland Medical Center, South Lake Hospital, and Florida Hospital-Fish Memorial each experienced significant increases in utilization following the opening of their new hospital. The applicants in this case each project an increase in utilization following the construction of their new facility. Specifically, Community Hospital's application projects 82,685 total hospital patient days (64,427 acute care patient days) in year one (2006) of the operation of its proposed replacement facility, and 86,201 total hospital patient days (67,648 acute care patient days) in year two (2007). Using projected 2006 and 2007 population estimates, applying 2002 acute care hospital use rates which are below 50 percent, and keeping Community Hospital's acute care market share constant at its 2002 level, it is reasonably estimated that Community Hospital's existing hospital will experience 52,623 acute care patient days in 2006, and 53,451 acute care patient days in 2007. Consequently, Community Hospital's proposed facility must attain 11,804 additional acute care patient days in 2006, and 14,197 more acute care patient days in 2007, in order to achieve its projected acute care utilization. Although Community Hospital lost eight percent of the acute care market in its service area between 1995 and 2002, two-thirds of that loss was due to residents of Sub- District 5-1 acquiring services in another area. While Community Hospital experienced 78,444 acute care patient days in 1995, it projects only 64,427 acute care patient days in year one. Given the new facility and population factors, it is reasonable that the hospital will recapture half of its lost acute care market share and achieve its projections. With respect to its psychiatric unit, Community Hospital projects 16,615 adult psychiatric inpatient days in year one (2006) and 17,069 adult inpatient days in year two (2007) of the proposed replacement hospital. The evidence indicates that these projections are reasonable. Similarly, North Bay's acute care utilization rate has been consistently below 50 percent. Since 1999, the hospital has experienced declining utilization. In its application, North Bay states that it achieved total actual acute care patient days of 21,925 in 2000 and 19,824 in 2001 and the evidence at hearing indicates that North Bay experienced 17,693 total acute care patient days in 2002. North Bay projects 25,909 acute care patient days in the first year of operation of its proposed replacement hospital, and 27,334 acute care patient days in the second year of operation. Despite each applicant's current facility utilization rate, Community Hospital must increase its current acute care patient days by 20 percent to reach its projected utilization, and North Bay must increase its patient days by at least 50 percent. Given the population trends, service mix and existing competition, the evidence demonstrates that it is not possible for both applicants to simultaneously achieve their projections. In fact, it is strongly noted that the applicants' own projections are predicated upon only one applicant being approved and cannot be supported with the approval of two facilities. Local Health Plan Preferences In its local health plan for District 5, the Suncoast Health Council, Inc., adopted acute care preferences in October, 2000. The replacement of an existing hospital is not specifically addressed by any of the preferences. However, certain acute care preferences and specialty care preferences are applicable. The first applicable preference provides that preference "shall be given to an applicant who proposes to locate a new facility in an area that will improve access for Medicaid and indigent patients." It is clear that the majority of Medicaid and indigent patients live closer to the existing hospitals. However, Community Hospital proposes to move 5.5 miles from its current location, whereas North Bay proposes to move eight miles from its current location. While the short distances alone are less than significant, North Bay's proposed location is further removed from New Port Richey, is not located on a major highway or bus-route, and would therefore be less accessible to the medically indigent residents. Community Hospital's proposed site will be accessible using public transportation. Furthermore, Community Hospital has consistently provided excellent service to the medically indigent and its proposal would better serve that population. In 2000, Community Hospital provided 7.4 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients and 0.8 percent of its total patient days to charity patients. Community Hospital provided the highest percentage and greatest number of Medicaid patient days in Sub-District 5-1. By comparison, North Bay provided 5.8 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients and 0.9 percent of its total patient days to charity patients. In 2002, North Bay's Medicaid patients days declined to 3.56 percent. Finally, given the closeness and available bed space of the existing providers and the increasing population in the Trinity area, access will be improved by Community Hospital's relocation. The second local health plan preference provides that "[i]n cases where an applicant is a corporation with previously awarded certificates of need, preference shall be given to those which follow through in a timely manner to construct and operate the additional facilities or beds and do not use them for later negotiations with other organizations seeking to enter or expand the number of beds they own or control." Both applicants meet this preference. The third local health plan preference recognizes "Certificate of Need applications that provide AHCA with documentation that they provide, or propose to provide, the largest percentage of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals in the sub-district." Community Hospital provides the largest percentage of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals in Sub-District 5-1, and therefore meets this preference. The fourth local health plan preference applies to "Certificate of Need applications that demonstrate intent to serve HIV/AIDS infected persons." Both applicants accept and treat HIV/AIDS infected persons, and would continue to do so in their proposed replacement hospitals. The fifth local health plan preference recognizes "Certificate of Need applications that commit to provide a full array of acute care services including medical-surgical, intensive care, pediatric, and obstetrical services within the sub-district for which they are applying." Community Hospital qualifies since it will continue to provide its current services, including obstetrical care and psychiatric care, in its proposed replacement hospital. North Bay discontinued its pediatric and obstetrical programs in 2001, does not intend to provide them in its proposed replacement hospital, and will not provide psychiatric care. Agency Rule Preferences Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.038(6) provides an applicable preference to a facility proposing "new acute care services and capital expenditures" that has "a documented history of providing services to medically indigent patients or a commitment to do so." As the largest Medicaid provider in Sub-District 5-1, Community Hospital meets this preference better than does North Bay. North Bay's history demonstrates a declining rate of service to the medically indigent. Statutory Review Criteria Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes: The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed in relation to the applicable district health plan District 5 includes Pasco and Pinellas County. Pasco County is rapidly developing, whereas Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in Florida. Given the population trends, service mix, and utilization rates of the existing providers, on balance, there is a need for a replacement hospital in the Trinity area. Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes: The availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant Community Hospital and North Bay are both located in Sub-District 5-1. Each proposes to relocate to an area of southwestern Pasco County which is experiencing explosive population growth. The other general acute care hospital located in Sub-District 5-1 is Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point, which is located further north, in the Hudson area of western Pasco County. The only other acute care hospitals in Pasco County are East Pasco Medical Center, in Zephyrhills, and Pasco Community Hospital, in Dade City. Those hospitals are located in Sub-District 5-2, east Pasco County, far from the area proposed to be served by either Community Hospital or North Bay. District 5 includes Pinellas County as well as Pasco County. Helen Ellis and Mease are existing hospital providers located in Pinellas County. Helen Ellis has 168 licensed beds, consisting of 150 acute care beds and an 18-bed skilled nursing unit, and is located 7.9 miles from Community Hospital's existing location and 10.8 miles from Community Hospital's proposed location. Access to Helen Ellis for patients originating from southwestern Pasco County requires those patients to travel congested U.S. 19 south to Tarpon Springs. As a result, the average drive time from Community Hospital's existing and proposed site to Helen Ellis is approximately 22 minutes. Helen Ellis is not a reasonable alternative to Community Hospital's proposal. The applicants' proposals are specifically designed for the current and future health care needs of southwestern Pasco County. Given its financial history, it is unknown whether Helen Ellis will be financially capable of providing the necessary care to the residents of southwestern Pasco. Mease Countryside Hospital has 189 licensed acute care beds. It is located 16.0 miles from Community Hospital's existing location and 13.8 miles from Community Hospital's proposed location. The average drive time to Mease Countryside is 32 minutes from Community Hospital's existing site and 24 minutes from its proposed site. In addition, Mease Countryside Hospital has experienced extremely high utilization over the past several years, in excess of 90 percent for calendar years 2000 and 2001. Utilization at Mease Countryside Hospital has remained over 80 percent despite the addition of 45 acute care beds in April 2002. Given the growth and demand, it is unknown whether Mease can accommodate the residents in southwest Pasco County. Mease Dunedin Hospital has 189 licensed beds, consisting of 149 acute care beds, a 30-bed skilled nursing unit, five Level 2 neonatal intensive care beds, and five Level 3 neonatal intensive care beds. Its former 15-bed adult psychiatric unit has been converted into acute care beds. It is transferring its entire obstetrics program at Mease Dunedin Hospital to Mease Countryside Hospital. Mease Dunedin Hospital is located approximately 18 to 20 miles from the applicants' existing and proposed locations with an average drive time of 35-38 minutes. With their remote location, and the exceedingly high utilization at Mease Countryside Hospital, neither of the two Mease hospitals is a viable alternative to the applicants' proposals. In addition, the construction of a replacement hospital would positively impact economic development and further attract medical professionals to Sub-District 5-1. On balance, given the proximity, utilization, service array, and accessibility of the existing providers, including the applicants, the relocation of Community Hospital will enhance access to health care to the residents. Section 408.035(3), Florida Statutes: The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care As stipulated, both applicants provide excellent quality of care. However, Community Hospital's proposal will better enhance its ability to provide quality care. Community is currently undersized, non-compliant with today's standards, and located on a site that does not allow for reasonable expansion. Its emergency department is inadequate for patient volume, and the configuration of the first floor leads to inefficiencies in the diagnosis and treatment of emergency patients. Again, most inpatients are placed in semi-private rooms and three-bed wards, with no showers or tubs, little privacy, and an increased risk of infection. The hospital's waiting areas for families of patients are antiquated and undersized, its nursing stations are small and cramped and the operating rooms and storage facilities are undersized. Community Hospital's deficiencies will be effectively eliminated by its proposed replacement hospital. As a result, patients will experience qualitatively better care by the staff who serve them. Conversely, North Bay is in better physical condition and not in need of replacement. It has more reasonable options to expand or relocate its facility on site. Quality of care at North Bay will not be markedly enhanced by the construction of a new hospital. Sections 408.035(4)and(5), Florida Statutes, have been stipulated as not applicable in this case. Section 408.035(6), Florida Statutes: The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds available for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation The parties stipulated that both Community Hospital and North Bay have available health personnel and management personnel for project accomplishment and operation. In addition, the evidence proves that both applicants have sufficient funds for capital and operating expenditures. Community Hospital proposes to rely on its parent company to finance the project. Keith Giger, Vice-President of Finance for HCA, Inc., Community Hospital's parent organization, provided credible deposition testimony that HCA, Inc., will finance 100 percent of the total project cost by an inter-company loan at eight percent interest. Moreover, it is noted that the amount to be financed is actually $20 million less than the $196,849,328 stated in the CON Application, since Community Hospital previously purchased the proposed site in June 2003 with existing funds and does not need to finance the land acquisition. Community Hospital has sufficient working capital for operating expenditures of the proposed replacement hospital. North Bay, on the other hand, proposes to acquire financing from BayCare Obligated Group which includes Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc.; Mease; and several other hospital entities. Its proposal, while feasible, is less certain since member hospitals must approve the indebtedness, thereby providing Mease with the ability to derail North Bay's proposed bond financing. Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes: The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district The evidence proves that either proposal will enhance geographical access to the growing population in the service district. However, with its provision of obstetrical services, Community Hospital is better suited to address the needs of the younger community. With respect to financial access, both proposed relocation sites are slightly farther away from the higher elderly and indigent population centers. Since the evidence demonstrates that it is unreasonable to relocate both facilities away from the down-town area, Community Hospital's proposal, on balance, provides better access to poor patients. First, public transportation will be available to Community Hospital's site. Second, Community Hospital has an excellent record of providing care to the poor and indigent and has accepted the agency's condition to provide ten percent of its total annual patient days to Medicaid recipients To the contrary, North Bay's site will not be accessible by public transportation. In addition, North Bay has a less impressive record of providing care to the poor and indigent. Although AHCA conditioned North Bay's approval upon it providing 9.7 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid and charity patients, instead of the 9.7 percent of gross annual revenue proposed in its application, North Bay has consistently provided Medicaid and charity patients less than seven percent of its total annual patient days. Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes: The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal Immediate financial feasibility refers to the availability of funds to capitalize and operate the proposal. See Memorial Healthcare Group, Ltd. d/b/a Memorial Hospital Jacksonville vs. AHCA et al., Case No. 02-0447 et seq. Community Hospital has acquired reliable financing for the project and has sufficiently demonstrated that its project is immediately financially feasible. North Bay's short-term financial proposal is less secure. As noted, North Bay intends to acquire financing from BayCare Obligated Group. As a member of the group, Mease, the parent company of two hospitals that oppose North Bay's application, must approve the plan. Long-term financial feasibility is the ability of the project to reach a break-even point within a reasonable period of time and at a reasonable achievable point in the future. Big Bend Hospice, Inc. vs. AHCA and Covenant Hospice, Inc., Case No. 02-0455. Although CON pro forma financial schedules typically show profitability within two to three years of operation, it is not a requirement. In fact, in some circumstances, such as the case of a replacement hospital, it may be unrealistic for the proposal to project profitability before the third or fourth year of operation. In this case, Community Hospital's utilization projections, gross and net revenues, and expense figures are reasonable. The evidence reliably demonstrates that its replacement hospital will be profitable by the fourth year of operation. The hospital's financial projections are further supported by credible evidence, including the fact that the hospital experienced financial improvement in 2002 despite its poor physical condition, declining utilization, and lost market share to providers outside of its district. In addition, the development and population trends in the Trinity area support the need for a replacement hospital in the area. Also, Community Hospital has benefited from increases in its Medicaid per diem and renegotiated managed care contracts. North Bay's long-term financial feasibility of its proposal is less certain. In calendar year 2001, North Bay incurred an operating loss of $306,000. In calendar year 2002, it incurred a loss of $1,160,000. In its CON application, however, North Bay projects operating income of $1,538,827 in 2007, yet omitted the ongoing expenses of interest ($1,600,000) and depreciation ($3,000,000) from its existing facility that North Bay intends to continue operating. Since North Bay's proposal does not project beyond year two, it is less certain whether it is financially feasible in the third or fourth year. In addition to the interest and depreciation issues, North Bay's utilization projections are less reasonable than Community Hospital's proposal. While possible, North Bay will have a difficult task achieving its projected 55 percent increase in acute care patient days in its second year of operation given its declining utilization, loss of obstetric/pediatric services and termination of two exclusive managed care contracts. Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes: The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness Both applicants have substantial unused capacity. However, Community Hospital's existing facility is at a distinct competitive disadvantage in the market place. In fact, from 1994 to 1998, Community Hospital's overall market share in its service area declined from 40.3 percent to 35.3 percent. During that same period, Helen Ellis' overall market share in Community Hospital's service area increased from 7.2 percent to 9.2 percent. From 1995 to the 12-month period ending June 30, 2002, Community Hospital's acute care market share in its service area declined from 34.0 percent to 25.9 percent. During that same period, Helen Ellis' acute care market share in Community Hospital's service area increased from 11.7 percent to 12.0 percent. In addition, acute care average occupancy rates at Mease Dunedin Hospital increased each year from 1999 through 2002. Acute care average occupancy at Mease Countryside Hospital exceeded 90 percent in 2000 and 2001, and was approximately 85 percent for the period ending June 30, 2002. Some of the loss in Community Hospital's market share is due to an out-migration of patients from its service area to hospitals in northern Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. Market share in Community's service area by out-of- market providers increased from 33 percent in 1995 to 40 percent in 2002. Community Hospital's outdated hospital has hampered its ability to compete for patients in its service area. Mease is increasing its efforts to attract patients and currently completing a $92 million expansion of Mease Countryside Hospital. The project includes the development of 1,134 parking spaces on 30 acres of raw land north of the Mease Countryside Hospital campus and the addition of two floors to the hospital. It also involves the relocation of 51 acute care beds, the obstetrics program and the Neonatal Intensive Care Units from Mease Dunedin Hosptial to Mease Countryside Hospital. Mease is also seeking to more than double the size of the Countryside emergency department to handle its 62,000 emergency visits. With the transfer of licensed beds from Mease Dunedin Hospital to Mease Countryside Hospital, Mease will also convert formerly semi-private patient rooms to private rooms at Mease Dunedin Hospital. The approval of Community Hospital's relocated facility will enable it to better compete with the hospitals in the area and promote quality and cost- effectiveness. North Bay, on the other hand, is not operating at a distinct disadvantage, yet is still experiencing declining utilization. North Bay is the only community-owned, not-for- profit provider in western Pasco County and is a valuable asset to the city. Section 408.035(10), Florida Statutes: The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods or energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction The parties stipulated that the project costs in both applications are reasonable to construct the replacement hospitals. Community Hospital's proposed construction cost per square foot is $175, and slightly less than North Bay's $178 proposal. The costs and methods of proposed construction for each proposal is reasonable. Given Community Hospital's severe site and facility problems, the evidence demonstrates that there is no reasonable, less costly, or more effective methods of construction available for its proposed replacement hospital. Additional "band-aide" approaches are not financially reasonable and will not enable Community Hospital to effectively compete. The facility is currently licensed for 401 beds, operates approximately 311 beds and is still undersized. The proposed replacement hospital will meet the standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-3.081, and will meet current building codes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Guidelines for Design and Construction of Hospitals and Health Care Facilities, developed by the American Institute of Architects. The opponents' argue that Community Hospital will not utilize the 320 acute care beds proposed in its CON application, and therefore, a smaller facility is a less- costly alternative. In addition, Helen Ellis' architectural expert witness provided schematic design alternatives for Community Hospital to be expanded and replaced on-site, without providing a detailed and credible cost accounting of the alternatives. Given the evidence and the law, their arguments are not persuasive. While North Bay's replacement cost figures are reasonable, given the aforementioned reasons, including the fact that the facility is in reasonably good condition and can expand vertically, on balance, it is unreasonable for North Bay to construct a replacement facility in the Trinity area. Section 408.035(11), Florida Statutes: The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent Community Hospital has consistently provided the most health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent in Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital agreed to provide at least ten percent of its patient days to Medicaid recipients. Similarly, North Bay agreed to provide 9.7 percent of its total annual patient days to Medicaid and charity patients combined. North Bay, by contrast, provided only 3.56 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients in 2002, and would have to significantly reverse a declining trend in its Medicaid provision to comply with the imposed condition. Community Hospital better satisfies the criterion. Section 408.035(12) has been stipulated as not applicable in this case. Adverse Impact on Existing Providers Historical figures demonstrate that hospital market shares are not static, but fluctuate with competition. No hospital is entitled to a specific or historic market share free from competition. While the applicants are located in health planning Sub-District 5-1 and Helen Ellis and the two Mease hospitals are located in health planning Sub-District 5- 2, they compete for business. None of the opponents is a disproportionate share, safety net, Medicaid provider. As a result, AHCA gives less consideration to any potential adverse financial impact upon them resulting from the approval of either application as a low priority. The opponents, however, argue that the approval of either replacement hospital would severely affect each of them. While the precise distance from the existing facilities to the relocation sites is relevant, it is clear that neither applicants' proposed site is unreasonably close to any of the existing providers. In fact, Community Hospital intends to locate its replacement facility three miles farther away from Helen Ellis and 1.5 miles farther away from Mease Dunedin Hospital. While Helen Ellis' primary service area is seemingly fluid, as noted by its chief operating officer's hearing and deposition testimony, and the Mease hospitals are located 15 to 20 miles south, they overlap parts of the applicants' primary service areas. Accordingly, each applicant concedes that the proposed increase in their patient volume would be derived from the growing population as well as existing providers. Although it is clear that the existing providers may be more affected by the approval of Community Hosptial's proposal, the exact degree to which they will be adversely impacted by either applicant is unknown. All parties agree, however, that the existing providers will experience less adverse affects by the approval of only one applicant, as opposed to two. Furthermore, Mease concedes that its hospitals will continue to aggressively compete and will remain profitable. In fact, Mease's adverse impact analysis does not show any credible reduction in loss of acute care admissions at Mease Countryside Hospital or Mease Dunedin Hospital until 2010. Even then, the reliable evidence demonstrates that the impact is negligible. Helen Ellis, on the other hand, will likely experience a greater loss of patient volume. To achieve its utilization projections, Community Hospital will aggressively compete for and increase market share in Pinellas County zip code 34689, which borders Pasco County. While that increase does not facially prove that Helen Ellis will be materially affected by Community Hospital's replacement hospital, Helen Ellis will confront targeted competition. To minimize the potential adverse affect, Helen Ellis will aggressively compete to expand its market share in the Pinellas County zip codes south of 34689, which is experiencing population growth. In addition, Helen Ellis is targeting broader service markets, and has filed an application to establish an open- heart surgery program. While Helen Ellis will experience greater competition and financial loss, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it will experience material financial adverse impact as a result of Community Hospital's proposed relocation. In fact, Helen Ellis' impact analysis is less than reliable. In its contribution-margin analysis, Helen Ellis utilized its actual hospital financial data as filed with AHCA for the fiscal year October 1, 2001, to September 30, 2002. The analysis included total inpatient and total outpatient service revenues found in the filed financial data, including ambulatory services and ancillary services, yet it did not include the expenses incurred in generating ambulatory or ancillary services revenue. As a result, the overstated net revenue per patient day was applied to its speculative lost number of patient days which resulted in an inflated loss of net patient service revenue. Moreover, the evidence indicates that Helen Ellis' analysis incorrectly included operational revenue and excluded expenses related to its 18-bed skilled nursing unit since neither applicant intends to operate a skilled nursing unit. While including the skilled nursing unit revenues, the analysis failed to include the sub-acute inpatient days that produced those revenues, and thereby over inflated the projected total lost net patient service revenue by over one million dollars.