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
The Issue The issue is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration should approve Petitioner’s application for a Certificate of Need to establish a 54-bed freestanding long-term care hospital in Escambia County.
Findings Of Fact Parties Select-Escambia is a subsidiary of Select Medical Corporation (Select), which has been in the business of operating LTCHs since the 1980’s. Select currently operates 99 LTCHs in 27 states, including three in Florida. Select’s Florida LTCHs are located in Orlando, Miami, and Panama City. The Orlando and Panama City LTCHs were formerly operated by SemperCare, Inc. (SemperCare), which Select acquired in January 2005. Three other Select LTCHs –- in Tallahassee, Orlando, and Alachua County -- have been approved by the Agency, but are not yet operational. The Tallahassee LTCH, which was also formerly a SemperCare facility, was originally projected to open in 2006, but that date is no longer certain. The Agency is the state agency responsible for administering the CON program and for licensing LTCHs and other health care facilities. Application Submittal and Review and Preliminary Agency Action In the second batching cycle of 2004 for hospital beds and facilities, Select-Escambia filed with the Agency an application for a CON to establish a 54-bed freestanding LTCH in Escambia County. There were no co-batched applications comparatively reviewed by the Agency with Select-Escambia's application, CON 9800. Select-Escambia’s application was complete, and it satisfied the applicable submittal requirements in the statutes and the Agency's rules. The Agency’s review of Select-Escambia’s application complied with the applicable statutory and rule requirements. The Agency’s review culminated in a SAAR issued on December 10, 2004. The SAAR recommended denial of CON 9800, primarily based upon Select-Escambia’s failure to demonstrate to the Agency’s satisfaction that there is a need for the proposed Escambia County LTCH. The determination in the SAAR that Select-Escambia failed to adequately demonstrate need for its proposed LTCH was largely based upon a 2004 report by MedPAC, which is an organization that advises Congress on issues related to Medicare. The MedPAC report concluded that LTCH patients need to be better defined so as to ensure that the patients treated at LTCHs are of the highest severity and cannot be more cost- effectively treated in other care settings. The Agency formally published notice of its intent to deny CON 9800 in the Florida Administrative Weekly, and Select- Escambia thereafter timely filed a petition challenging the Agency’s denial of its application. The Agency reaffirmed its opposition to Select- Escambia’s application at the hearing through the testimony of Jeffrey Gregg, the bureau chief over the Agency’s CON program. LTCHs Generally An LTCH is defined by statute and Agency rule as “a hospital licensed under chapter 395 which meets the requirements of 42 C.F.R. s. 412.23(e) and seeks exclusion from the Medicare prospective payment system for inpatient hospital services.” LTCHs provide extended medical and rehabilitative care to patients with multiple, chronic, and/or clinically complex acute medical conditions. They serve a patient population whose average length of stay (ALOS) exceeds 25 days. There are two types of LTCHs: hospital-within-a- hospital (HIH) and freestanding. Both types are accepted in the industry, and both types are found in Florida and nationwide. HIH LTCHs are located in the same building or on the same campus as a traditional acute care hospital, which is referred to as the “host hospital.” HIH LTCHs contract with the host hospital for ancillary services such as laboratory and radiology services. HIH LTCHs get the vast majority of their admissions from the host hospital, whereas freestanding LTCHs tend to get their admissions from a number of different hospitals. LTCHs fit into the continuum of care between traditional acute care hospitals and traditional post-acute care facilities such as nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), hospital-based skilled nursing units (SNUs), and comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR) facilities. LTCHs are designed to serve patients that would otherwise have to be maintained in a traditional acute care hospital (often in the ICU) where the reimbursement rates may be insufficient to cover the costs associated with a lengthy stay, or be moved to a traditional post-acute care facility where the patient may not receive the level of care needed. Patients with co-morbidities, complex medical conditions, or frailties due to age are typically appropriate LTCH patients, particularly if the patient would otherwise remain in the ICU of a traditional acute care hospital. For such patients, an LTCH is likely the most appropriate setting from both a financial and patient-care standpoint. There is a distinct population of patients who, because of the complexity or severity of their medical condition, are best served in an LTCH. However, there is an overlap between the population of patients that can be served in an LTCH and the population of patients that could also be well- served in the ICU of an acute care hospital or a traditional post acute care setting with ventilator capability. Indeed, as noted in the MedPAC report, “[i]n the absence of LTCHs, clinically similar patients are principally treated in acute hospitals or in freestanding SNFs that are equipped to handle patients requiring a high level of care.” Because of the overlap in patients, it is important for LTCHs to adopt detailed admission criteria to ensure that the LTCH (rather than a SNF, SNU, or CMR) is the most appropriate care setting for the patient. InterQual, which is a private organization that establishes standards for quality of care for a variety of health care settings, has developed model admission criteria for LTCHs. The Interqual criteria are designed to ensure that the LTCH is the most appropriate care setting for the patient, and they are referenced in the MedPAC report as an example of the type of admission criteria that LTCHs should adopt to ensure that they are not treating patients that should be treated in another setting. Mr. Gregg and Karen Rivera, the supervisor of the CON program, acknowledged in their deposition testimony that an LTCH’s use of the InterQual criteria would, at least to some degree, address the Agency’s concern that LTCHs might be serving patients that should be served in a more traditional, less- intensive (and/or less-costly), post-acute care setting. Select utilizes the InterQual criteria as part of its admission process at its existing LTCHs, and it intends to utilize those criteria at its proposed Escambia County LTCH. Specifically, Select’s nurses screen patients prior to admission and, again, shortly after admission to ensure they are LTCH- appropriate patients. Additionally, Select’s nurses and care teams periodically evaluate each patient to ensure that the LTCH is still the most appropriate care setting for the patient and to determine whether the patient is ready for discharge, either to a traditional post-acute care setting or to home. Select also utilizes a third-party organization to review and assess the patient-outcomes achieved at each of its LTCHs. This is a quality assurance/improvement tool because it allows Select to compare and “benchmark” the performance of its LTCHs against each other and against other LTCHs nationwide and it helps to identify functions or services that need improvement. LTCH services are most highly utilized by persons in the 65 and older (65+) age cohort because those persons are more likely to have complex and/or co-morbid medical conditions that require long-term acute care. In calendar year 2003, for example, approximately 77 percent of LTCH patients in Florida were in the 65+ age cohort and approximately 51 percent were in the 75 and older (75+) age cohort. The typical LTCH patient is still in need of considerable acute care, but a traditional acute care hospital may no longer be the most appropriate or lowest cost setting for that care. The vast majority of LTCH admissions are patients transferred directly from a traditional acute care hospital. It is not uncommon for an LTCH patient to be transferred on life support from a critical care unit or ICU after the patient has been diagnosed and stabilized. Nursing homes, SNFs, SNUs, CMR facilities, and home health care are not appropriate for the typical LTCH patient because the patient's acuity level and medical/therapeutic needs are higher than those generally treated in those settings. Indeed, unlike traditional post-acute care settings, which typically do not admit patients who still require acute care, the core patient-group served by LTCHs are patients who require considerable acute care through daily physician visits and intensive nursing care in excess of eight hours of direct patient care per day. LTCH patients are often discharged to a traditional post-acute care facility such as a nursing home, SNF, CMR facility, or home health care. Thus, those facilities cannot be considered as "substitutes" for LTCHs, even though there is some overlap between the services provided to lower acuity LTCH patients and higher acuity patients in those traditional post- acute care facilities. The family of a patient in an LTCH is generally encouraged to be more involved in the patient’s care than it would be if the patient was in the ICU of a traditional acute care hospital. For example, the visiting hours at LTCHs are typically more liberal than the visiting hours of the ICU at a traditional acute care hospital. Medicare reimbursements are the primary source of revenue for LTCHs because, on average, 75 to 85 percent of LTCH patients are covered by Medicare. In this case, Select-Escambia projected that approximately 77 percent of the patient days at its proposed Escambia County LTCH would be generated by Medicare patients. In 2002, the federal government adopted a Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) specifically for LTCHs. That system recognizes the LTCH patient population as being distinct from the patient populations treated by traditional acute care hospitals and post-acute care facilities such as nursing homes, SNFs, SNUs, and CMR facilities, even though there may be some overlap between the patient populations served by LTCHs and those other types of facilities. Under the LTCH PPS, services are reimbursed by Medicare at a predetermined rate that is weighted based upon the patient's diagnosis and acuity, regardless of the cost of care. This reimbursement system is similar to, but uses Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) that are different than the DRGs used in the PPS for traditional acute care hospitals. The Medicare reimbursement rates for services to long- stay patients in an LTCH are generally higher than the reimbursement rates for the same services to long-stay patients at a traditional acute care hospital. As a result, there is a financial incentive for hospitals to transfer their long-stay patients to an LTCH. In August 2004, the federal regulations governing Medicare reimbursements for LTCHs were substantially amended. One significant change in the regulations is that the number of admissions that an HIH LTCH can receive from its host hospital and still qualify for reimbursement under the LTCH PPS is generally capped at 25 percent. The effect of that change is that new HIH LTCHs will not be viable in most instances. LTCHs in Florida At the time CON 9800 was filed, there were 12 LTCHs operating in Florida with a total of 799 licensed beds. There were an additional four approved but not yet licensed LTCHs, including the three Select facilities referenced above. There are no licensed or approved LTCHs in District 1, which consists of Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties. There is at least one licensed or approved LTCH in each health planning district, except for Districts 1 and 9.2 The closest Florida LTCH to Escambia County is the former SemperCare (now Select) facility in Panama City, which is in District 2. That facility, which opened in early 2003, is a 30-bed HIH LTCH, and is approximately 100 miles and a two-hour drive from Pensacola. There is or soon will be an LTCH in Mobile, Alabama, which is approximately 60 miles from Pensacola. There was no evidence presented regarding the type, size, utilization, or quality of care at that facility. The existing Florida LTCHs are well-utilized. According to the SAAR, the overall occupancy rate for the Florida LTCH beds was approximately 68 percent in 2003, and several of the facilities had occupancy rates in excess of 80 percent. The newer facilities -– Select’s Miami LTCH, which opened in December 2002, and the former SemperCare (now Select) LTCH in Orlando, which opened in June 2003 -- had considerably lower occupancy rates, which as discussed in the Select-Marion Recommended Order (page 23), is to be expected. If the beds and patient days for those facilities are excluded from the calculation in the SAAR, the overall occupancy rate for the Florida LTCH beds in 2003 would have been slightly above 71 percent. The existing Florida LTCHs receive a majority of their admissions from the county in which they are located, which is consistent with the comment in the MedPAC Report that proximity to an LTCH “quadruples the likelihood that a [patient] will use a long-term care hospital.” Florida LTCHs served patients in 174 of the 527 DRGs in calendar year 2003, but 50 of the DRGs accounted for 91 percent of the cases and 93 percent of the patient days. By far, the most commonly treated DRG is No. 475, which is “respiratory system diagnosis with ventilator support.” Select-Escambia’s Proposed LTCH Select-Escambia’s proposed LTCH will be a 54-bed freestanding facility in 54,090 square feet of new construction. The