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Community Hospital's CON Application No. 9539, to establish a 376-bed replacement hospital in Pasco County, Sub- District 5-1, be granted; and North Bay's CON Application No. 9538, to establish a 122-bed replacement hospital in Pasco County, Sub-District 5- 1, be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Hauser, Esquire R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Metz, Hauser & Husband, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505 Post Office Box 10909 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Richard M. Ellis, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Richard J. Saliba, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Station 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Karen A. Putnal, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Darrell White, Esquire William B. Wiley, Esquire McFarlain & Cassedy, P.A. 305 South Gadsden Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue This case arises out of a petition filed by Humana, Inc., Humedicenters, Inc., and Humhosco, Inc., challenging the validity of Respondent's Rule 10- 5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code. The challenged rule was promulgated by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to provide a uniform methodology for determining the need for acute care beds in the various IRS districts in Florida. Subsequent to the filing of the petition and the scheduling of this matter for hearing, the Intervenor, University Community Hospital, filed a petition to Intervene and was permitted to intervene upon the same issues raised by the original petition. At the formal hearing, the Petitioners Humana, Inc., Humedicenters, Inc., and Humhosco, Inc., called as witnesses Brad Sexauer, David Petersen, Ira Korman, Richard Alan Baehr, Frank Sloan and James Bruce Ryan. Petitioners offered and had admitted into evidence nine exhibits. The Intervenor, University Community Hospital, called as witnesses Warren Dacus and George Britton. The Intervenor offered and had admitted into evidence three exhibits. The Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, called as witnesses Stanley K. Smith, Stephen Williams and Phillip C. Rond. The Department offered and had admitted into evidence 36 exhibits. Respondent's Exhibits 5, 6, 14, 15, 16 and 17 were not admitted for all purposes but were admitted as hearsay for the purpose of corroborating or explaining other admissible evidence in the record. Counsel for each of the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as not being supported by the evidence or as unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact STANDING The Petitioners and Intervenor are corporations engaged in the business of constructing and operating hospitals in the State of Florida. Humedicenters, Inc. and Humhosco, Inc., are wholly owned subsidiaries of Humana, Inc. Humana, Inc., and its corporate subsidiaries presently have seven (7) pending applications for Certificates of Need for acute care hospital facilities. At least one of those applications for a facility in Jacksonville, Florida, was denied by HRS on the basis that no need existed under the challenged rule methodology. The Intervenor, University Community Hospital, is located in HRS Service District 6A in northern Hillsborough County. On June 29, 1982, University Community Hospital applied for a Certificate of Need for additional medical surgical beds and on December 1, 1982, HRS denied that application. HRS has taken the position that the challenged rule is applicable to that application and under the rule, there is no need for additional medical-surgical beds in District 6. DEVELOPMENT OF THE RULE As early as 1976, the Department began its effort to identify alternative approaches to acute care bed need determinations and at that time, the Department contracted with a consultant to review and assess various bed need approaches. An analysis was made of the then current methods or models used for projecting short-term bed requirements. This analysis was provided to a Bed Need Task Force which had been formed to consider appropriate bed-need methodologies. In early 1977, the Bed Need Task Force was appointed to review current bed-need methodologies and to recommend necessary changes to the methodologies in use. The Bed Need Task Force was formed for the primary purpose of recommending a general approach to be used in bed need determinations and to identify key policies to be followed in development of an acute care methodology for the State of Florida. This task force was composed of a variety of representatives from various groups including local planning agencies, hospital associations, the statewide health council, and the health industry itself. An outside consultant was used by the Task Force to aid them in their review. In February 1978, the Final Report of the Bed Need Task Force was issued. Subsequent to the Bed Need Task Force, the Task Force on Institutional Needs, (hereafter TFIN) was established. The purpose of the TFIN was to present a recommended methodology and policies related to that methodology for purposes of the initiation of implementation activities. The TFIN issued its final report in December 1978. This report contained a number of policies to be used in conjunction with the methodology. These policies stated that: The population composition should not include tourists but should include seasonal residents who reside in Florida greater than six months and these migrants who were in Florida on April 1, the date of each census. The methodology should deal with the differences in need for acute care services by age and sex. The use rates utilized should be based on a statewide normative standard. These standards should be based on statewide use rates for which data can be obtained and should be subject to periodic review. Methodology should eventually address need for various levels of care. Need determinations should be for specific geographical areas, the area of the Health Systems Agency (hereafter HSA). These areas are new the HRS districts. Patient flows should be taken into account but should not be binding on future determination in terms of expansion or addition of new facilities. The hospital service area concept should be rejected and a temporal accessibility criterion utilized. At the HSA level, a minimum volume standard should be developed for each service. The standards within the methodology should be applied uniformly all over the state in all HRS districts or service areas. The standards should not be applied to individual facilities. In terms of role and responsibility, the Department of HRS should be responsible for the need methodology with the local health agencies having responsibility for the facilities configuration model for its district. Having developed a recommended methodology and a set of policies to be used in conjunction with that methodology, the Department contracted with Research Triangle Institute (RTI) to develop a sampling design to be used in the data collection activity so that the methodology could be operationalized. A second contract was let to implement the data collection necessary to the methodology and to develop statewide estimates based on the data collected. The 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1981 State Health Plans each discussed the objective of achieving a certain ratio of nonfederal licensed acute care beds per 1,000 population in Florida. The 1981 State Health Plan adopted a goal to ensure a supply of licensed nonfederal, short-stay beds (including psychiatric beds) in Florida equivalent to 4.24 beds per 1,000 residents. Also, in 1981, the State Health Council adopted a "normative" bed-to-population ratio of 4.24 beds per 1,000 population. "Normative" means a statement of what "ought to be" as opposed to some historical standard. In the Spring of 1982, HRS actually began drafting the rule and in the September 3, 1982, issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly, HRS gave notice of its intent to adopt Rule 10-5.11(23) relating to acute care hospital beds. That notice also set a time, date and place for a public hearing on that proposed rule. Before a public hearing on that proposed rule was held, however, Petitioners Humana of Florida, Inc., Humedicenters, Inc., and Humhosco, Inc., and others, challenged it in D.O.A.H. Case 82-2561R. The intervenor in this proceeding was also an intervenor in that challenge. A public hearing on that initial rule was held September 20, 1982. Neither the Petitioner nor the Intervenor made any statement at the public hearing in opposition to the rule or in opposition to the expected economic impact. No written comment was submitted by these two parties following the public hearing. At the public hearing, there were eight oral presentations made by interested parties and 14 written comments were received. From the time the initial rule was promulgated until the time it was finally adopted, there were numerous other comments that were received. Two sets of changes were subsequently made to the proposed rule which reflected discussion and input the Department received both from the public hearing process and from challenges to the rule. The first set of changes was published April 1, 1983 in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Several issues were raised which were dealt with by the Department. Psychiatric bed need was removed and placed in a separate rule, the methodology was incorporated into the rule, language regarding the use of the formula was clarified, data updating provisions were added, a provision was made to consider peak demand, the district utilization adjustment procedure was changed and subdistrict bed allocation procedures were changed. Although there was also objection to the use of statewide use rates, the Department because of strong policy considerations, made no change in the statewide use rates. These changes were made in response to the comments at the public hearing, written comments submitted, and other input from the health industry. After the Department published its first set of changes to the initial rule, but before the publication of the second set of changes, Petitioners voluntarily dismissed their rule challenge in D.O.A.H. Case No. 82-2561R. The second set of changes was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on May 13, 1983. At the time of their voluntary dismissal of their rule challenge and prior to the adoption of the challenged rule, Humana, Inc., and its subsidiaries, Humedicenters, Inc. and Humhosco, Inc. were aware of the economic impact the proposed rule would have on their operations in Florida. THE RULE Rule 10-5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code, is founded on a basic methodological approach to projecting the need for health care services which is commonly accepted and utilized among health planners. In its most generic form, this methodological approach may be expressed as follows: The population of the geographic planning unit is projected for some point in the future (usually five years); i.e., how many people will live in the planning area at the end of five years. The projected population is multiplied by a utilization rate in order to project how many days of hospital care the projected population is likely to need during the target year. A utilization rate is the measure by which hospital services are consumed within a given geographic entity and is determined by dividing the total number of hospital patient days in a year in a given area by the total population of that area for that year. Restated, a utilization rate is equivalent to the ratio of the number of days of care received by the population to the population as a whole. As noted above, multiplying a projected population by a utilization rate produces the projected number of-patient days during the target year. This number is then divided by 365 to derive an average daily census i.e., the average number of patients which one would expect to be in area hospitals on any given day of the year. The average daily census is then converted into beds by dividing the average daily census by an optimal occupancy standard for a given service. The optimal occupancy standard contemplates that hospitals cannot and should not operate at 100 percent occupancy in that some reserve capacity is necessary to meet seasonal or even weekly fluctuations and variations in patient characteristics and mix. The product of this generic methodology is the total number of beds needed in the planning area at the end of the planning horizon. Application of the methodology set forth in the rule is basically a three-step process. The initial step is the forecast of the District Bed Allocation (DBA), which is accomplished as follows: The population of each Department service district is forecast by age cohort (a cohort is a given subgroup of the total population) five years into the future. The age cohorts utilized in the rule are: (1) under 65; (2) 65 and older; (3) under 15; and (4) females 15-44. Total patient days are then forecast for each age cohort. Patient days are forecast by applying statewide, service-specific discharge rates and average lengths of stay to the age cohort projections. The specific hospital services included in the Rule are medical/surgical, intensive care, coronary care, obstetrical and pediatric. Projected patient days for persons age 65 and older are adjusted to account for the migration flew of elderly patients both to and from Florida and to and from Department districts within Florida. This flew adjustment is based upon historical migration patterns derived from 1977 Medicare data. The service-specific patient days by age cohort is then converted to projected bed need by dividing each component by 365 to arrive at an average daily census and then by applying a service-specific occupancy standard to derive the total bed need for each given service and age cohort. The sum of the bed need forecasts for each service/cohort is the DBA. The second step is an adjustment to the DBA under certain circumstances based on the projected occupancy of the beds allocated to a given district. This is known as the Adjusted District Bed Allocation (ADBA), and it is composed of the following steps: A Projected Occupancy Rate (FOR) for each district is calculated by multiplying the entire forecast population of the district by a Historic Utilization Rate (HUR), which is derived over the most recent three year period. The product is then divided by 365 times the DBA. The product of this computation is the POR which would result if the district contained the number of beds projected by the DBA and the population continued to utilize hospital services in accordance with the HUR. If the POR is less than 75 percent, the ADBA is determined by substituting a 90 percent occupancy standard in the formulation of DBA instead of the service-specific occupancy standards which would otherwise be applied (ranging from 65 percent for obstetrics to 80 percent for medical/surgical). If the POR is greater than 90 percent, the ADBA is determined by substituting a 75 percent occupancy standard in the calculation of DBA instead of such service- specific standards. In other words, when the POR is less than 75 percent, a a downward bed need adjustment results. When POR is greater than 90 percent, an upward need adjustment results. This part of the methodology is used to make an adjustment for those districts which for whatever reason lie outside the range of-expected utilization. The 75 percent and 90 percent thresholds are based upon an ideal operating range of 80 to 85 percent. The actual standard utilized by HRS is 80 percent, at the low or conservative end of that range. The third step involves the calculation of a Peak Demand Adjustment (PDA) which is accomplished as fellows: The average daily census for a given district is calculated by dividing the total number of projected days by 365. Peak demand is calculated by adding the average daily census to the square root of tic average daily census multiplied by a given standard deviation (1.65 for low peak demand districts or 2.33 for high peak demand districts) referred to as a "Z" value in the methodology: Peak demands utilized as the projected district acute care bed need if it is greater than the bed need for the district reflected by DBA or ADBA as calculated in steps one and two above. The purpose of this peak demand adjustment is to ensure that each district will have sufficient bed capacity to meet service-specific peak demands. Each subdistrict is to be identified by the Local Health Council as having high or low peak demand. These designated as high peak demand utilize a "Z" value; of 2.33 in the methodology in order to assure sufficient capacity to meet 99 percent of their peak capacity. These subdistricts designated as low peak demand areas utilize a "Z" value in the methodology of 1.65 and this assures sufficient total bed capacity to meet 95 percent of the peak demand. The rule also includes an accessibility standard which provides that in each district acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible to 90 percent of the residents within 30 minutes driving time and 45 minutes driving time in urban and rural areas respectively. The rule provides for periodic updating of the statewide discharge rates, average lengths of stay and patient flow factors as data becomes available. The historical use rate used in arriving at the adjusted district bed allocation is updated annually through the use of the most recent three years. Although the rule provides that a Certificate of Need will not "normally" be granted unless need is shown to exist under the methodology in the rule, this need calculation is not determinative of the issue of whether a Certificate of Need should be granted. The rule also provides that even if no bed need is shown to exist under the methodology a Certificate of Need may still be granted if the criteria, other than bed need, under Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, demonstrate need. Likewise, the rule states that a Certificate of Need may be denied, where bed need is shown to exist under the rule, but other criteria in Section 381.494(6) are not met. The rule also specifically permits the approval of additional beds in a subdistrict where the accessibility requirements of the rule are not being met. Additional beds may also be approved where there is a need in a subdistrict but a surplus in the district as a whole. The rule utilizes population projections by age cohort in determining the number of hospital patient days by service which will be needed five years in the future. These population projections are based upon the projections made by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (hereafter BEBR) at the University of Florida. BEBR makes three projections--low, midrange, and high-- for each year. The rule utilizes the midrange projection and the inherent margin of error in these projections is typically plus or minus 5 percent. Although these projections have systematically been low in the past, BEBR now uses a different method which utilizes six different techniques in arriving at ten projections which are then averaged. The flow adjustment used in arriving at the DBA is based upon 1977 MEDPAR data. This data was for Medicare recipients 65 years of age and elder and therefore the flow adjustment is only for that portion of the population over 65 years of age. No data was available from which flow factors could be determined for age cohorts or groups from o to 64 years of age. No data for either age group was available after 1977. ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT An economic impact statement (EIS) was prepared for the challenged rule. The EIS contains an estimate of the Department's printing and distribution cost. The EIS was-- prepared by Phillip Rond, an employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. In preparing the EIS, Mr. Rond did a comparison of the health system plans (HSP) with the results under the rule. This comparison was for projected need for the year 1987 and was done for each HRS District. The comparison generated the following results: HRS DISTRICT HSP RULE 1 0 0 2 3 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 87 9 0 137 10 0 0 11 0 0 3 224 The need calculations under the rule do not change substantially the short term projections under prior methodologies. The rule calculations for 1987 showed need for 221 more beds than was shown to exist under the methodologies used in the health systems plans. Mr. Rond also reviewed the background literature that led to the analysis contained in the state health plan as well as the reports from the Hospital Cost Containment Board. With regard to the rule's affect on competition and the open market the EIS notes that the rule will restrain the development of costly excess acute care bed capacity and in doing so will foster cost containment. Where need is indicated by the methodology or other criteria within the rule then competitive new beds will be allowed. In terms of economic benefit to persons directly affected the EIS points out that there will be a positive impact for some facilities and a negative impact for others. The rule will negatively impact facilities which wish to expand or add new beds if no need for those beds exists under the methodology of the rule. Existing facilities, however, will not be exposed to expansion of the bed supply in those districts where no need for additional beds exist. This benefit will be particularly positive for those facilities providing indigent care. It is a general estimate that operating costs for a health facility will be approximately 22 cents for each dollar of capital expenditure. The rule is intended to support a supply of beds to meet need while preventing excess or unused beds, thus reducing annual operating costs. The EIS notes that by reducing operating costs, the operating cost per bed will be lower and should result in a slower escalation of costs to consumers as well as third party payers such as insurers, taxpayers, and employers. Prior to adoption of the challenged rule, the Department considered and evaluated each of the factors listed in Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes. There has been traditionally in Florida a surplus of acute care beds. The 1977 medical facilities plan indicated a surplus of beds ever need of 7,253 beds. Using the rule methodology and projecting to 1987, there is a surplus ? 5,562 beds and for 1988, a surplus of 4,044 beds. In both 1980 and 1982, there were significant numbers of licensed beds in the state which were not in use. In 1980, there were 4,923 beds out of the total bed stock in acute care hospitals not in use. This was about 10.7 percent of the total licensed in bed stock. In 1982, there were 5,093 or about 10.6 percent of such beds licensed and not in use. In 1976, the occupancy rate for acute care hospitals in Florida was 60.3 percent. In 1982, the occupancy rate in such facilities was 67 percent. The target occupancy rate under the challenged rule and its methodology is 80 percent.
The Issue Select Specialty Hospital-Marion, Inc.'s CON Application 9710, filed with the Agency for Health Care Administration, seeks establishment of a 44-bed Long Term Care Hospital (an "LTCH") in Polk County, AHCA Health Care Planning District 6. The Agency preliminarily denied the application. Select-Marion has challenged the denial and Kindred-Bay Area seeks intervention in the proceeding. The issues in this case are two: whether Kindred-Bay Area has proven it has standing to intervene in the proceeding and whether the application should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Select-Marion, the applicant, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Select Medical Corporation. Select Medical Corporation provides long-term acute care services at 99 LTCHs in 26 states through various subsidiaries. In addition, Select Medical Corporation operates 741 outpatient clinics and has more than 400 "contract therapy locations for freestanding rehabilitation hospitals[.]" (Tr. 65.) Select has approximately 21,000 employees. The Agency is the state agency responsible for the administration of the Certificate of Need program in Florida. See § 408.034(1), Fla. Stat. Kindred-Bay Area operates a 73-bed freestanding, long- term care hospital in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, in AHCA District 6, the health services planning district in which Select-Marion hopes to construct and operate the applied-for project. Kindred-Bay Area is owned and operated by Kindred Hospitals, East, LLC, which also owns and operates a number of other long-term hospitals in Florida and other states. LTCH Services The length of stay in an acute care hospital (a "short- term hospital" or a "general hospital") for most patients is three to five days. Some hospital patients, however, are in need of acute care services on a long-term basis. A long-term basis is 25 to 30 days of additional acute care service after the typical three to five day stay in a short-term hospital. Although some of these patients are "custodial" in nature (see paragraph 19, below) and not in need of LTCH services, many of these long-term patients are better served in an LTCH than in a traditional acute care hospital. In the health care continuum, LTCH care constitutes a component dedicated to catastrophically ill and medically complex patients in need of acute care services that exceed by a considerable amount the average length of stay for those patients in a general hospital. Typically medically unstable for the entire time of stay in the general hospital, these patients require extensive nursing care with daily physician oversight usually accompanied by some type of technologically advanced support. Quite commonly, the technological support includes a ventilator. Most often elderly, LTCH patients may be younger if victims of severe trauma. Whatever the age of the patients, for a variety of reasons, once they exceed the short-term length of stay in a general hospital intensive care unit ("ICU"), they rarely receive the health care treatment that is most appropriate for them in health care settings other than an LTCH. LTCH patients are not able to tolerate, for example, the three hours per day of therapy associated with comprehensive medical rehabilitation and so are not appropriate for Comprehensive Medical Rehabilitation ("CMR") units or hospitals. As compared to LTCH patients, moreover, CMR patients usually require significantly less nursing care. They receive on average 4 to 4.5 hours of nursing care per patient day, as compared to the average eight hours of nursing care per patient day required by LTCH patients. The services in an LTCH are distinct from those provided in a skilled nursing facility ("SNF") or a skilled nursing unit ("SNU") in that more nursing hours are dedicated to the patient and physician oversight is provided with more regularity, that is, on a daily basis. Patients in SNFs or SNUs are not likely to receive daily physician visits and observation or, in terms of hours, the intensity in nursing services required by the patient appropriate for LTCH care. The level of care provided in an LTCH is analogous to that provided in an ICU progressive care unit in a short-term acute care hospital. But staff orientation at an ICU in a short-term care hospital is different from LTCH staff orientation. The ICU staff is focused on stabilizing the patient and moving the patient to the next level of care within the continuum of care. With such a focus, it is difficult for the ICU in a general hospital to sustain the level of care for the long-term as required by a patient in need of long-term intensive care. Furthermore, when a patient has "fallen off . . . [the] clinical pathway" (tr. 19) and does not leave the ICU within the short time projected for the standard short-term acute care patient, the patient is viewed as a failure by the ICU staff. Staff perspective that there is little hope for the patient's recovery dampens the motivation necessary to provide consistently the service the patient requires over the long-term if the patient is to recover. Federal Government Recognition of LTCHs The federal government recognizes the distinct place based on the high level of patient acuity occupied by LTCHs in the continuum of care. The Prospective Payment System ("PPS") of the federal government treats LTCH care as a discrete form of care. LTCH care therefore has its own system of diagnostic related groups ("DRGs") and case mix reimbursement that provides Medicare payments at rates different from what PPS provides for other traditional post-acute care providers. Effective October 1, 2002, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") implemented categories of payment designed specifically for LTCHs, the "LTC-DRG." The LTC-DRG is a decisive sign of the recognition by CMS and the federal government of the differences between general hospitals and LTCHs when it comes to patient population, costs of care, resources