precise location of the proposed LTCH is not yet known. However, Select-Escambia conditioned approval of its CON application on the facility being located in Escambia County, and the application states that the facility will be located "proximate to the area acute care hospitals." The service area for the proposed LTCH is Escambia County and a 40-mile radius around Pensacola. The service area extends into Alabama on the west and into Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties on the east. It excludes Walton County. The service area is reasonable based upon the facts discussed in Part D(2)(a) below, particularly the concentration of the population and the acute care beds in Escambia County, the large elderly population in Escambia County, and the large in-migration to (and small out-migration from) Escambia County for acute care services. The bed complement at the proposed LTCH will be 35 private rooms (five of which are ICU-level), 8 semi-private rooms, and three isolation rooms (one of which is ICU-level). The facility will also include a surgical suite, a gym for physical and occupational therapy, a pharmacy, and laboratory and x-ray facilities. The total project cost is approximately $17.1 million. That cost will be funded by Select from its net cash flow from operations and through borrowings from Select’s bank. The services at the proposed LTCH will include the same “core” services found at other Select LTCHs. Those services are the treatment of pulmonary and ventilator patients, neuro-trauma and stroke patients, medically complex patients, and wound care. Select-Escambia has not negotiated patient transfer agreements with any of the area hospitals, but the CON application does include letters of support from Sacred Heart Hospital-Pensacola in Escambia County and North Okaloosa Medical Center in Okaloosa County. It is not unusual for patient transfer agreements not to have been negotiated at the CON-stage of the development of a new LTCH. The proposed LTCH was projected to open approximately two years after approval of the CON, or in November 2006. That date has been delayed as a result of this proceeding, but the two-year construction period is reasonable. The need projections in the application focus on the first two years of the facility’s operation, 2007 and 2008, as do the utilization and financial projections. Select-Escambia projects that its proposed LTCH will have 8,819 patient days in its first year of operation, and 14,054 patient days in its second year of operation. Those patient days equate to utilization rates of 45 percent in the first year and 71 percent in the second year. Those projections are reasonable and attainable. Select-Escambia projects that its proposed LTCH will generate a net loss of approximately $2.18 million in the first year of operation, and a net profit of approximately $1.19 million. Those projections are reasonable and attainable based upon the utilization projected. In addition to the letter of support from the two hospitals referenced above, the CON application includes letters of support from physicians, local politicians and businesses, the operator of rehabilitation clinics in Pensacola, and the medical director of several nursing homes in Pensacola. The letters of support attest to the general unavailability of LTCH services in Escambia County and, as discussed below, several of the letters specifically state that the traditional post-acute care settings in the area are inadequate for patients in need of long-term acute care. Statutory and Rule Criteria The statutory criteria applicable to the review of Select-Escambia’s application are in the 2004 version of Section 408.035, Florida Statutes.3 The Agency’s rules do not contain any specific criteria relating to LTCHs. The general criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. are applicable because the Agency does not publish a fixed need pool or a need methodology for LTCHs. That rule requires the applicant to demonstrate that there is a need for its proposed facility or service. Stipulated Criteria The parties’ Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation includes the following stipulations relating to the statutory criteria4: With respect to compliance with Section 408.035(3), Florida Statutes, it is agreed that Select-Escambia has the ability to provide quality programs based on the description of their programs in their CON application and based on the operational facilities of the applicant and/or of the applicant's parent facilities which are JCAHO certified. With respect to compliance with Section 408.035(4), Florida Statutes, it is agreed that Select-Escambia has the ability to provide the necessary resources including health personnel, management personnel and funds for capital operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. With respect to compliance with Section 408.035(6), Florida Statutes, it is agreed that the immediate financial feasibility of the Select-Escambia project is not in dispute. It is further agreed by all parties that the long term financial feasibility of Select-Escambia is not in dispute. The parties agree that, if the projected levels are realized (i.e., need) with respect to compliance there is no disputed issue with respect to compliance with Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes, in that the project will foster competition that promotes quality and cost effectiveness. The parties agree there are no disputed issues with respect to compliance with Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes, which relates to an applicant's proposed costs and methods of proposed construction for the type of project proposed. The parties agree there is no disputed issues with respect to compliance with 408.035(9), Florida Statutes, as it relates to Medicaid patients in that Select's Medicaid provision (conditions - Schedule C) exceeds the state average. Section 408.035(10), Florida Statutes, is not at issue with respect to a review of the CON application filed by Select-Escambia. In light of those stipulations, the only statutory criteria still at issue are those relating to “need” –- Section 408.035(1),5 (2), and (5), Florida Statutes -- and the charity care component of Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes. The issue of “need” was identified as the dispositive issue in this case. Mr. Gregg acknowledged in his testimony at the hearing and in his deposition that other than the issue of “need” there is no basis to deny Select-Escambia’s application. Criteria Related to “Need” The statutory criteria in Section 408.035(1), (2), and (5), Florida Statutes –- i.e., need for the proposed service; availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of the service in the district; and the extent to which the proposed service will enhance access in the district - encompass essentially the same factors that are enumerated in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. Mr. Gregg testified at the hearing that where there is no LTCH in a district (as is the case in District 1), the Agency presumes that there is some amount of need for LTCH services in the district. However, Select-Escambia has the burden to demonstrate the extent of that need. Demographic, Market, etc. Factors Showing Need Each of the four counties in District 1 is relatively long and narrow. The counties extend from the Gulf of Mexico to the south and the Florida-Alabama line to the north. Escambia County is the westernmost county in District 1, and Walton County is the easternmost county in the district. Santa Rosa County is immediately to the east of Escambia County, and Okaloosa County is between Santa Rosa and Walton Counties. A 40-mile radius around Pensacola, which is the largest city in Escambia County, encompasses all of Santa Rosa County and almost all of Okaloosa County. Although much of Walton County is outside of that radius, it (and all of District 1) is within an hour and a half drive of Pensacola. Walton County is bordered on the east by Washington and Bay Counties, which are in District 2. Panama City, which currently has an LTCH, is in southern Bay County. District 1 had a population of 670,283 in July 2004, with approximately 45.6 percent of that population located in Escambia County. Approximately 13.4 percent of the July 2004 population in District 1 was in the 65+ age cohort, and 5.98 percent of that population was in the 75+ age cohort. Those percentages were lower than the statewide averages of 17.8 percent in the 65+ age cohort and nine percent in the 75+ age cohort. The population of District 1 and the percentages of the population in the 65+ and 75+ age cohorts are almost the same as the population and percentages in District 2, which has one operational (Panama City) and one approved (Tallahassee) LTCH. The population of District 1 is projected to grow approximately 6.91 percent to 716,585 by July 2009, which is five-year planning horizon applicable to this case. The five-year growth rate in District 1 is lower than the 7.93 percent rate that the state as a whole is projected to grow over the same period. However, the projected five-year growth rate in the 65+ and 75+ age cohorts, which most heavily utilize LTCH services, are higher than the statewide growth rates in those age cohorts. Specifically, the 75+ age cohort in District 1 is projected to grow 13.85 percent by July 2009, which is a higher percentage than any other health planning district in the state and nearly twice the statewide rate of 6.33 percent. The 65+ age cohort in District 1 is projected to grow 11.36 percent by July 2009, which is higher than the 9.94 percent statewide rate and higher than all but three of the other health planning districts. Walton County is projected to grow at a higher rate, both as a whole and in the 65+ and 75+ age cohorts, over the applicable five-year planning horizon than any of the other counties in District 1. The higher growth rate is due in large part to the fact that Walton County is considerably smaller than the other District 1 counties. From a raw population perspective, there will be considerably more growth in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties than in Walton County over the applicable five-year planning horizon. The population of Walton County is expected to increase by only 7,400 persons over that period, while the population of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties are expected to increase by almost 27,000 persons. As of December 2003, there were approximately 1,800 acute care beds in District 1 at 11 hospitals. For calendar year 2003, the district-wide average occupancy of those beds was 52.4 percent. The three largest hospitals in District 1 are located in Escambia County. Those hospitals -- Baptist Hospital, Sacred Heart Hospital-Pensacola, and West Florida Regional Medical Center -- are all similar in size and account for approximately 1,135 (or 62.6 percent) of the acute care beds in District 1. Sacred Heart Hospital-Pensacola provided a letter of support for Select-Escambia's proposed LTCH, as did two hospitals in Okaloosa County (i.e., Sacred Heart Hospital of the Emerald Coast and North Okaloosa Medical Center). The data presented in the CON application (at pages 000118 to 000121) shows that between 62.4 and 68.4 percent of the “long-stay patients” in District 1 were in the three Escambia County hospitals; that those hospitals had a relatively high (28.8 to 31.6 percent) in-migration rate of long-stay patients from outside of Escambia County; and that there is very little (1.3 to 3.6 percent) out-migration of Escambia County long-stay patients to other District 1 hospitals. Only one District 1 resident was admitted to a Florida LTCH in calendar year 2003, which is a strong indication that LTCH services are not reasonably accessible to District 1 residents even with the establishment of the Panama City LTCH in early 2003. The Panama City LTCH, which is approximately 100 miles from Pensacola, is too far away from Escambia County to be a reasonable alternative for residents of that county. The same is true for the other counties in District 1, except for Walton County which is geographically closer to Panama City than it is to Pensacola. The Panama City LTCH was not expected to serve District 1. According to the SAAR that recommended approval of that LTCH, the facility was projected to get 60 percent of its admissions from its host hospital, Bay Medical Center, and only two of the potential LTCH referrals were projected to come from a District 1 hospital. Those referrals were projected to come from Santa Rosa Medical Center in Santa Rose County, and none of the referrals to the Panama City LTCH were projected to come from Escambia County. Those projections are consistent with the experience of the Panama City LTCH since it opened in early 2003. Only five or six patients from Escambia County have been referred to the Panama City LTCH, and none have chosen to be admitted to the facility. There are no LTCHs or “like services” in District 1 because, as more fully discussed in Part C(1) above, the traditional post-acute care settings such as SNFs, CMRs, and hospital-based SNUs are not substitutes for LTCHs. The data presented in the CON application shows that in calendar year 2003 there were 500 patients treated in District 1 hospitals with LTCH-appropriate DRGs who were in the hospital for a collective 13,942 days beyond the geometric mean length of stay (GMLOS),6 which corresponds to an average of 27.9 days beyond the GMLOS. It is reasonable to expect that that those patients would have been discharged to a post-acute care setting if they no longer needed acute care, and because there were available CMR, SNU, and SNF beds in the district,7 it is reasonable to infer that the patients were still in need of long-term acute care and/or that the available post-acute care facilities did not offer the requisite level of intensive care. This inference is corroborated by the letters of support from local physicians that were included in the CON application. For example, the October 7, 2003, letter to Mr. Gregg from Dr. Donna Jacobi states that: Our skilled nursing facilities and subacute units have had difficulty in managing complex, more unstable patients One facility was equipped and staffed for ventilator patients when it opened; now that ward is for routine SNF care. Our rehabilitation institute is not the place for these patients either – they may be too ill for three hours of therapy daily. Currently some of these patients remain in acute care much longer than necessary and are subjected to iatrogenic [sic] risks, depression, and possible further decline in functional status while becoming more medically stable. Others bounce back and forth between nursing home and hospital, and a few leave our area of the state to find care elsewhere – far from their family and friends who are very important to their recovery. A LTACH [sic] would provide the opportunity for them to remain here in a supportive environment.[8] Letters of support such as Dr. Jacobi’s and those quoted in Endnote 8, with detailed information about the inability to place patients in existing facilities, are the type that the Mr. Gregg identified in Select-Marion (page 60, endnote 5) as being the most useful to the Agency in “validating” the applicant’s numeric need projections. In sum, the demographic and market conditions described above, coupled with the letters of support from local physicians and two of the acute care hospitals in District 1, support the establishment of an LTCH in the district, and more specifically, in Escambia County. Quantification of the Need / Numeric Need Select-Escambia presented two different methodologies in its application to quantify the need for LTCH beds in District 1. The methodologies are similar, but not identical to the methodology recently accepted by the Agency in Select- Marion.9 The methodologies presented in the application each define the potential patients for Select-Escambia’s proposed LTCH as the “long-stay patients” in the existing District 1 acute care hospitals with “LTCH-appropriate DRGs.” That approach is reasonable from a health planning perspective because, as discussed in Part C(1) above, an LTCH is likely the most appropriate setting for such patients from a financial and patient-care standpoint. The methodologies differ in their definition of what constitutes a “long-stay patient,” but they both use the GMLOS as the starting point, which is reasonable from a health planning perspective. Both methodologies define the “LTCH-appropriate DRGs” as the 50 DRGs that are most commonly treated in the existing Florida LTCHs. The focus on the “top 50” DRGs was reasonable from a health planning perspective because those DRGs account for more than 91 percent of the cases and 93 percent of the patient days at the existing Florida LTCHs. GMLOS+15 Methodology The first methodology presented in the application –- “the GMLOS+15 methodology” –- identified all of the patients treated in the District 1 hospitals with LTCH-appropriate DRGs whose length of stay was at least 15 days longer than the GMLOS for the DRG. A similar definition of long-stay patients was accepted by the Agency in Select-Marion. There were a total of 500 potential LTCH patients identified through Select-Escambia’s GMLOS+15 methodology. According to the data included in the CON application (at page 000120), 30 of those patients were Walton County residents and 55 resided outside of District 1. Select-Escambia calculated a total of 19,409 potential LTCH patient days that would be generated by the 500 identified long-stay patients, which equates to an average daily census (ADC) of 53. According to Select-Escambia's health planner (Transcript, at 131), the 19,409 patient-days included all of the days in the patient’s hospital stay as potential LTCH patient days, and not just that portion of the stay that exceeded the GMLOS. The inclusion of all of the days in the patient’s hospital stay as potential LTCH patient days is not reasonable because the vast majority of LTCH patients are transferred from an acute care hospital at some point during the patient’s hospital stay, typically at or after the GMLOS. The effect of including all of the days in the patient’s hospital stay as potential LTCH patient days rather than just the days after the GMLOS is an overstatement of the potential LTCH patient days and the ADC calculated under the GMLOS+15 methodology in Select-Escambia’s application. If only the days beyond the GMLOS were included (as was done in Select-Marion), the result would be 13,941 potential LTCH patient days. If the 875 days attributable to Walton County residents and the 1,596 days attributable to non-District 1 residents were excluded (see Exhibit P2, at 000121), then the total would be 11,471 potential LTCH patient days. The ADC of 53 calculated by Select-Marion under the GMLOS+15 methodology is not reliable because it was based upon the 19,409 patient days. Using the 13,941 or 11,471 patient days referenced above would result in an ADC of 38.2 or 31.4, respectively. Based upon an 80 occupancy standard, those ADCs would translate into a projected need for 40 to 48 LTCH beds in District 1. If a 75 percent occupancy standard was used, the projected LTCH bed need would be 42 to 51 beds. The lower numbers in each of those ranges reflect the exclusion of the patient days attributable to Walton County residents and non- District 1 residents; the higher numbers in those ranges reflect the inclusion of those residents. An 80 percent occupancy standard was accepted by the Agency in Select-Marion and was also used by Select in Select- Sarasota. As stated in the Recommended Order in Select-Marion (at page 37), the 80 percent occupancy standard “better reflects the lower bed turn-over by LTCH patients than does the 75 percent occupancy standard typically applied to traditional, ‘short-term’ acute care hospitals.” GMLOS+7 Methodology The second methodology presented in the application - – “the GMLOS+7 methodology” –- uses a broader definition to identify the potential LTCH patients in District 1. It includes all of the patients with LTCH-appropriate DRGs who were treated in the District 1 hospitals and whose lengths of stay were at least seven days longer than the GMLOS. The broader definition of long-stay patients in the GMLOS+7 methodology resulted in 1,498 potential LTCH patients (see Exhibit P2, at 000117 (Table 1-16(b)), 000120), as compared to the 500 potential LTCH patients identified through the GMLOS+15 methodology. The Agency did not expressly take issue with the broader definition used in the GMLOS+7 methodology to identify the potential LTCH patients, and it cannot be said based upon the record evidence in this case that the definition is inherently unreasonable. In calculating the potential LTCH patient days under the GMLOS+7 methodology, Select-Escambia only included the days that the patient stayed in the hospital beyond the GMLOS, which are referred to in the application as “excess days.” See Transcript, at 132. A similar approach was used in the methodology accepted by the Agency in Select-Marion. The following table, which is derived from the data in Table 1-16(a) in the CON application, summarizes the number of excess days generated by patients in the District 1 hospitals based upon the patient’s county of residence: Escambia County 11,434 Okaloosa County 5,634 Santa Rosa County 3,194 Subtotal: District 1 Residents except for Walton County 20,262 Walton County 1,410 Subtotal: All District 1 residents 21,672 Outside of District 1 2,340 Total 24,012 Select-Escambia then converted the excess days into “forecasted LTCH cases” by dividing the most conservative figure –- the 20,262 days, which excluded Walton County residents and non-District 1 residents -- by the 33.6 ALOS at Select’s existing freestanding LTCHs. The result –- 603 cases –- was then inflated based upon the projected growth rate in District 1 to determine the number of forecasted LTCH cases in 2007 and 2008, which were projected to be the first two years of operation for Select-Escambia’s proposed LTCH. The forecasted cases were then converted into “forecasted LTCH days” by multiplying the number of cases by the same 33.6 ALOS. The conversion of the excess days into forecasted LTCH cases and then back into forecasted LTCH days based upon a 33.6 ALOS is not reasonable because, according to the CON application,10 the initial calculation of the excess days is intended to reflect the number of days that patients would likely spend in the LTCH rather than the short-term acute care hospitals in District 1 if an LTCH was available in the area. The ALOS experienced by Select at its other facilities is irrelevant to that issue. The effect of the conversion step in Select- Escambia’s GMLOS+7 methodology is an overstatment of the forecasted LTCH patient days, as can be seen through a comparison of the data in Tables 1-16(a) and 1-16(b) in the CON application. Table 1-16(b) shows the number of cases associated with the excess days calculated in Table 1-16(a). The 1,498 total cases identified on Table 1-16(b) correlate to the 24,012 total excess days identified on Table 1-16(a). As a result, there is an average of only 16.03 excess days per case. Stated another way, the long-stay patients identified through the GMLOS+7 methodology are staying in the hospital an average of 16.03 days longer than the GMLOS. It is those 16.03 days/case that make up the potential LTCH patient days, but the conversion described above appears to assume that those same patients would stay in Select-Escambia’s proposed LTCH for 33.6 days. There is no logic or reason to that assumption, and as a result, the patient days, ADC, and bed need reflected in Table 1-17 of the application are not reliable. The most reliable projection of bed need that can be calculated based upon the data presented in connection with the GMLOS+7 methodology is derived from the Excess Table 1-16(a), to wit: Bed Need Days ADC (at 80%) Escambia only 11,434 31.3 40 District 1 excluding Walton and non-District 1 20,262 55.5 70 District 1 including Walton; excluding non- District 1 21,672 59.4 75 Accordingly, the GMLOS+7 methodology projects a need for 70 to 75 LTCH beds, depending upon whether Walton County residents are included in the calculation, with 40 of the beds attributable to the excess days generated by Escambia County residents alone. Ultimate Findings Regarding Numeric Need Using the most conservative figures produced by the respective need methodologies presented in the application, there is a need for between 40 (see Finding of Fact 107) and 70 (see Findings of Fact 119 and 120) LTCH beds in District 1. It is reasonable to expect that the “actual” bed need is towards the mid-point of that range -- 55 beds -- because Select-Escambia’s proposed LTCH will likely get some of the potential LTCH admissions from Walton County, as well as some of the potential LTCH admissions from outside of District 1; because as many as seven percent of the facility's patient days will be attributable to patients whose diagnoses are not within the “top 50” DRGs used in the methodologies to identify the potential LTCH patients; and because the methodologies and the fiqures reflected in the preceeding paragraphs do not take into account the growth in admissions and patient days between 2003 (the period used in the methodologies) and 2007 (when Select- Escambia's proposed LTCH is projected to open) that is expected as the population of District 1 grows, particularly in the 65+ and 75+ age cohorts. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that there is a numeric need for the 54 LTCH beds proposed by Select-Escambia. Other Disputed Criteria Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the “applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent.” The statutory reference to “the medically indigent” encompasses what are typically referred to as charity patients. Select-Escambia conditioned the approval of its CON application on the provision of two percent of the patient days at its proposed LTCH to Medicaid patients and 0.8 percent of the patient days to charity patients. It was stipulated that Select-Escambia’s commitment to Medicaid patients exceeds the statewide average for LTCHs, which according to the SAAR is 1.24 percent of patient days. Select-Escambia’s commitment to charity patients is slightly lower than the statewide average for LTCHs, which is 0.94 percent of patient days.11 When viewed collectively, Select-Escambia’s commitment to Medicaid and charity patients -- 2.8 percent of patient days -- exceeds the statewide average for LTCHs of 2.18 percent of patient days. The commitments to Medicaid and charity patients in Select-Escambia’s CON application were based upon Select’s experience at its other LTCHs, and they are reasonable and attainable in District 1. The fact that Select-Escambia’s commitment to charity patients is slightly lower than the statewide average for LTCHs is not significant under the circumstances of this case. Indeed, Mr. Gregg conceded at the hearing that it is not an independent basis to deny Select-Escambia’s application, and that the Agency will accept Select-Escambia’s proposed charity commitment of 0.8 percent of patient days if the CON is ultimately approved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order approving Select-Escambia’s application, CON 9800. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Donald Davis is the promoter behind the formation of Community Hospital of Collier, Inc. He is a health care management consultant and a principal of the firm Health Research and Planning Associates, Inc. In his profession he concentrates on the promotion and development of health care facilities. He has engaged previously in the business of forming corporations for the purpose of submitting applications and obtaining Certificates of Need. He also provides consulting services to health service corporations. Neither Davis nor the other principals of the applicant corporation, including his wife, have any experience or expertise in constructing or operating hospitals, and Davis admitted that the sole purpose for forming the entity known as Community Hospital of Collier, Inc. was for the purpose of submitting an application and prosecuting it in order to obtain a Certificate of Need for an acute care hospital for District VIII. Mr. Davis' own company, Health Research and Planning Management Associates, Inc. was paid $15,000 by Community Hospital of Collier, Inc. to develop the Certificate of Need application at issue. Community has "a couple of thousand dollars" in its own bank account. The officers and directors of Health, Research and Planning Management Associates, Inc. are the same as those of Community Hospital of Collier, Inc. On June 15, 1983, after having previously filed a letter of intent, Mr. Davis filed an application for a Certificate of Need for a 152-bed acute care hospital on behalf of Community Hospital of Collier, Inc. Mr. Davis is an officer and director of that corporation. The articles of incorporation for Community Hospital of Collier, Inc. which gave it its de jure status were not signed until July 29, 1983 and were not filed with the Secretary of State until August 19, 1983. Be that as it may, Mr. Davis maintains that the Board of Directors of Community ratified the filing of the application. That authorization found at page 44 of the application, however, refers to the Board of Directors of Community Health Care of Okaloosa/Walton. The resolution was dated June 7, 1983 and Mr. Davis testified that the use of the name Community Health Care of Okaloosa/Walton in the caption of that Board of Director's resolution was a "typographical error." In any event, the applicant corporation had no legal existence at the time the application was filed on June 15, 1983, however, by its later acts in filing and prosecuting the application it implicitly, at least, ratified the action of its promoter, Mr. Davis, in filing the application since the officers and directors consisted of Mr. Davis, his wife and a third individual. Be that as it may, Community negotiated a stock purchase agreement with National Medical Enterprises (NME) on August 15, 1984. Pursuant to this agreement, NME is obligated to purchase all capital stock of Community if a Certificate of Need for 100 beds or more is awarded. In return for the sale of the stock of the applicant corporation to NME, Mr. Davis and the other two board members of Community will receive a total of $600,000 in addition to the $15,000 Mr. Davis has already received for his efforts in preparing and prosecuting the Certificate of Need application. The only asset of Collier is the inchoate Certificate of Need. Upon consummation of the stock purchase agreement, Mr. Davis will resign from the Board of Directors and presumably NME will appoint its own board. Community has given full authority to NME to prosecute the application as it sees fit, including making certain changes NME deemed appropriate to the application, including seeking 150 beds instead of 152 and changing the method and means of financing the project (mostly equity instead of debt). Additional changes in NME's approach to prosecution of the application include the proposed method of recruitment of personnel and management of the hospital. Community has no agreements with any other group, entities or individuals to provide financial, personnel and other resources necessary to construct, manage and operate an acute care hospital and did not demonstrate that it has any such resources in its own right. Mr. Frank Tidikis, Vice-President for Operations for the eastern region for National Medical Enterprises, testified concerning the financial and management resources and staffing arrangement NME proposes for the new hospital should it be authorized. He enumerated many medical specialties that NME intends to place on the staff of the hospital, but neither Community nor NME have done any studies revealing what types of medical specialties are presently available in the Collier County area, how many physicians in those specialties are available and what ratio exists or is appropriate for various types of physicians to the community population. The proposed staffing pattern, sources and method of recruitment was predicated solely on NME's past experience in obtaining hospital staff in other areas of the nation, and not upon any study or other investigation showing the availability of appropriate types of trained staff people in reasonable commuting distances of the proposed hospital, which would be located in northern Collier County. If NME consummates the purchase agreement, the hospital would be locally managed by a board of directors consisting of 51 per cent of the hospital's own medical staff and 49 per cent lay members chosen from the community at large. FINANCING Mr. Michael Gallo was Community/NME's expert in the area of health care finance, being NME's Vice-President for Finance. It was thus established that the total cost of the project, if approved, would be approximately $23,600,000. This amount would be financed by NME which proposes to make a 35 per cent equity contribution in the amount of approximately $8,500,000 and which will finance the balance of the project cost at a rate of approximately 13 per cent interest for 20 years. NME projects that an average daily patient census of 45 would be necessary to "break even." A daily census of 45 would yield 6,425 patient days per year, with the facility projected to break even in its first year of operation. NME projects that by the third year of operation, a return on investment of 10 to 12 per cent would be achieved. NME's projections are based on an assumed average length of stay per patient of 5.6 days. NME allocated two and sone-half per cent of its projected gross revenues for indigent patient care, and four per cent of projected gross revenues allocated to bad debt, that is, uncollectible hospital bills, not necessarily related to indigent patients. The $600,000 which NME must pay Community Hospital of Collier and Mr. Davis in order to acquire the assets of that corporation (i.e. the CON) will be treated as a project cost and will be depreciated as though it were a part of the buildings. Community/NME projects its total revenue per adjusted patient admission to amount to $4,843, with projected total revenue per adjusted patient day at $865. It predicts these figures will increase by about five per cent for successive years as a factor of inflation. The proposed hospital site consists of approximately 12 acres, available at a price of $30,000 to $50,000 per acre. The application itself originally proposed a location in the central or southern portion of Collier County. However, after NME entered into the agreement with the applicant corporation for the stock purchase and became involved in the prosecution of the application, the location was changed. Thus, it was discovered at the outset of the hearing that indeed, the proposed location of Community of Collier's hospital would be in the northern portion of Collier County in close proximity to Lee County. 1/ The proposed $360,000 to $600,000 land cost would of course, be added to the total cost of Community's proposed project. It has not been demonstrated what use would be made of the entire 12 acres, nor that the entire 12 acres is required for the hospital, its grounds, parking and ancillary facilities. STAFFING One of the reputed benefits of Community's proposed project is that it would afford a competitive hospital in the Collier County health services market to counter what Community contends is a virtual monopoly held by Naples Community Hospital, as well as to promote the attraction of more qualified medical staff to that "market". In this context, Community contends that its facility, by being built and operating as an alternative acute care hospital, would attract more physicians to the Collier County area and thus, arguably, render health services more readily available. Community thus decries the supposed "closed staff" plan of Naples, contending that Community offers an "open" staffing plan, which would serve to attract more physicians to the geographical area involved and enhance Community's ability to appropriately staff its hospital. Naples Community Hospital, on the other hand, experiences numerous physicians vacationing in the area requesting staff privileges. Many of these physicians apparently do not have any intention of permanently locating in the Naples/Collier County area, however, and therefore in order to determine which physicians are seriously interested in locating there, Naples has a screening procedure which includes an interview with the Chief of Staff, the Assistant Director for Staff Development, and the chief of the service for which a physician is applying for privileges. This preliminary screening procedure is not tantamount to a closed staffing situation, which only exists where a fixed number of physicians are permitted on a hospital staff, with others waiting until an opening occurs. In the open staff situation, as exists at Naples, no matter how rigorous the screening process, there is not a finite number of staff physicians available. Any physician who qualifies under the hospital bylaws and assures the screening committee of his intention to locate in the area served by the hospital is admitted to the staff. Thus, the staffing pattern for physicians at Naples Community Hospital augurs just as well for the attraction of physicians to the Collier County vicinity as does the staffing method proposed by Community. In that vein Naples has granted privileges to 13 new physicians in the preceding calendar year and had 8 applications pending at the time of hearing. Only one applicant was denied privileges during that year. Additional factors which must be considered in the context of staffing such a hospital concern the ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and appropriate, available resources including health care and management personnel to operate the facility. Aside from demonstrating that NME, through the stock purchase agreement, may obligate itself to provide ample funds and other resources to fund, staff and operate the project, and that it has successfully staffed and operated hospitals in numerous locales, Community did not demonstrate what likely sources would be drawn upon for nurses and other staff members to staff its hospital in order to avoid recruiting most of them from nearby facilities, including Naples Community, which could precipitate a diminution in the quality of health care at these other facilities. In short, other than showing that NME's management has the financial resources and experience to accomplish the staffing and operation of the hospital, there was no demonstration by Community which would establish the availability of sufficient health care personnel to operate and manage its hospital at adequate levels of care. COMPETITION Community contends that its facility should be built in order to foster competition in the provision of health care services in Collier County. It took the position, through its expert witness, Dr. Charles Phelps, that the Naples hospital holds a monopolistic position in Collier County inasmuch as it is the only hospital in the county. It should be pointed out somewhat parenthetically, however, that this "County market area" theme ignores the fact that this application is for an acute care hospital in District VIII, which is not subdivided by rule into County sub-districts for health care planning purposes. Further, Community originally proposed locating its hospital in the central or southerly portion of Collier County, but as of the time of the hearing, proposed to locate its hospital in the northerly portion of Collier County with a service area it itself proposed which will include the southerly portion of Lee County. This area is also within the service areas of Naples Community Hospital, Lee Memorial Hospital, Fort Myers Community Hospital and the soon to be constructed Gulf Coast Osteopathic Acute Care Hospital. Thus, in its attempt to establish Naples Community Hospital as occupying a monopolistic position in the "Collier County health care market", Community did not establish that Collier County either legally or practically is a separate health care market demarcated by the county boundary with Lee and Hendry Counties, such that Naples' status as the sole acute care hospital within the legal boundaries of Collier County is monopolistic. Indeed, it competes for patients with the Lee County hospitals named above in the northern Collier-southern Lee County market area involved. Community attempted to demonstrate a monopolistic situation in favor of Naples Community Hospital by comparing its relative increase in costs per day and costs per patient stay with Fort Myers Community Hospital and Lee Memorial Hospital. Naples Community Hospital did indeed exhibit the largest rate of cost increase in both those categories. Community's expert, Dr. Phelps, opined that lack of competition in the Naples area caused the disparity in rate of increase in costs between Lee County hospitals and the Collier County hospital. Naples called Ed Morton, who was accepted as an expert witness in hospital financial analysis, reimbursement, hospital auditing and accounting, financial feasibility and corporate finance. It was thus established that Naples does not occupy a monopoly position and provides health care at lower costs than would be the case should the Community Hospital facility be constructed. Mr. Morton demonstrated that analyzing total costs per adjusted patient day does not reliably indicate the efficiency of a hospital, since such daily