consumed by the patients and health care delivery. CON Application Process Select-Marion submitted CON Application 9710 in the second CON Application Review Cycle of 2003. The application was reviewed in comparison with CON Application 9709, submitted by SemperCare Hospital of Lakeland, Inc., through which SemperCare-Lakeland sought a 30-bed "hospital in a hospital" at Lakeland Regional Medical Center in Polk County. The Agency evaluated the applications in a State Agency Action Report ("SAAR"). The SAAR recommended denial of both applications. A basis for the denial of Select-Marion's application is summed up as follows: The applicant contends that Polk County LTCH appropriate patients are remaining in acute care hospitals within the county as no appropriate or available alternatives exist with an acceptable distance. The applicant did not demonstrate that Polk County residents are being denied access to existing appropriate post-acute care services including LTCH services. There are two licensed LTCHs with an average occupancy in calendar year 2002 below 75 percent located in adjacent Hillsborough County. Travel distances to existing LTCHs, skilled nursing facilities, comprehensive medical rehabilitation facilities, or any appropriate provider of post-acute care were not demonstrated to be unreasonable. AHCA Ex. 2, p. 34. The SAAR also recommended denial of SemperCare-Lakeland's application. On December 10, 2003, authorized representatives of AHCA adopted the recommendation contained in the SAAR and released it. See id., p. 37. Both Select-Marion and SemperCare-Lakeland timely challenged the denials of their respective applications. The petitions of the two were referred to DOAH and consolidated for purposes of hearing. SemperCare-Lakeland subsequently withdrew its challenge. An order was entered closing the DOAH file on the Sempercare challenge, see DOAH Case No. 04-0460CON, leaving this case to proceed on its own. Issues Aside from the standing issue with regard to Kindred- Bay Area, the issue in this case is approval of Select-Marion's application. This primary issue breaks into related sub-issues reflected in the provision of the SAAR, quoted above. Has Select-Marion demonstrated that there is need for an LTCH in Polk County despite the existence of other LTCHs in the district and given their less-than-optimal occupancy rates? If so, would an LTCH in Polk County enhance access to LTCH service for District 6 residents and specifically for those who reside or are hospitalized in Polk County? Put another way, is there a legally cognizable barrier to access for Polk County patients to LTCH beds available elsewhere in the district that would justify approval of the application? LTCH Need Methodology and AHCA's Concerns The Agency has not adopted a need methodology for LTCH services. Consequently, it does not publish fixed need pools for LTCHs. In response to a rise in LTCH applications over the last several years, the Agency has consistently voiced concerns about identification of the patients that appropriately comprise the LTCH patient population. Because of a lack of specific data from applicants with regard to the composition of LTCH patient population, the Agency is not convinced that there is not an overlap between the LTCH patient population and the population of patients served in other healthcare settings. In the absence of data identifying the LTCH patient population, AHCA has reached the conclusion "that there are other options available to those patients [the population targeted by the LTCH applicant], depending on . . . things such as physician preference." (Tr. 175.) Another expression of the Agency's view is that LTCH applicants have taken an "overly-broad" (id.) approach to determining the LTCH patient population with an emphasis on long lengths of stay in general hospitals. The Agency accepts that the candidate population for placement in a long-term care hospital includes at least some of those patients with extended lengths of stay in an acute care setting. But "in the absence of better data that evaluated severity of illness, as well," AHCA fears that the approval of an LTCH application "has a tendency to allow less severely ill people to drift into these otherwise very expensive facilities [that is, LTCHs]." (Tr. 175-176.) A better approach in AHCA's view would be to focus on severity of illness because some long stay patients in general hospitals whose stays are more custodial in nature are not appropriate candidates for LTCH services. These long stay "custodial" patients are neither catastrophically ill nor medically complex. For them, rather than the more specialized and highly technological-based services accompanied by intensive nursing care required by the LTCH patient, fewer services of less complexity suffice. When there is an oversupply of LTCH beds, moreover, they tend to attract less severely ill patients than those who are appropriate for LTCH services. The Agency draws support for its concerns from a report to the Congress in June 2004 by MedPAC.1 MedPAC's concern about LTCHs stems from the cost associated with LTCH services: a cost that is higher than other skilled nursing facilities or inpatient rehabilitation facilities. Just as the Agency has concluded, MedPAC expects LTCHs with an oversupply of LTCH beds to attract patients who are not severely ill enough to be appropriate for LTCH care. In a setting whose costs are higher than is appropriate for them, more Medicare dollars are expended on these patients than is necessary. The Agency's concerns about LTCH applications in general are compounded in this case by declining occupancies in LTCHs in District 6. "For the calendar year 2002, they were at 74.47%, and for calendar year 2004 they're at 66.65%, according to our [AHCA] records." (Tr. 178.) Existing LTCHs in District 6 There are currently two licensed LTCHs operating in District 6: Kindred Hospital-Central Tampa, and the Intervenor in this case, Kindred-Bay Area. Kindred-Bay Area is approximately 50 to 60 miles, and within an hour's drive of the Winter Haven Area where Select-Marion intends to locate its proposed LTCH; Kindred Hospital-Central Tampa is 5 to 7 miles closer to Winter Haven than is Kindred-Bay Area. Kindred-Central Tampa is a 102-bed LTCH. It is JCAHO accredited. The recent trend in its average occupancy is a declining one. In 2002, the average occupancy rate was 79.4%. In 2003, it fell to 70.6%. In 2004, it fell, yet again, although the decline was less dramatic, to 69.6%. On the average day, Kindred-Central Tampa had 30 to 32 beds available to accommodate additional patients. Kindred-Bay Area is a 73-bed LTCH in Hillsborough County. Also JCAHO accredited, it is licensed as an acute care hospital and is designated as an LTCH by the Medicare program. It offers a variety of long-term care services: respiratory/ventilator services, IV services, neurological services, wound care, dialysis and others. Kindred has a 4-bed ICU, an 8-bed "step down" unit, and 61 med-surg beds. Need Demonstration: the Applicant's Responsibility It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate under Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2., that there is a need for the services for which approval is sought. The Agency analyzes LTCH applications on a district basis. The approach offered by Select-Marion, however, was a different one from the Agency’s. The approach is outlined in Select-Marion’s application. Extensive testimony about the approach, moreover, was offered at hearing through Select-Marion's expert health planner, Patricia Greenberg. Select-Marion’s Application and Proposal Submitted in the second application cycle for 2003, Select-Marion’s application was assigned CON 9710. Select-Marion estimates its total project costs to be approximately $11,244,000. It has not yet acquired the site for its proposed LTCH but anticipates that the facility will be located near or in Winter Haven in the central eastern region of Polk County. Select-Marion, however, has not conditioned its application on the location of the facility in the Winter Haven area. It has only offered to condition the application on the location of the facility in Polk County. If located in the Winter Haven area, the proposed LTCH will be within 20 miles of the existing acute care providers in the county, a location sufficiently close to the major referral sources for the facility. Uncontested Statutory and Rule Criteria By stipulation of the parties it has been agreed that Select-Marion's application meets most of the statutory and rule criteria applicable to CONs or that those criteria are not applicable. The primary exception to the parties' agreement is need. As testified at hearing by the Agency's sole witness, the applicant's alleged failure to demonstrate need is the sole reason the application was denied. (See Tr. 169.) Ms. Greenberg's Testimony Patricia Greenberg is the President of National Health Care Associates, "a health care consulting firm that specializes in health care planning, health care finance and health care operations." (Tr. 100.) She has extensive experience as a consultant on health care projects "including Certificate of Need work." (Tr. 101.) Since the Agency does not have an LTCH need methodology in rule nor an Agency policy on LTCH need methodology in place, Select-Marion is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics: Population, demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, sub-district or both; Medical treatment trends; and, Market conditions. See the testimony of Ms. Greenberg at tr. 115 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e). Select-Marion addressed each of these topics in its application. On the basis of the each of the above-quoted topics and using several numeric need methodologies that follow general health planning principles, generally accepted by AHCA in other contested LTCH CON cases, as testified by Ms. Greenberg, there is a need for at least 44 LTCH beds in Polk County. Ms. Greenberg's analysis does not overlook the beds that are available elsewhere in the district, that is, in Hillsborough County where Kindred-Central Tampa and Kindred-Bay Area are located. But in her words, "[t]he facilities in the neighboring county [Hillsborough] are not accessible to this [the Polk County] population." (Tr. 135.) Ms. Greenberg elaborated on this point later in her testimony when discussing the extent of impact to Kindred-Bay Area that might occur should the application be granted, "Kindred-Bay Area may have beds, but they're not accessible to that population, or they would be using them." (Tr. 150.) The gist of the testimony with regard to accessibility was reiterated by Ms. Greenberg when asked directly whether the Kindred facilities in Tampa are "reasonable alternatives to the patients in Polk County": No, they are not reasonable alternatives at all. [The two Kindred facilities] have beds that are available. The physicians that support the need for the project, in the depositions I have reviewed[2], say they're not an alternative, they're not sending patients to them, they only get a few patients going [to the Kindred facilities] because of the family hardship, continuity of care, . . . . They're not an alternative at all for that patient population. (Tr. 162, 163.) In contrast to the approach of Select-Marion to need on a "Polk County" basis, as explained by Ms. Greenberg in her testimony, AHCA, however, does not approach LTCH need on a sub- district basis. The Agency approaches LTCH need on a district basis. Polk County is but one county in the multi-county health planning district in which it is located: District 6. District 6 At the time of filing of the application, the population in District 6 was over 1,955,700. The population included 323,869 in the age cohort of 65 and over, the age cohort eligible for Medicare services, and the cohort that contains patients primarily served by LTCHs. The population of Polk County at the time of the filing of the application was 507,839, including 94,950 in the age cohort, 65 and over. Approximately one-third of the District’s Medicare eligible population lives in Polk County. Polk County is one of five counties that comprise AHCA Health Care Planning District 6. (The other four are Hillsborough, Manatee, Hardee, and Highlands Counties.) The two LTCHs that presently exist in the District are Kindred-Central Tampa and Kindred-Bay Area. Evidence was presented as to Kindred-Bay Area's Patient Recruitment and Admissions Practices, the sources of its admissions, market conditions and impacts to Kindred-Bay Area's census and the adverse impact to Kindred-Bay Area. Kindred-Bay Area’s Patient Recruitment and Admissions Practices Kindred-Bay Area has “clinical liaisons” who serve to educate health care providers as to the availability of Kindred’s services to build relationships with potential referral sources, and to gather information for the evaluation of potential LTCH patients from other health care facilities. The majority of Kindred’s referrals and admissions come from short-term acute care hospitals, primarily intensive care units within such hospitals but also the med-surg units. The clinical liaison’s job includes conducting “in- service training” to educate hospital staff as well as physicians and other health care professionals of the services and treatments Kindred offers, and the types of patients for whom Kindred may be an appropriate placement option. Kindred- Bay Area’s clinical liaison for Polk County, Mindy Wright, has been performing in-service training in Winter Haven for ten years, typically once a year but more frequently if turnover demands. She attempts a visit to the Winter Haven area at least every two weeks and frequently for periods of every week. The clinical liaison also gathers information concerning potential referrals to Kindred from acute care hospitals in the Winter Haven area. The clinical liaison transmits this information to the hospital and the information is evaluated by a team consisting of the hospital’s CEO, CFO, internal case manager, and a nurse or physician to make a decision on admission. There is an incentive for LTCHs to admit patients who meet medical criteria for admission. Reimbursement from Medicaid and Medicare programs may be denied if a patient has not met appropriate admission criteria. Reimbursement, moreover, may be reduced if the patient initially met appropriate criteria but then turns out to have a relatively short length of stay in the LTCH. Some patients are denied admission to Kindred-Bay Area for clinical reasons. For example, the patient may not meet Interqual criteria for admission. Failure to meet clinical admission criteria can occur if the patient has been kept in the short-term acute care hospital too long, possibly even for several months, when the patient should have been referred to Kindred much sooner. The majority of patients referred to Kindred-Bay Area are admitted. Patients are also denied admission to Kindred for financial reasons. On principle, Select does not decry such a practice, acknowledging that it also seeks to assure that some revenue stream is available to assist in providing the expensive care that comprises LTCH services. Sources of Admissions to Kindred-Bay Area Kindred-Bay Area draws the majority of its patients (60 to 75%) from Hillsborough and Polk Counties and specifically from the cities of Tampa and Lakeland and the Brandon and Winter Haven areas. It has also drawn patients from the Orlando/Orange County area, other areas of Polk County, and from as far south as the Naples Area. In 2003, Kindred-Bay Area underwent renovations. The renovations limited the number of patients it could admit. In 2004, Mindy Wright, the clinical liaison responsible for the Orange County and Polk County areas, was on maternity leave for four months. Her absence significantly reduced Kindred’s presence in Polk County health care facilities. The hospital did not replace Ms. Wright. Although other clinical liaisons provided some coverage in her area, it was not as effective as Ms. Wright had been. The result was not unexpected; when clinical liaisons are not in regular contact with short-term acute care hospitals and other providers, referrals and admissions to the LTCH from such facilities usually drop significantly. In addition to renovations and Ms. Wright's absence, there were several other factors that had an impact on admissions to Kindred-Bay Area in the last few years. First, several hurricanes in 2004 had an impact on Central Florida. They seriously disrupted the delivery of health care services, particularly in Polk County. The disruption resulted in a drop in referrals and admissions to Kindred-Bay Area from Polk County. Second, turnover in staffs at hospitals to which Ms. Wright was assigned, including Winter Haven, had an impact on referrals. If the social worker at the hospital does not know about Kindred and its capabilities, the social worker may not identify patients meeting Kindred’s criteria for admission. The conditions that led to declining admissions to Kindred-Bay Area from Polk County were temporary. So far in 2005, the downward trend in admissions between 2002 and 2004 has been reversed. Admissions through the first four months of 2005 at Kindred-Bay Area have been 20% higher for the same period in 2004, higher than the same period in 2003 and nearly at the same level for the period in 2002. Admissions from Orange County, on the other hand, have dropped and are not likely to rebound. Orange County admissions went from 50 in 2002 to 28 in 2003 and only 10 in 2004. An LTCH operated by SemperCare, subsequently acquired by Select Medical Corporation, opened in Orange County in June 2003 (at a location about an hour’s drive from Winter Haven). The drop in Orange County admissions is likely to be exacerbated by the opening of another CON-approved Select facility in Orange County, a 40-bed, freestanding facility. LTCH Market Conditions and Impact on Census Kindred-Bay Area's census has declined in recent years, from an average daily census of 52 patients (72% occupancy) in 2002 to 48 patients (66%) in 2003 to 46 patients (63%) in 2004. On the average day in 2004, Kindred-Bay Area had beds available to accommodate another 27 patients. At the time of final hearing, Kindred-Bay Area's occupancy level was at 60% or about 44 beds. Optimal occupancy for Kindred-Bay Area would be 69 to 70 patients or about 95% occupancy. The existence of a decline in occupancy rates for District 6 LTCHs is supported by AHCA data which shows a decline from about 74.5% in 2002 to 66.7% in 2004. It is also reasonable to assume that some patients from eastern Polk County will follow historic trends and flow to the existing LTCH and approved LTCH in Orange County. The combination of declining occupancy in District 6 LTCHs and possible outmigration of eastern Polk County residents to Orange County for LTCH services diminish Select-Marion's claim that an LTCH is needed in Polk County. Other changes in the LTCH market are also likely to impact Kindred-Bay Area in terms of referrals and admissions from other areas. Select has won a recommendation for approval for an LTCH in Lee County in a formal administrative proceeding. At the time of filing of proposed recommended orders in this proceeding the recommended order in the Lee County proceeding was pending. Kindred-Bay Area maintains a clinical liaison in Lee County to seek referrals in much the same manner as conducted by Ms. Wright. If a Select facility opens in Ft. Myers, it will have an impact on the referrals that Kindred-Bay Area receives from Ft. Myers and surrounding areas. In addition, HealthSouth has received CON approval for an LTCH in Sarasota expected to open in August 2005. Kindred- Bay Area does not directly market to the Sarasota area. Another Kindred Hospital, Kindred-St. Petersburg markets in that area. It is reasonable to assume that the areas south of Sarasota toward Ft. Myers will begin to refer patients to the closer HealthSouth-Sarasota facility rather than continuing referrals to Kindred-Bay Area. Further, as HealthSouth-Sarasota seeks to establish its present in the market, it will likely engage in some marketing in the Tampa Bay area, in areas currently served by Kindred-Bay Area. Kindred-Bay Area's sister hospital, Kindred-Central Tampa, no longer a party to this proceeding, does not contend that the opening of a Select facility would result in the loss of patients to Kindred-Central Tampa. Kindred-Central Tampa, however, is available to accept referrals from Polk County health care providers, either directly or at the request of Kindred-Bay Area. Kindred-Bay Area, like Kindred-Central Tampa, has an open medical staff and any physician can apply for admitting or consulting privileges and would be granted them if they met qualifications. Further, declining occupancy levels at Kindred-Central Tampa, a 102-bed facility, demonstrates that there is available capacity at Kindred-Central Tampa to absorb patients from Polk County, just as there is capacity at Kindred- Bay Area to absorb additional patients from Polk County who are in need of LTCH services. Adverse Impact on Kindred For the periods of calendar years 2002 and 2003 and the first half of 2004, the gross revenue impact on Kindred-Bay Area attributable to the number of patients from Polk County that Kindred-Bay Area would have lost to Select-Marion's proposed facility ranged from $1.75 million to $4.7 million. In terms of net revenue and after-tax margin, however, the losses would be substantially smaller. For the 32 patients from Polk County admitted to Kindred-Bay Area in 2004, the total after-tax margin impact would be only $240,000. Furthermore, Kindred-Bay Area is not likely to lose all of its Polk County patients if the proposed project is located in the Winter Haven area since Lakeland area patients, located closer to Tampa than Winter Haven, might still choose LTCH services at Kindred-Bay Area over the proposed Select facility. As found earlier in this order, however, Select-Marion has not conditioned its CON on locating the proposed facility in Winter Haven. A Winter Haven facility, moreover, with a primary service area with a 20-mile radius would capture Lakeland in its primary service area. On balance, the impact of the proposed facility located in Polk County on Kindred is not substantial enough to confer standing on Kindred-Bay Area. The SAAR Following its review of Select's application, AHCA issued its State Agency Action Report (the "SAAR") recommending that CON 9710 be denied. Following the signature of officials at the Agency indicating approval of the recommendation, the SAAR became the preliminary action of the Agency subject to challenge under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. At trial, the Agency, through its witness, Jeffrey Gregg, Chief of the Agency's Bureau of Health Facility Regulation, testified that the only reason the application was denied is the Select-Marion's failure in AHCA's view to demonstrate need for the facility. Select-Marion's expert health care planner testified that there is need in Polk County for the facility. The need is based on need methodologies that are both reasonable and appropriate from a health planning perspective and that are consistent with methodologies approved by final orders of the Agency. As discussed, above, however, there is a critical difference in the application of the need methodologies in this case from other cases. In this case the need methodologies developed by Select-Marion applied only to Polk County and not to the district as a whole. The Agency determines need on a district-wide basis. Select-Marion maintains that there are barriers to Polk County patients' access to existing LTCH facilities. The barriers are described as geographical based on physician referral patterns and family participation in rehabilitation. Patient and Physician Preference and Practice Select-Marion largely bases its case for need on allegations of the preferences of patients, family members and their physicians. As to family members, it is not to be doubted that family members wish to avoid the burdens of travel. To the extent, however, that family members value specialized care, they are more likely to have the patient travel the distance necessary to receive it. Indeed, some Polk County families of LTCH patients are willing to travel the distance necessary to visit family members who are patients outside Polk County. With regard to referring physicians, the majority of referring physicians choose not to serve as the attending physician for their patients once referred to an LTCH, even when the LTCH is located in the same city as the referring physician. Typically, a referring physician relies upon another doctor or a practice group to attend to his or her patient in the LTCH setting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration deny CON 9710 filed by Select Specialty-Marion, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 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 31st day of October, 2005.
The Issue The issue for resolution is which of two competing certificate of need applications should be approved for nursing home beds in District 6, Subdistrict 2, Manatee County, Florida. Other ancillary issues are whether Mediplex timely filed a letter of intent to apply for a certificate of need, whether Mediplex impermissibly amended its application at hearing and whether Beverly impermissibly is proposing two projects (delicensure and creation of beds in addition to those in the fixed need pool).
Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is responsible for the administration of the certificate of need (CON) program pursuant to section 408.034, Florida Statutes. Vantage Healthcare Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc., which is itself a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Beverly Enterprises, Inc. is the largest provider of nursing home services in the nation. Vantage operates four nursing homes in the State of Florida, and has no facilities outside of Florida. The Beverly family of nursing homes comprises 67 nursing homes in Florida, with just under 8,000 nursing home beds. Mediplex is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mediplex Group which, in turn, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sun Healthcare Group. The Sun Healthcare Group operates primarily in the northeast U.S. (Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) and the west (Denver and Seattle). Mediplex operates two facilities in Florida, one in Bradenton and another in West Palm Beach. Mediplex's Bradenton facility, the applicant in this proceeding, is an existing 120-bed nursing home located at 5627 Ninth Street East, Bradenton, Florida. Stipulations of the Parties Through their joint prehearing stipulation the parties stipulated to the following matters: Applications and Omission Responses may be placed into evidence without first having been proven, but the contents of those documents shall be hearsay, except as otherwise provided herein, until properly corroborated. Audited financial statements contained in the Application and/or Omissions Responses shall be admissible into evidence without a foundation witness and the information contained therein shall not be considered hearsay. Each of the applicants has access to sufficient financial resources to be able to construct and implement its proposed project; i.e. the proposals are financially feasible in the short term. Each of the applicants' dietary plans is adequate, meets regulatory requirements and does not afford the basis for comparative review between the parties. Each applicants' Letter of Intent, Corporate Resolution, newspaper publication and Schedule 2 are adequate and correct in form and content and comply with applicable statutes and rules except to the extent disputed by Mediplex in its Motion for Summary Recommended Order Against Vantage Healthcare Corporation. Newspaper publications were timely made by all applicants. Applications and Omissions Responses of all parties were timely filed. It remains at issue whether all Letters of Intent were timely filed. The fixed bed need pool available to applicants in this application cycle was 63 beds. Like and existing health care facilities in District 6 generally provide quality care, are efficient, and are adequate. However, up to 63 additional nursing home beds are required because the high utilization of the like and existing services renders them, or will render them, unavailable and inaccessible. By entering into this stipulation, the parties are not stating that the particular facilities owned or operated by Beverly Enterprises, Inc., or any of its subsidiaries, or Mediplex, necessarily provide quality care, are efficient or are adequate and reserve the right to present evidence on these issues related to these facilities. There are no appropriate alternatives to nursing care for those persons who, because of physical and/or social conditions require nursing care. No applicant is proposing joint, shared or cooperative health care resources. Section 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes, is not applicable to this proceeding. No applicant is proposing