costs fluctuate with the average length of stay. A better indicator for determining hospital efficiency is to analyze total revenue per adjusted admission. A comparison of Lee Memorial, Naples Community Hospital, Fort Myers Community Hospital and NME's six Florida hospitals was employed based on data provided to the hospital cost containment board for the years 1980 through 1983, in order to show which hospital operated more efficiently and tended less toward monopolistic market positions. In making this comparison, Mr. Morton employed the "total revenue per adjusted admission" and "total revenue per adjusted patient day" methods of comparing the hospitals. He used this approach because it reduces to a common denominator the various values and statistics utilized in the hospital cost containment board formulas. It was thus established that Naples has the lowest total revenue per adjusted admission and lowest total revenue per adjusted patient day of all the hospitals depicted in the comparison study (Naples Exhibit 23). Naples total revenue per adjusted admission is $400 to $1,900 less than each of the other hospitals. One reason Naples experiences less total revenue is because its charges are lower, since it employs some 1,600 volunteer workers. If these workers were paid at a minimum wage they would reflect a cost of approximately $600,000 per year. Further, the hospital over the years has obtained large donations of money and labor through funding drives, all of which have enabled it to keep charges down for its patients and to continue to operate certain services at a deficit. For instance, Naples has a discreet pediatric unit, which means a physically separate, self-contained pediatric care unit, with specialized staff, who perform no other services than those they are designated to perform in pediatrics. That unit operates at a deficit repeatedly since 40 per cent of the Naples pediatric patients originate from the Immokalee area, which is characterized by an extremely high percentage of indigent persons. Naples' witness Morton performed a patient origin study which shows that approximately 84 per cent of Naples' patients originate in Collier County, 12 per cent originate in Lee County, particularly southern Lee County, and two per cent originate from unrelated areas. The Naples Community Hospital is located in Naples, approximately in the mid-section of Collier County and a significantly greater distance from the northern Collier/Lee County line than will be the Community facility, if built. Community expects to draw approximately one-half, or six per cent, of the 12 per cent of Naples' patient load which is derived from Lee County. NCH however, at the present time, competes with Fort Myers Community Hospital and Lee Memorial Hospital, in particular, for patients from both southern Lee County and northern Collier County, Community's proposed service area. Thus, NCH does not maintain a monopoly serving Collier County or Community's proposed service area to the exclusion of these other hospitals. The placement of Community's facility at a point much closer to the Lee County border than is Naples' present facility would result in the injection of a fourth or fifth strong competitor into the Collier County-southern Lee County patient origin and health service market area, rather than merely the addition of a second competitor for Naples Community Hospital. ADVERSE COMPETITIVE EFFECTS Both Lee Memorial Hospital and Fort Myers Community Hospital already draw a substantial number of patients from southern Lee County, as well as northern Collier County. Gulf Coast Osteopathic Hospital, after protracted litigation, has secured approval of a Certificate of Need to build an osteopathic acute care hospital in the southerly portion of Lee County. That Final Order authorizes 60 beds. It is fair to assume, inasmuch as these hospitals are already drawing from southerly Lee County, that the capture of the patient market in southern Lee County will be made much more pervasive with the addition of the Gulf Coast Osteopathic acute care facility. That being the case, insofar as the 1989 horizon year is concerned, far less than 12 per cent of the Lee County origin patient days now available to hospitals located in Collier County will actually be available. Community will thus draw even less than its own projected six per cent of its patient days from Lee County. In any event, it is logical to conclude that substantially all the patient days resultantly available to a Collier County situated facility will be derived from Collier County upon the advent of the Gulf Coast Hospital. Thus, any patients drawn to Community, if its facility were built, would be at the direct expense of NCH. That being the case, it is reasonable to conclude that the analyses performed by Mr. Morton, Naples' expert, which reveal that Community Hospital will potentially siphon off as many as 80 patient days per day from Naples Community Hospital, is accurate. If this occurs, it would mean that approximately 29,200 annual patient days would be garnered by Community. Mr. Morton's analysis established that a resultant raising of rates by Naples would have to occur in the amount of $240 per patient day. Failure of Naples to so raise its rates to patients, would cause an annual revenue deficiency of 6.5 million dollars. This increase of $240 per patient day would result in a $1,536 increase in the average charge per adjusted admission, based upon the average length of stay at Naples which is 6.2 days. Even if Community obtained only half its patients from the Naples Community Hospital, (a likely understatement of its patient market impact), the resulting loss to Naples per patient day would be $220 with a concomitant necessary increase, in average patient charges per admission in the amount of $768, in order for NCH to remain financially viable. If Naples were unable to raise its charges to compensate for this loss of patients to the Community facility, then it would have to curtail services currently rendered on a deficit basis, such as its discrete pediatric unit, which experiences a 40 per cent indigent patient utilization. Community's own projections show that it expects to garner 27,790 patient days, which for the above reason, are likely to all be gained at the expense of NCH. This will result in the loss to NCH of at least 76 patient days per day with a resultant revenue shortfall nearly as high as that postulated by Morton as a result of his patient origin study and adverse impact analysis. Thus, in terms of lost patient days and lost revenue, both the figures advanced by Naples and those advanced by Community reveal that a substantial adverse impact will be occasioned to Naples by the installation of Community's hospital, especially in view of its location at approximately the midpoint between the Lee County boundary and NCH's facility in Naples. Naples derives approximately 54 per cent of its gross patient revenues from Medicare reimbursement. Four per cent of its revenues are represented by Medicaid patient reimbursement. Eight to nine per cent of its billings are not collected because of non-reimbursable, indigent patient care and bad debts. Community will obtain from 76 to 80 patient days per day case load now enjoyed by Naples Community Hospital. Community projects that its billable case load will be characterized by four per cent Medicaid reimbursable billings, and six and one- half per cent of its annual case load will be represented by indigent and bad debt uncollectible billings. Forty-six per cent of NCH's indigent and bad debt cases come from the Immokalee area lying east of State Road 887 and north of State Road 846, and the Community Hospital would be built approximately midway between that area and the location of NCH. Therefore, based upon Community's own projection of total billings for 27,790 patient days, or at most, 29,200 days per year, (according to NCH's figures which depict the loss to NCH of 80 patient days instead of 76) it becomes obvious that Community's bad debt, indigent case billings would actually be in the neighborhood of 17 per cent of its total, billable case load, rather than the six and one-half per cent it projects in its application and evidence. This would render the bad debt, indigent patient-based uncollectibles of Community to be on the order of four million dollars per year. Such a high magnitude of bad debt, uncollectible billing experience can reasonably be expected since Community's Hospital would be constructed between the source of most of the indigent bad debt case load and NCH's location. This location is also in the center of the most affluent, rapidly developing residential area of Collier County. Given the fact that Community-NME's proposed location is likely to attract a high indigent, bad debt case load from the economically depressed Immokalee area, approaching the magnitude of 17 per cent of total case load, if a policy of freely accepting indigent, uncollectible cases were followed by Community-NME, but considering also the fact that Community proposes to locate its hospital in the service area it has delineated to include the most concentrated source of more affluent, privately paying patients available to these competing hospitals, it cannot be concluded that Community-NME plans to incur such a high financial risk by free acceptance of indigent, charity cases. Rather it seeks to largely serve the collectible, private-paying patient source of northwestern Collier County, hence its recently altered proposed location. This determination is borne out by the experience of NME's other Florida hospitals, which are characterized by a very low percentage acceptance of indigent, bad debt, patient service. Thus, it is quite likely that NCH would be relegated to continued service of this large number of indigent, nonpaying patients while Community/NME would serve a patient base composed of largely private-paying and Medicare reimbursed patients drawn primarily from NCH, a significant financial detriment to that entity, which at present experiences a rather precarious operating ratio, characterized by, at best, a three per cent profit margin. Such an eventuality would force upon NCH the choice of raising its rates substantially or curtailing services, or both, with the probable alternative of seeking taxpayer subsidization of such an increased charity case load. NCH effectively competes with the pertinent hospitals in Lee County for the same patient base, due to its lower charges, as shown by the fact that Naples has the lowest revenue per adjusted admission and per adjusted patient day of the hospitals in Collier and Lee Counties. Thus, any increase in charges at Naples necessitated by the adverse effect of the installation of Community's hospital would put it at a distinct additional disadvantage in competing with the Lee County hospitals. A similar financial resultant adverse impact would be imposed on Lee Memorial, Fort Myers Community and Gulf Coast in terms of declining utilization and revenues. It is further noteworthy that Community's own projection of annual patient days reveals that it will experience an occupancy rate of approximately 50 per cent. It has not been established how 27 to 29 thousand patient days with a concomitant occupancy rate of only SO to 51 per cent can support a 150-bed free standing, acute care hospital with a full complement of ancillary services, which fact renders the financial feasibility of Community's proposed hospital substantially in doubt. In terms of the relationship of adverse impacts on existing hospitals to the legislative goals of hospital cost and rate containment, it should be pointed out that the current utilization rate of all hospitals in this area District VIII are declining, partly as a result of the impact of the "diagnostic related groups" (DRG) method of reimbursement. The utilization at NCH for the first six months of 1984 has dropped to 62.3 per cent. The utilization rate of the Lee County hospitals has been reduced to approximately 65.4 per cent. The addition of another acute care hospital to this area, which is established to likely experience a utilization of only 50 to 51 per cent itself, would only cause the current low utilization rates to plummet more drastically. This situation would substantially impair the financial viability of all existing hospitals in the relevant area of District VIII, and Community, as well. Thus, if the proposed Community Hospital were added to this area, it would only aggravate the problem the CON approval process is designed to prevent, that of avoiding escalating health care rates and costs, concomitant decline in adequate levels of service and unnecessary duplication of services. GEOGRAPHIC ACCESSIBILITY In support of its assertion that by 1989 a portion of its service area will not be accessible within 30 minutes driving time of an existing hospital, Community adduced the testimony of Mr. Michael Dudek, accepted as an expert traffic engineer. Mr. Dudek plotted the time and distance of travel from NCH, Cape Coral Hospital, Lee Memorial Hospitals Fort Myers Community Hospital, Eastpoint Hospital, the future Gulf Coast Hospital and proposed Lee Memorial 100-bed satellite facility. He employed the "floating car method" in determining travel times from each hospital to points 30 minutes from the hospital. He projected future travel times along the same routes with a view toward growth in traffic volume based upon population growth. Mr. Dudek opined that in 1989 there will be, under average traffic conditions, a portion of northern Collier and southern Lee Counties which will not be within 30 minutes average travel time of any existing hospital. In his own opinion, in peak travel seasons, coextensive with seasonal, winter population peaks in this geographic area, the situation will be aggravated such that the territory where residents are more than 30 minutes driving time from existing hospitals will expand. Mr. Dudek conceded that vehicles on roads adjacent to main artery roads would reach various main arteries at different times, depending on the density of the population in the residential neighborhoods between those main traffic arteries. He did not map his proposed 30-minute driving time contour lines to indicate these variables. Further, he acknowledged that even during the 1989 projected peak traffic season, the geographical triangle in which Community-NME will locate its proposed hospital, was not outside the driving time projected for Naples Community Hospital. He apparently based his conclusions on the premise that road and traffic improvements would not occur so as to significantly compensate for the population and traffic growth posed by various real estate developments of regional impact which have been filed and proposed for north Collier and south Lee Counties. Naples, presented the testimony of Mr. Jack Barr, also accepted as an expert traffic engineer. Mr. Barr used the "average car method" in conducting a travel-time study to determine the points on arterial roads 30-minutes distance from all existing hospitals in Lee and Collier Counties as well as from the proposed Lee Memorial Satellite Hospital. (Naples Exhibit 76). The distances between those points are interpolated and plotted on the basis of estimated average speeds on the non- arterial segments of the roadways that would be traversed by people making their way to the arterial roads. Mr. Barr also surveyed proposed road improvements in the Collier and Lee County areas (Naples Exhibit 7C). He predicated this survey on the most recent Department of Transportation traffic maps. He performed his original field study during a four-week period in December and January, 1982. The travel times for Collier County were then revised and updated on October 24, 1984 with a field survey and for Lee County on August 14 through 23, 1984. Mr. Barr was unable to determine any significant statistical difference between the contours he plotted in his 1982-83 survey and those plotted in the 1984 updated survey. Mr. Barr employed information obtained from the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, the Lee County Planning Department and the Collier County Traffic Planner, as well as information from his own files on proposed residential building projects with which he has been associated professionally or become aware of in the area. It was thus established that that portion of north Collier County and southern Lee County, where most of the proposed residential development will occur, and which is in Community's proposed service area, is currently partially or totally within 30-minutes driving time of three existing and one approved hospital. All the proposed major residential developments in the north Collier/south Lee County area are within 30 minutes travel time of at least one existing hospital and most lie within the 3 minute contour lines for the proposed Lee Memorial Satellite Hospital. The travel time contours will remain substantially unchanged for the next ten years based upon major road improvements planned in the next ten years. Information as to road improvements was obtained from the approved Collier County Comprehensive Plan, from average daily traffic counts on U.S. 41 conducted by the Department of Transportation and Collier County, from the Lee County Transportation and Improvement Program which shows the status of road improvements for 1985 through 1989, and from the Department of Transportation Road Improvement Program extending through the fiscal year 1989 for Lee and Collier Counties. All the roads included in the DOT projection for the next five years are committed and will be built. Although there will not be a decrease in traffic along U.S. 41, rather the increase in traffic that would normally occur on U.S. 41 will be largely offset by traffic shifting over to parallel routes which are to be developed through the road improvement programs established by Mr. Barr. There has been a steady decrease in use of the formerly highly congested U.S. 41 artery because of the development of parallel highways such as Airport Road. Mr. Barr established that the road improvements upon which his opinion is partly based are being implemented, and since most are funded by gasoline tax monies earmarked for that purpose, it is reasonable to assume that the DOT sponsored improvements will continue to be made. Further, although Community sought to show that a portion of the population of its service area is beyond a 30- minute travel time from existing acute care hospitals, it did not demonstrate that that population now or in 1989 amounts to more than 10 per cent of the Collier County population. In his capacity as a traffic-engineer, Mr. Barr has worked in Lee and Collier Counties for approximately seven years, representing public and private clients. He has monitored the implementation of the Collier Comprehensive Plan as it relates to roadways and real estate development and established that road improvements are indeed being implemented. His testimony and opinion, predicated on more accurate surveying techniques, supported by local planning and Department of Transportation documentation, is better corroborated and more competent than that of Mr. Dudek and is accepted. Thus, it has not been shown that the 30 minute travel time points and distances attributable to existing hospitals will recede sufficiently to create the new service area contemplated by Community. EXISTING SERVICE - AVAILABILITY, QUALITY, ADEQUACY OF CARE, ACCESSIBILITY To ALL, INCLUDING INDIGENTS NCH affords adequate availability and access to acute care services for patients in Collier and southern Lee Counties, including indigent patients. Community's proposed facility would not have a level 2 or 3 nursery, and would not have a discreet pediatric unit, both of which Naples has. Thus, access to pediatric, as well as obstetric services, would not be enhanced by the advent of Community's hospital, for indigent or other patients originating in Community's proposed service area. Additionally, inasmuch as NCH's pediatric unit operates at a deficits the addition of such services, even of their limited scope, by Community may, for financial reasons, result in the curtailment of such services, especially for indigent, in view of the considerations expressed above. The physician-director of the Collier County Health Department, Dr. Polkowski was called and accepted as an expert witness on behalf of Naples in the area of public health, for the purpose of discussing the distribution of medically indigent persons and availability of services in Collier County. Her work requires her to routinely review U.S. Bureau of Census data on age and health characteristics of the population of Collier County and to travel throughout the county to acquire knowledge of the health characteristics of the population. It was thus established that the highest concentration of poverty level patients occurs in Census Tracts 112, 113, 114 and 104, with a particularly high concentration in Census Tract 112 which comprises the Immokalee area in northeastern Collier County. A particular health problem in that area is teenage pregnancy, with 90 births to females under 19 years of age in 1983 out of a county-wide statistic for such births of 172. Eleven per cent of the babies born to women under 19 years of age in Collier County are low birth weight babies, which typically necessitate higher levels of neonatal, specialized care because of the increased chances of serious health problems occasioned by low birth weight. There are three recognized levels of care for newborn babies in Florida. Naples Community Hospital has a Level 1 and 2 nursery. Level 1 represents babies who have no exceptional conditions. Level 2 is for those babies with respiratory and other serious problems requiring enhanced levels of care and is characterized by such special equipment as isolettes, intensive care bassinets with respirators, cardiac monitors, apnea monitors, resuscitation and cardiac resuscitation equipment. The staffing level of the Level 2 nursery is at a ratio of one neonatal specialized nurse to three babies rather than the one nurse per six babies of the Level 1 nursery. The Level 2 and 3 babies have serious and frequently chronic health conditions for the short, and sometimes the long-term, often characterized by quite high patient costs. The Immokalee area has the highest poor as well as non white concentration in the bounty. There are approximately 14,000 permanent residents, but during the wintertime the population swells to over 20,000 when predominantly Mexican American migrant farm workers arrive in the area. The poor population has a higher mortality rate for infants and manifests more serious medical problems on a greater per capita basis than does the more affluent population lying to the west and southwest. The Immokalee area population has a high rate of tuberculosis, venereal disease, parasites and hepatitis. The current level of services provided to the indigent population by Naples Community Hospital however, is of a high quality. Richard Akin is the Director of the Collier Health Services, a private, nonprofit primary health care organization which offers primary medical and dental care services to the rural, poor population of northeast Collier County. Most of these patients are migrant farm workers who have absolutely no means of paying their own medical bills. Collier Health Services provides primary medical care at three locations in the county with the largest center being at Immokalee. The Immokalee facility has seven staff positions which include such specialties as pediatrics, family practice, internal medicine and obstetrics. The Immokalee facility records approximately 60-thousand patient visits per year. Seventy-five per cent of these are represented by Mexican- American farm workers who are employed in the area seasonally. Another 10 to 12 per cent per year are Haitian immigrants employed in agriculture. Between 60 and 80 per cent of all patient visits are not paid for by the patient. The Immokalee primary care facility refers 4,000 to 4,500 patients to a hospital annually, with about 12 to 15 such referrals per day. These are for normal, non-emergency care situations. Additionally, between 400 and 450 patients are referred to a hospital for emergency care per year. All the primary care center's emergency and non emergency patients are referred to NCH. Mr. Akin has attempted to refer patients from the Immokalee facility to other area hospitals such as in Lee County, but without success. NCH is located in fairly close proximity to the Immokalee Primary Care Center, and, even though most patients have no means of paying for medical care, NCH treats and admits them without questioning them in advance concerning their ability to pay, insurance, Medicaid and the like. Mr. Akin has previously attempted to refer his indigent patients to the Fort Myers area hospitals with little success in having them admitted. LeHigh Acres Hospital is considerably closer, being 24 miles away, but Mr. Akins has had little success in having the indigent patients he serves admitted there. Instead, he refers to Naples since the patients are treated with the same dignity and decency as paying patients at that hospital. In excess of 50 per cent of the patients he refers from the primary health center to Naples never pay anything for the services received. Approximately 30 per cent of the non-emergency patients referred to Naples annually are pediatric referrals. About 30 per cent of the emergency referrals are also pediatric patients. Four hundred to four-hundred fifty non- emergency patients annually are obstetric patients who come to full term and are delivered. It is unlikely that any of the pediatric patients would be referred to a hospital, such as the proposed Community facility, which does not have a discreet pediatric unit with a specialized staff and equipment, since the primary care center in Immokalee has the capability of treating any overnight, routine pediatric problem itself, and any pediatric patient that cannot be handled on a one-day admission at the facility, can be sent to the discreet, specialized pediatric unit at Naples Community Hospitals which Community of Collier will not offer. The standard procedure at Naples Community Hospital for admitting patients who do not have a private physician or a private physician referral, is nondiscriminatory. That is, in the triage process, when a patient arrives at the emergency room, for instance, only the patient's name, address, age, date of birth and questions eliciting his medical status are asked upon his arrival. Depending on the nature of the injury involved, the on-call medical specialist for that type of injury is then summoned to the emergency room. If it appears necessary to admit the patient to the hospital, the on-call specialist authorizes the admission. When the admission determination is made, there is no information available on the admitting documents and no questions are asked to indicate whether the patient is a paying patient, a nonpaying migrant worker, an insured patient, or a Medicare patient. Naples presently has a labor and delivery area with a birthing room and a three-stage cohort type of nursery. Infants move through three different stages in the nursery depending on age, so as to reduce infections. Seventeen of the 24 beds on the floor are designated as OB beds. Whenever more than 17 patients must use that floor, they are able to expand to gynecological medical surgical beds on the same floor which thus gives a total capacity for OB patients of 24 beds. The OB services as proposed by Community are essentially duplicative of the services in existence at Naples Community Hospital, although with a less intensive level of care for 08 and pediatric patients. Essentially all the other