special equipment or services not accessible in adjoining areas. Mediplex, however, currently provides special equipment and/or services which may not be available in adjoining service areas. Section 408.035(1)(f) is not applicable to this proceeding. No applicant is proposing to provide a substantial portion of their proposed services to persons who do not reside in the service area. Mediplex, however, currently serves a number of patients from outside the service area in its existing facility. Section 408.035(1)(k) is not applicable to this proceeding. Existing inpatient facilities generally are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. By so stipulating, the parties are not stating that existing facilities, particularly those operated by Beverly Enterprises, Inc., or its subsidiaries, and the Mediplex cannot be used in a more appropriate or efficient manner or are currently being used appropriately or efficiently. Patients in Manatee County will experience serious problems in accessing nursing care without the addition of additional nursing care beds. Each of the parties can hire the staff listed on Schedule 6 of their applications at the salary listed therein. The parties are not stipulating that the levels of staffing proposed on Schedule 6 are adequate. Additionally, at hearing, the parties stipulated to the following matters: Neither party has ever turned in a certificate of need for failure to complete a project. Neither Mediplex nor any Beverly entity has ever failed to obtain financing for an approved project. The proposed projects are consistent with the strategic development plans of the respective applications. Both applicants have true and accurate certification pages and corporate resolutions in their applications. Both applicants will go forth with the conditions which are stated in their applications. The applicants' cover pages are true and accurate. Each applicant paid an appropriate application fee to AHCA. Each applicant has operated in Florida for the years reflected in its application. Each applicant's project development and financing costs as reflected in its application is reasonable and accurate. Each applicant's proposed project completion forecast is reasonable. Beverly's Proposal Beverly is proposing to construct a 105-bed freestanding nursing home in Manatee County to be comprised of 63 beds from the fixed need pool and 42 beds to be delicensed from a related facility, the Manatee Health Care and Rehabilitation Center. The proposed facility will consist of 53,310 gross square feet and have a total project cost of $7,363,760. Beverly's facility will be conditioned upon providing 50.2 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients, having a 20-bed Medicare-certified skilled nursing and subacute care unit with the capacity to treat ventilator patients, having an adult day care program, providing respite care, and treating persons with associated mental health disorders, Alzheimer's disease, and persons who are HIV positive. Beverly will also contribute $10,000 to a gerontological research fund at Florida A & M University upon approval of this project. Manatee Health Care and Rehabilitation Center is a three-story, 147-bed nursing home in Bradenton, Florida. It was constructed approximately thirty years ago and contains 3-bed wards on the second and third floors. Because of its age, the Manatee Health Care and Rehabilitation Center has very limited space for the provision of therapy. Three-bed wards are not considered state of the art and are difficult to manage. Residents prefer private and semiprivate rooms to three-bed wards. Gender separation and smoking preferences are much harder to accommodate with larger wards. Infection control problems are increased with larger residential units. In spite of these drawbacks, the facility has a superior license and enjoys continuous occupancy of over 90 percent. Beverly has filed a certificate of need application to delicense 42 beds at Manatee Health Care and Rehabilitation Center. Those 42 beds would be used in conjunction with 63 beds from the available fixed need pool to allow for the construction of a new Beverly facility at an undetermined site in Manatee County. If both applications are approved (the one at issue and the delicensure application), Beverly will remove all patient rooms from the first floor of Manatee Health Care and convert that space to therapy treatment rooms and office space. The additional therapy space will allow Beverly to purchase and install additional therapy equipment. All of the three-bed wards on the second floor of Manatee Health Care will be converted to semiprivate rooms. Beverly's proposal is intended to benefit residents at the proposed facility and the residents at the existing Manatee Health Care and Rehabilitation Center. Beverly's proposed new facility is designed in a "reverse T" configuration to minimize the distance from the resident rooms to the nursing stations, with each nursing station having direct visual control over all patient rooms on that station. It will have 36 semiprivate rooms and 33 private rooms. Designed to minimize an institutional effect and provide for a home-like setting, the proposal includes two large day rooms, four activity rooms, and five enclosed courtyards. The central courtyard has a solarium/greenhouse and a screened gazebo. Separate areas are designated for the adult day care program and the Alzheimer's treatment unit. There are a large occupational and physical therapy gym and dedicated treatment areas for speech therapy and activities of daily living therapy. There is also a central ambulation court for use in physical rehabilitation. In a prehearing motion for summary recommended order and throughout the proceeding, Mediplex has contended that Beverly's application for delicensure and approval of new beds is technically defective as the proposal described in its letter of intent is really two projects, rather than the required single project. The letter of intent describes the new facility to be comprised of 63 beds from the fixed need pool and 42 beds to be delicensed from the existing facility. The new facility is the subject of CON application number 7938, at issue in this proceeding. On January 20, 1995, subsequent to the application omissions filing deadline for CON number 7938, Beverly filed its application for CON number 7998 for delicensure of 42 beds at the existing facility. This latter application was denied and the proceeding to challenge that proposed agency action is in abeyance pending the outcome here. (Vantage Healthcare Corporation v. Agency for Health Care Administration; DOAH case number 95-3891) Beverly will not delicense its beds at the existing facility unless its application for CON for the new facility is approved. The two applications are essential elements in a single expansion scheme. Beverly made full disclosure of its intent to AHCA and confirmed with AHCA the process it should follow to present its proposal within the formal regulatory framework. The process of creating a new facility with beds from the fixed need pool combined with delicensed beds from a separate facility has been approved by AHCA in the recent past in Clearwater Land Company v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 17 FALR 3817 (AHCA 1995, DOAH Case No. 94-2404/94-2972). In the Clearwater case, however, the project involved delicensure of the entire old facility, a distinction that is significant with regard to financial projections as discussed below, but a distinction that is not fatal to the single project issue. Mediplex's Proposal Mediplex proposes a 60-bed addition to its existing 120-bed facility, for an additional 14,984 gross square feet at the cost of $2,019,972. Mediplex's Manatee Springs Nursing Center is located in the southeastern corner of Manatee County, in close proximity to hospitals in Manatee County and Sarasota. Eighty beds are active rehabilitation, sometimes called "subacute" beds, which are Medicare certified. Forty beds are long term, less intensive care beds. Mediplex has a superior license and is accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Facilities (JCAHO). These accreditations are evidence of extraordinary commitment to quality of care. The 60 beds sought by Mediplex are intended to be long term care beds, as the census in the facility's existing long term beds remains stable, with a 98 to 100 percent occupancy on a day to day basis. Occupancy of the subacute care beds fluctuates, but generally more of these beds are empty. Mediplex provides amenities that contribute to a home-like non- institutional environment, with design features to promote the privacy, individual choice and comfort of its residents. Design and location of the proposed addition will facilitate access to all services and amenities offered at the existing facility. Mediplex residents, existing and future, will benefit from staffing levels and ancillary services that are unique in a nursing home setting. The facility has three full-time physicians, including the medical director, a full- time psychologist, case managers and numerous contract therapists. Mediplex's Letter of Intent On October 31, 1994, Beverly filed its letter of intent for its proposed 105-bed facility. Consequently, pursuant to Rule 59C-1.008, Florida Administrative Code, a grace period was triggered for the filing of additional letters of intent. The deadline for the filing of grace period letters of intent was November 16, 1994. On November 15, 1994, Mediplex delivered its letter of intent to an overnight carrier, Airborne Express, for guaranteed delivery the following day to AHCA in Tallahassee and to the Local Health Council, the Health Council of West Florida, Inc. On November 17, 1994, AHCA advised Mediplex that AHCA and the local health council did not receive Mediplex's letter of intent until that same day. AHCA also advised that it would accept the letter of intent if Mediplex could obtain correspondence from the overnight carrier explaining that the late delivery was the fault of the overnight carrier and not the fault of Mediplex. Despite the fact that Mediplex's letter of intent was delivered to AHCA and the local health council one day following the grace period letter of intent deadline, AHCA determined that the letter of intent should be accepted because the late delivery was the fault of the overnight carrier and Mediplex had delivered the letter of intent in a timely manner to the overnight carrier. AHCA has previously accepted items from certificate of need applicants which were delivered one day late when late delivery was the result of an overnight carrier failing to follow through on its guarantee. This policy has developed in the eleven years that Liz Dudek, Bureau Chief for Certificate of Need and Budget Review, has been involved in the program. It is common and reasonable for applicants to rely on next-day delivery services and it is reasonable for AHCA to accept filings in the unusual event that the carrier fails to timely deliver through no fault of the applicant. Relevant Preferences in the Local Health Plan The August 1994 CON Allocation Factors Report for District VI identifies three allocation factors that are relevant to these nursing home applicants. Both Beverly's and Mediplex's proposals include agreed conditions for Medicaid utilization that meet or exceed the percentage of persons below 125 percent of the federal poverty level (15 percent in Manatee County) and the average number of Medicaid residents in existing nursing homes in the county (50.09 percent). Beverly commits to 50.2 percent for its new facility and is already achieving 72.4 percent at the facility from whence 42 beds will be derived. Although its commitment meets the criteria, it arguably represents a decline from Beverly's current outstanding Medicaid service. Uncertainty regarding the siting of the new facility affects Beverly's assurance that 50.2 percent is merely a minimum and that it expects to achieve a higher percentage. Depending upon the geographical location of the new facility in Manatee County, it may or may not attract the same level of Medicaid residents as now benefit from the existing facility. Mediplex commits to serve 51 percent Medicaid residents in 100 long- term beds. The second allocation factor in the District VI Plan relates to proposals of specialized services (for example, adult day care) to meet identified unmet needs. Both applicants propose an array of services. Beverly's application includes specific plans for adult day care; Mediplex's application does not. Both applicants are entitled to the preference in the third allocation factor, regarding demonstrated intent to serve HIV infected persons. Beverly has identified 3,400 patient days of nursing home care to patients with HIV/AIDS in all of its Florida facilities in 1994 and projected a substantial increase in 1995. Mediplex has served, and will continue to serve these patients, but does not maintain statistics on patient days. Mediplex's unique staffing, specifically including its full-time physicians, makes it ideally prepared to care for terminally ill patients. The State Health Plan The first allocation factor under the State Health Plan provides a preference to applicants proposing to locate nursing homes in subdistricts with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. The occupancy rate in Manatee County for the applicable planning horizon is 94.63 percent, and both Beverly and Mediplex qualify for this preference. The second State Health Plan factor, regarding service to Medicaid residents, is the same as the local health plan factor discussed in paragraphs 23 - 25, above, and both applicants qualify. Preference under the third factor is given to applicants proposing to provide specialized services to special needs residents, including AIDS and Alzheimer's residents and the mentally ill. Beverly has agreed to condition approval of its application on services to these special needs persons. Mediplex does not include such agreement in its application, but provides the services and plainly has the will and the means to continue to do so. State Health Plan allocation factor four is similar to the local plan allocation factor discussed in paragraph 26, above. Beverly describes and intends to implement a specific program for adult day care and includes a dedicated unit in its architectural plans; it also conditions award of its CON on the provision of respite care. Mediplex's application does not address day care, but states that the addition of 60 long term care beds will make it possible to implement a respite care program. Its existing 40 long term beds have been fully utilized, with no space to accommodate respite care which by its nature is short term. Allocation factor five gives preference to applicants proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum resident comfort and quality of care. Both applicants are entitled to this preference with outstanding designs and programs. Beverly's new facility will provide more space per patient overall than Mediplex's addition, but the room sizes are approximately equal. During the hearing, issues were raised with regard to whether portions of both Mediplex's and Beverly's designs met the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Credible conclusions by experts for both parties established that the apparent deficiencies were in the rough designs and that ADA requirements could be met by both facilities within their proposed spaces and costs. Allocation factor six provides a preference for proposals of innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven to be effective in enhancing residents' physical and mental functioning level. Beverly proposes, and Mediplex already provides, a full range of high quality therapy services. While these services may be more extensive or intensive than those offered in other older nursing homes, the services are not novel or "innovative." Further, Mediplex's application for 60 new long term care beds does not contemplate intensive therapeutic services to the residents of those new beds, which services are already being provided in its existing program. Beverly's proposal more effectively advances the goal reflected in this factor since its new facility would substantially improve the rehabilitation services it now offers. Preference in allocation factor seven is given to applicants proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. Exceptions are considered for facilities proposing to serve upper income residents. Mediplex has now, and will have in the projected future, the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. It failed to prove at hearing its statement in its CON application that approval of the 60-bed addition would result in a lower Medicaid per diem rate for the facility. Beverly's current and projected rates are substantially lower than Mediplex's. Beverly argues that Mediplex impermissibly amended its application at hearing when its expert testified that the projected Medicaid rate is $126 per day. While the financial data, as well as other parts of the application, included careless errors, the testimony explained the data provided and did not change the revenue and expense projections on Mediplex's Schedule Eleven. Allocation factor eight provides a preference to applicants with a history of superior resident care in existing facilities, considering, among other circumstances, the current licensure ratings of facilities located in Florida. Both applicants have a history of providing superior resident care. Approximately 75 percent of Beverly's many facilities in Florida enjoy a superior license rating. Of the four facilities owned by wholly-owned subsidiary, Vantage, two are superior, including the facility from which beds will be delicensed. Deficiencies have been quickly corrected when identified. Mediplex has consistently maintained a superior rating at the facility it seeks to expand. Its ability to withstand rigorous accreditation scrutiny by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations and by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, and its designation as a Head Injury Rehabilitation Care Center by the Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation further attest to its unique quality. State Health Plan allocation factor nine gives preference to applicants proposing staffing levels which exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Preference is also given in allocation factor ten to applicants who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet residents' needs including social services, recreation, nutrition, physical and specialized therapy, mental health and spiritual guidance. Beverly and Mediplex both clearly are entitled to these preferences as they both propose staffing levels which exceed the minimum standards of the agency's administrative rules. Both describe a multidisciplinary approach in serving residents; both employ or will contract with a full array of health care and geriatric care professionals. Entitlement by both applicants to the preference in allocation factor eleven is similarly uncontested. This preference relates to a respect for residents' rights and privacy and well-designed quality assurance and discharge plans. State Health Plan allocation factor twelve gives preference to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs than the average costs in nursing homes in the district. Only Beverly achieves this. The average administrative cost per patient day in District VI in 1993 was $24.74, and the average patient care cost per day was $47.48. To arrive at a reasonable comparison, the agency applies a five percent per year inflation factor through the applicants' second year of operation (here, 1998). This results in mid-year 1998 average patient care costs of $60.60 per day and administrative costs of $31.56 per day. For the target year Beverly proposes $22.27 administrative costs and $67.72 patient care costs. Mediplex's projected resident care cost of $118.43 and administrative cost of $59.73, per day, are both almost twice the district averages. As described by Mediplex's consultant, these costs are reflective of the high level of patient care provided in its facility. Approval of the additional 60 long term care beds, which beds will ordinarily generate less costs, will spread the subacute beds' costs over a wider base, thereby benefiting those patients. The high level of care will also be available to the long term care patients. Balancing Criteria: Need and Financial Feasibility As reflected above, there is little to recommend one application over the other when the criteria in the local and state health plans are considered. Beverly's new physical plant is preferable and its projected Medicaid rate and administrative costs (but patient costs, as well) are lower. Mediplex, however, enjoys an impeccable reputation for quality of care and provides the unique staffing to insure that its high level and quality of care are maintained. Both applicants reasonably propose to meet the identified for additional community nursing home beds in Manatee County, Florida. There is a difference in how each proposes to meet that need. Beverly suggests there is a need for subacute care beds and proposes to provide twenty such beds in its new facility. It is undisputed that patients are being discharged from acute care hospitals "quicker and sicker" and they sometimes require "step-down" or subacute level of care before returning to their homes or long term living arrangements. There is a trend in nursing homes to staff and equip facilities to meet this need. Beverly projected the need for additional subacute beds in Manatee County based on a flawed analysis of existing inventory. It considered only fifteen of Mediplex's eighty subacute beds and failed to include subacute beds recently approved in two hospitals in Manatee County, Blake and Manatee Memorial. These hospitals, without their own subacute beds, would be actively referring patients to community nursing homes with subacute care capability. There is no established definition of "subacute" and consequently no clear basis to establish an inventory of those beds in existing facilities. The facilities themselves define and identify them based on the acuity of services provided. A basic precursory step to establishing a subacute care bed is obtaining Medicare certification for that bed. There are approximately 400 Medicare-certified beds in Manatee County. Although subacute care services may not be currently provided in each of those 400 beds, their Medicare certification provides the potential for such services. There is an intuitive presumption of need for adult day care services, respite care services, services to Alzheimer's and HIV/AIDS patients, all services firmly committed to by Beverly. The state and local health plans address that need generally with the preferences described above. In this proceeding, however, no empirical data was presented to justify this basis for favoring Beverly's application over Mediplex's. It is not known, for example, whether the services are already being provided in other facilities or through alternative programs less costly than nursing homes. Mediplex established that its proposal for long term care beds more effectively meets existing need in Manatee County. Mediplex's proposal is also substantially less costly: approximately $2 million versus Beverly's $7 million, for the net addition of approximately the same number of beds. It is reasonable to expect that the $5 million difference will impact the system at some point in time when the investment is recouped either from government reimbursement systems or from the total charge structure. In reality, Beverly's project is more than $7 million when $442,000 is added for the delicensure application. And that delicensure process appears to cast a cloud on the validity of Beverly's financial feasibility projections. The projections contemplate a net loss ($42,184) for the first year's operation of the new 105-bed facility, and net income of $211,779 for the second year of operations. Standing alone, these are reasonable and suggest the long term financial feasibility of the new facility. The projections do not reflect the effect of delicensure of the beds in the existing facility, however. The projections related to the existing facility are found in the delicensure application, reviewed and analyzed in CON application number 7998. After delicensure, the existing facility will still generate a smaller, but positive net income. Both facilities will make money, but not as much as the existing facility without delicensure. This underscores the concern that somewhere in the system the $7.5 million investment will be recouped. That is, it is not reasonable to expect that $7.5 million is being spent to make less profit than would have been made without the investment. It is easier to establish the long term financial feasibility of Mediplex's project. It is an existing facility with robust financial performance and reasonable projections in the future. On balance, the Mediplex proposal better fulfills the statutory and regulatory criteria for a certificate of need.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the agency enter its final order awarding CON number 7939 to Mediplex (Manatee Springs Nursing Center, Incorporated). RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY W. CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Beverly's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-3. Adopted in paragraphs 1 - 3, respectively. 4. Adopted in paragraph 6. 5&6. Adopted in paragraph 9. Addressed generally in Paragraphs 33 and 34. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraphs 10 - 12. Adopted in paragraphs 13 and 25. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraphs 23 - 25. Adopted in substance in paragraph 26. 16&17. Rejected as unnecessary. 18&19. Adopted in paragraph 27, except for finding of "greater commitment", which is unsubstantiated or unsupported argument. 20&21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 29. 24-25. Adopted in paragraph 30, except that Mediplex did present evidence of services to patients suffering from dementia. 26. Rejected as unsupported argument. 27-28. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 31 and 32. 29. Addressed, but rejected, in paragraphs 53 and 54. 30-34. Adopted in summary in paragraph 33. 35&36. Adopted in summary in paragraph 35. 37-39. Adopted in summary in paragraph 36. 40&41. Adopted in paragraphs 38 - 40. 42&43. Adopted in paragraphs 41 and 42. 44-46. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 44 - 46, except that the high acuity services will be available to all Mediplex residents. 47. Adopted in paragraph 4. 48-54. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in summary in paragraph 58. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 46, in summary but Beverly's own projections are suspect since construction costs will be recouped through the health care system somehow. Rejected as unnecessary. See paragraph 58, above. The "no free lunch" argument has been credited. 61-70. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. 71. Rejected as argument that is unsupported by the weight of evidence. 72&73. Addressed in paragraphs 19 - 22. Addressed in paragraphs 10 - 12. Addressed in paragraphs 37 and 69, with the argument rejected. Mediplex's and AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 3. Addressed in preliminary statement. 3-5. Adopted in paragraph 11. 6. Adopted in paragraph 2. 7&8. Adopted in paragraph 12. 9-11. Addressed in preliminary statement. 12&13. Adopted in paragraphs 4 and 5, respectively. 14&15. Adopted in paragraph 19. 16&17. Adopted in paragraph 20. 18. Adopted in paragraph 21. 19&20. Adopted in paragraph 22. 21-42. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 49 - 52 and 55. 43-49. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 56 - 58. 50-108. The findings of unusually high quality of care and level of services at Mediplex's existing facility are accepted generally and are adopted in summary in paragraphs 15 - 18, 35, 40, 42, 43 and 46. 109-115. Adopted generally in paragraph 7 (final sentence). 116-122. Rejected as unnecessary. 123-128. Rejected as argument that is unsubstantiated or unsupported (that Beverly's Medicaid utilization will drop), although the undetermined site may affect the utilization as found in paragraph 24. 129-136. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (as to larger rooms); adopted in substance in paragraph 34 (as to ADA compliance). Adopted in paragraph 27. 143&144. Rejected as unnecessary or cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in paragraph 4. 147-186. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 37, 56 and 59. 187-194. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire Jay Adams, Esquire BROAD & CASSEL Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David C. Ashburn, Esquire Michael Cherniga, Esquire GREENBERG, TRAURIG, HOFFMAN, LIPOFF, ROSEN AND QUENTEL Post Office Box 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James H. Peterson Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