services proposed by Community duplicate these services already available to area residents at NCH and the other pertinent hospitals. Thus, it is apparent that if Community's facility is located where proposed, it will actually serve an area that is more elongated north to south rather than east to west, and will in reality serve the more affluent, private- paying patient origin areas lying in west-central and northwest Collier County. The reason for this is that most of the indigent patient population will bypass Community of Collier's Hospital and go to Naples for the above delineated reasons, and Community would then tend to draw patients from the more populated, wealthier areas on a north-south line from the Naples area up to and across the Lee County line rather than on an east-west axis. The fact that Community/NME would serve primarily privately-paying patients is exemplified by the fact that NME's other Florida hospitals typically have no (or very minimal) Medicaid patient days, such that that parent company's policy is not one of encouraging service to Medicaid or indigent patients. It is thus apparent that with the advent of Community/NME's hospital that there would be created two different patient bases or patient markets, with Naples continuing to serve the vast majority of the indigent, Medicaid, or bad- debt patient base. Community/NME would garner its patient base largely from private-paying, more affluent patients with substantially less bad debt ratio. This would siphon off much of Naples's private paying base, such that, with its already slim or sometimes nonexistent profit margin, its financial viability would become more and more in doubt. This would raise the alternative mentioned above of either raising its rates substantially, causing health care costs for the consuming public to rise significantly, seeking relief from the taxpayers of Collier County, or curtailment of available services to indigents and all other patients, especially GE and pediatrics; possibly even all three cost coverage alternatives. Such an eventuality would ultimately result in a reduction in the quality of health care afforded the patient public. NAPLES AVAILABLE AND PROPOSED SERVICES Mr. Mike Jernigan was tendered by NCH and accepted as an expert in health care planning and hospital financial management. Mr. Jernigan is employed as Director of Planning at Naples and prepared the instant Certificate of Need application seeking 30 beds. Naples has recently added 43 psychiatric beds under previously issued Certificates of Need. The instant application contemplates relocation of the 43 psychiatric beds to the fourth floor of a support building, there creating a discrete psychiatric care unit. Naples amended its request at hearing so as to seek 20 instead of 30 medical/surgical beds to be added to the space to be vacated by the 43 psychiatric beds. No significant construction will be required in the vacated space, rather semiprivate rooms will be converted to private rooms. The 1.7 million dollar project cost is chiefly attributable to the construction of the facility which will house the licensed 43 psychiatric beds. Thus, the reduction in the number of acute care beds sought from 30 to 20 will not significantly alter the 1.7 million dollar project cost. Naturally, the minor project costs attributable to installation of 10 acute care beds in the vacated, former psychiatric bed space will be lessened by an amount attributable to 10 beds. In any event, NCH has been demonstrated to have adequate financial resources to undertake the project outlined in its application and has those funds committed. Naples can add these 20 proposed beds and successfully operate them as a minor addition to its now feasibly operating acute care hospital. Naples has recently opened a free standing, primary care center called North Collier Health Center, in the vicinity of the proposed site of Community/NME's hospital. That facility includes a radiology room, laboratory and emergency medical service station, in addition to offering normal, primary care services. It is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week with a physician, but does not have inpatient beds. A similar primary care center has been constructed on Marco Island. Both of these centers have been added to Naples complement of facilities and services in implementation of a long-range health care expansion plan designed to make Naples' services more accessible and available to the public throughout its Collier County, southern Lee County service area. Given Naples low and sometimes non existent margin of revenue over expenses, the construction of these two facilities was rendered largely financially feasible through the donation of the land for both of them through community fund raising efforts, and the construction of the Marco Island facility was accomplished with entirely donated funds. The EMS substation at the North Collier Primary Care Center is operated and financed by the county, and the sleeping quarters at that sub station and at the Naples main campus facility for EMS personnel are provided free of charge at some financial loss to the hospital. Such an arrangement constitutes good health care planning, even though it results in some financial detriment to Naples, since it makes the emergency medical technicians immediately available to assist emergency patients who are transported to the primary care centers by their own means, and shortens the reaction time for emergency personnel since they are not located at separate locations from the hospital or primary care centers. These arrangements further Naples' long range goal in making its emergency primary care and primary care services more available and accessible to the public in its service area, which goal receives strong public support as evidenced by the large public donations which largely made the installation and operation of these facilities possible. Since Naples is a not-for-profit hospital, any excess of revenue over expenses it experiences is used to acquire new and needed equipment or expand facilities, including facilities and services such as these. The installation of Community/NME's hospital at its proposed locations especially, would duplicate the services offered at North Collier Primary Care Center and to a great extent those offered at the main campus of NCH in Naples. It was established through the testimony of Miles Price, an architect specializing in hospital design, that the construction costs, architectural costs and related inflation factors depicted in Naples' application are reasonable and accurate with regard to the relocation and construction for the psychiatric beds, which are to be moved, and the installation of the 20 acute care beds proposed. Acquisition of equipment necessary for the operation of the 20 proposed beds will be financially assisted by its present shared purchasing arrangements, whereby it is able to obtain resultant discounts in acquisition of the necessary equipment needed for installation and operation of the new beds. BED NEED AND BED ALLOCATION Thomas Porter was tendered and accepted as an expert in health care planning in Florida. Subpart (23) of Rule 10-5.11, F.A.C. is the acute care bed need determination methodology. It is the policy of HRS in accordance with the legal mandate referenced herein to facilitate the use of subpart (23) of the rule by regularly compiling and disseminating district bed need information, including that depicted in Community's Exhibit 16, which includes a memorandum from Phil Rond, the Administrator of the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning of HRS. If the formula at subpart (23) of the above rule is employed using historical utilization data from the years 1981 through 1982, a net bed need of 375 for all of District VIII results and that is the current bed need status of the district advocated by Community. However, as established by the memorandum from Mr. Rond incorporated in Exhibit 16, the most recent utilization data includes that for the year 1983, which is the most recent hospital reporting period envisioned by the formula and above rule. When the 1983 utilization data is added to the 1981-1982 information, a drop in total bed need for District VIII occurs from a figure of 4,147 beds to 3,654 beds. When licensed and approved beds are subtracted from that figure, a minus bed need results and District VIII has an excess of 118 beds. The rule formula at subpart (23)(g) dictates that the three most recent annual hospital licensure reporting periods must be used for the utilization data necessary to operate the need determination formula. 2/ The use of the most recent utilization data, including 1983, for District VIII causes the overall projected occupancy level contemplated in the methodology (at 10.5.11(23)(g)(2)) to fall below 75 per cent, when the bed need calculation is carried out to its conclusion. Given the projected occupancy falling below 75 per cent, the end result is that gross bed need in District VIII is 3,654 beds, rather than 4,147 beds as postulated by Community. Community contends that the 1983 utilization data should not be used since it was not available for Districts I and II and should not be used for any district until it is available and disseminated for all districts 3/ The reason the department promulgated Mr. Rond's special memorandum with regard to the bed need projections for District VIII, was to alert users of that information that in that particular district the drop in the most recent utilization data triggered the rule mechanism of subpart (23)(g)(2) because it revealed that the overall projected occupancy levels would fall below 75 per cent, all of which showed on a district-wide basis an over-bedding of 118 acute care beds. Mr. Larry Bebe is Acting Executive Director and Planner for the District VIII Health Council. He was accepted as an expert witness in health care planning and public health administration. Mr. Bebe considers the local health council plan to be a valuable planning tool for purposes of allocating beds in District VIII on a less than district-wide basis. The plan was adopted in March, 1984, but has not yet been adopted as a rule by HRS. According to the District VIII Health Council Plan, that district is sub-districted by counties, except for Glades and Hendry Counties which are combined in a two-county sub- district. This form of sub-districting has been done for approximately seven years. District VIII is sub-districted on a county basis rather than on other geographical boundaries, because population data, useful in planning allocation of beds, is only available in the form of county-based population projections by age-specific cohorts from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida (BEBR). Further, in considering the location of existing hospitals, the greatest proportion of people in the seven county area of District VIII can be located within a reasonable time and access to health care services by allocating the beds on a county sub-district basis. The population data promulgated by the BEBR is employed by HRS, is generally accepted as authoritative in Certificate of Need proceedings, and is herein. It is not available by age-specific cohort in the census tract geographical subdivisions attempted to be used by Community in 4 in delineating its purported service area. 4/ Performance of population based health care planning must be done consistently and future need must be projected based upon preparing utilization rates predicated on the same population geographical area each time. A common geographical basis for allocation of beds, such as counties, is most appropriate since that is the basis on which the most accurate population data is available. The bed allocation methodology used by the local health council to allocate beds by county sub-districts is contained in Naples Exhibit No. 35. Bed allocation on a county sub-district basis is determined by taking the overall bed number available from the state methodology rule formula and breaking it down into county sub-districts according to the District VIII health plan methodology. This methodology takes into account existing hospital utilization and location, changes in population, and projected patient days. All items of information to operate the allocation formula are obtained on a county basis. Under the District VIII health plan methodology, when existing beds are subtracted from needed beds, a projected need for 20 medical/surgical beds in Collier County results with an excess of 41 existing beds in Lee County for the horizon year of 1989. Mr. Porter corroborated Mr. Bebe's testimony and established that, although not adopted by HRS rule, the sub-districting of District VIII by county for health planning purposes conforms with HRS policy in terms of population and geographical criteria and constitutes a reasonable and rational health planning tool. The methodology used by the local health councils to allocate beds to the counties incorporates standard, accepted health planning practices and HRS' policy is not to interfere with that allocation of beds on a sub-district basis, so long as the subdistricting allocation does not exceed the bed need number for the district as a whole. Mr. Porter demonstrated that it is possible under the state Subpart (23) methodology to find no need or excessive beds at a district level, however, by applying the local health council methodology a positive mathematical need might be shown in one or more county sub-districts. Thus, it has been shown that the local health council allocation method which reveals a 20-bed need for Collier County is the result of a rational, standard, accepted health planning practice with regard to determining projected bed need on a less than district- wide basis. However, although that methodology shows a formula-based "need" in Collier County, the above findings reflecting the severely declining utilization experience in Collier County at NCH, together with its already scant operating ratio, when considered with the future effect on its utilization rate caused by the advent of Gulf Coast Hospital, show that no true need for any beds exists. Bed need projections are not the only pivotal considerations in determining entitlement to a CON. Brown and Kendall Lakes Hospital, Inc., Humana, Inc. d/b/a Kendall Community Hospital v. HRS, 4 FALR 2452A, (Final Order entered October 6, 1982).
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application for a Certificate of Need submitted by Community Hospital of Collier, Inc. for 150-beds for northern Collier County be DENIED, and that the application for a Certificate of Need submitted by Naples Community Hospital, Inc. for the addition, as amended, for 20 beds be DENIED, and that, in view of the application involved in Case No. 84-0909 having been withdrawn, that that case be CLOSED. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of August, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1985.
The Issue This case concerns four Certificate of Need ("CON") applications ("CONs 9891, 9992, 9893, and 9894") that seek to establish long-term acute care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Miami-Dade County (the "County" or "Miami-Dade County"), a part of AHCA District 11 (along with Monroe County). Promise Healthcare of Florida XI, Inc. ("Promise") in CON 9891, Select Specialty Hospital-Dade, Inc. ("Select-Dade") in CON 9892, and Kindred Hospitals East, L.L.C. ("Kindred"), in CON 9894, seek to construct and operate a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in the County. Miami Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged, Inc. ("MJH"), in CON 9893, seeks to establish a 30-bed hospital within a hospital ("HIH") on its existing campus in the County. In its State Agency Action Report (the "SAAR"), AHCA concluded that all of the need methodologies presented by the applicants were unreliable. Accordingly, AHCA staff recommended denial of the four applications. The recommendation was adopted by the Agency when it issued the SAAR. The Agency maintained throughout the final hearing that all four applications should be denied, although of the four, if any were to be granted, it professed a preference for MJH on the basis, among other reasons, of a more reliable need methodology. Since the hearing the Agency has changed its position with regard to MJH. In its proposed recommended order, AHCA supports approval of MJH's application. MJH and Promise agree with the AHCA that there is need for the 30 LTCH beds proposed by MJH for its HIH and that MJH otherwise meets the criteria for approval of its application. MJH seeks approval of its application only. Likewise, the Agency supports approval of only MJH's application. Promise, on the other hand, contends that there is need for a 60-bed facility as well as MJH's HIH and that between Promise, Select- Dade and Kindred, based on comparative review, its application should be approved along with MJH's application. Although Promise's need methodology supports need for more LTCH beds than would be provided by approval of its application and MJH's, its support for approval is limited to its application and that of MJH. Like Promise's methodology, Select-Dade and Kindred's need methodologies project need for many more beds than would be provided by the 60 beds each of them seek. Unlike Promise, however, neither Select-Dade nor Kindred supports approval of MJH's application. Each proposes its application to be superior to the other applications; each advocates approval of its respective application alone. Given the positions of the parties reflected in their proposed recommended orders, whether there is need for at least an additional 30 LTCH beds in District 11 is not at issue. Rather, the issues are as follows. What is the extent of the need for additional LTCH beds in District 11? If the need is for at least 30 beds but less than 60 beds, does MJH meet the criteria for approval of its application? If the need is for 60 beds or more, what application or applications should be approved depends on what applications meet CON review criteria and on the number of beds needed (60 but less than 90, 90 but less than 120, 120 but less than 150, 150 but less than 180, 180 but less than 210, and 210 or more) and whether there is health- planning basis not to grant an application even if the approval would meet a bed need and all four applicants otherwise meet review criteria. Finally, based on comparative review, what is the order of approval among the applications that meet CON need criteria? Ultimately, the issue in the case is which if any of the four applications should be approved?
Findings Of Fact The Parties "[D]esignated as the state health planning agency for purposes of federal law," Section 408.034(1), Florida Statutes, AHCA is responsible for the administration of the CON program and laws in Florida. See §§ 408.031, Fla. Stat., et seq. As such, it is also designated as "the single state agency to issue, revoke, or deny certificates of need . . . in accordance with present and future federal and state statutes." § 408.034(1), Fla. Stat. Promise Healthcare of Florida XI, Inc. ("Promise") is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Promise Healthcare, Inc. The applicant for CON 9891, Promise proposes the construction of a 60-bed freestanding LTCH to be located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Select-Dade, the applicant for CON 9892, proposes the construction of a 60-bed freestanding LTCH to be located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Select Medical Corporation ("SMC"). The largest operator of LTCHs in the country, SMC operates 96 LTCHs in 24 states. The Miami Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged is an existing not-for-profit provider of comprehensive health and social services in Miami-Dade County. The applicant for CON 9893, MJH proposes the creation of a 30-bed hospital within a hospital (HIH) LTCH by the renovation of a former acute care hospital building on its existing campus in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Kindred is the applicant for CON 9894 and proposes the construction of a 60-bed freestanding LTCH to be located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Kindred is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kindred Healthcare, Inc. ("Kindred Healthcare"). Kindred Healthcare operates 85 LTCHs in the country, eight of which are in the State of Florida. One of the eight is in Miami-Dade County. Twenty-three of Kindred Healthcare's LTCHs are operated by Kindred as well as seven of the eight Florida LTCHs. Kindred has also received CON approval for another LTCH in Florida. It is to be located in Palm Beach County in LTCH District 9. The District and its LTCHs Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties comprise AHCA District The population of Monroe County is 80,000 and of Miami-Dade County, 2.4 million. As to be expected from the population's distribution in the District, the vast majority of the District's health services are located in Miami-Dade County. The greater part of the County's population is in the eastern portion of Miami-Dade County, with population densities there 3-4 times higher than in the western portion of the County. But there is little to no space remaining for development in the eastern portion of the County. Miami-Dade County has an urban development boundary that shields the Everglades from development in the western portion of the County. Still, the bulk of population growth that has occurred recently is in the west and that trend is expected to continue. While the growth rate on a percentage basis is higher in the more-recently developed western areas of the County, the great majority of the population is and will continue to be within five miles of the sea coast on the County's eastern edge. At the time of hearing, there were three LTCHs operating in the District with a total of 122 beds: Kindred- Coral Gables, Select-Miami, and Sister Emmanuel. All three are clustered within a radius of six miles of each other in or not far from downtown Miami. The three existing LTCHs in the District are utilized at high occupancy levels. Kindred's 53-bed facility receives most of its referrals from a within a 10 mile radius. It has operated for the 11-year period beginning in 1995 with an occupancy level from a low of 82.08 percent to a high of 92.86 percent. The occupancy levels for 2004 (82.08 percent) and 2005 (84.90 percent) show occupancy recently at a relatively stable level within the range of optimal functional capacity which tends to be between 80 and 85 percent when facilities are equipped with semi-private rooms. With gender and infection issues in a facility with semi-private rooms, admissions to those facilities are usually restricted above 85 percent. Select operates a 40-bed LTCH on one floor of a health care service condominium building in downtown Miami. It began operation in 2003 as part of legislatively-created special Medicaid demonstration project. Its occupancy levels for the two calendar years of 2004 and 2005 were 83.39 percent and 95.10 percent. Sister Emmanuel Hospital for Continuing Care ("Sister Emmanuel") is a 29-bed HIH located at Mercy Hospital in Miami. It became operational in 2004 with an occupancy level of 82.64 percent, and attained an occupancy level of 85.46 percent in 2005. Kindred's Broward County LTCHs Kindred operates two LTCHs in Broward County (outside of District 11); one is in Ft. Lauderdale, the other in Hollywood. From 1995 to 2003, Kindred-Hollywood's occupancy rate ranged from a low of 65.17 percent to a high of 72.73 percent, generally lower than the state-wide occupancy rate. For the same period, Kindred-Ft. Lauderdale's rate was significantly higher, between 83.69 percent and 91.65 percent. Both LTCHs have experienced occupancy rates significantly lower than the state-wide rates in 2004 and 2005. Kindred-Ft. Lauderdale's occupancy in 2004 fell substantially from earlier years to 66.41 percent and then even farther in 2005 to 57.73 percent. Kindred-Hollywood's rates for these two years were also well below the state's at 59.74 percent and 58.04 percent, respectively. Historically used by residents of District 11, the Hollywood facility served 4,292 patients from Miami-Dade County in the eleven year period from 1995 through 2005. For the same period, the Ft. Lauderdale facility served 275 Miami-Dade residents. Kindred assigns its clinical liaisons to hospitals in a territorial manner to minimize competition for referrals between its two facilities in Broward County and Kindred-Coral Gables. LTCHs A "Long-term care hospital" means a general hospital licensed under Chapter 395, which meets the requirements of 42 C.F.R. Section 412.23(e) and seeks exclusion from the acute care Medicare prospective payment system for inpatient hospital services. § 408.032(13), Fla. Stat. (2005), and Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.002(28). Under federal rules, an LTCH must have an average Medicare length of stay (LOS) greater than 25 days. LTCHs typically furnish extended medical and rehabilitation care for patients who are clinically complex and have multiple acute or chronic conditions. Patients appropriate for LTCH services represent a small but discrete sub-set of all patients. They are differentiated from other hospital patients in that, by definition, they have multiple co-morbidities that require concurrent treatment. Patients appropriate for LTCH services tend to be elderly, frail, and medically complex and are usually regarded as catastrophically ill although some are young, typically victims of severe trauma. Approximately 85 percent of LTCH patients qualify for Medicare. Generally, Medicare patients admitted to LTCHs have been transferred from general acute care hospitals and receive a range of services at LTCHs, including cardiac monitoring, ventilator support and wound care. In 2004, statewide, 92 percent of LTCH patients were transferred from short-term acute care hospitals. That figure was 98 percent for District 11 during the same period of time. The single most common factor associated with the use of long-term care hospitals are patients who have pulmonary and respiratory conditions such as tracheotomies, and require the use of ventilators. There are three other general categories of LTCH patients as explained by Dr. Muldoon in his deposition: The second group is wound care where patients who are at the extreme end of complexity in wound care would come to [an] LTCH if their wounds cannot be managed by nurses in skilled nursing facilities or by home health care. The third category would be cardiovascular diseases where patients compromise[d by] injury or illness related to the circulatory system would come [to an LTCH.] And the fourth is the severe end of the rehabilitation group where, in addition to rehabilitation needs, there's a background of multiple medical conditions that also require active management. (Kindred Ex. 8 at 10-11). Effective October 1, 2002, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") established a new prospective payment system for long term care hospital providers. Through this system, CMS recognizes the patient population of LTCHs as separate and distinct from the populations treated by short-term acute care hospitals and by other post acute care providers, such as Skilled Nursing Facilities ("SNFs") and Comprehensive Rehabilitation Hospitals ("CMRs"). The implementation by CMS of categories of payment designed specifically for LTCHs, the "LTC-DRG," indicates that CMS and the federal government recognize the differences between general hospitals and LTCHs when it comes to patient population, costs of care, resources consumed by the patients and health care delivery. Under the LTCH reimbursement system, each patient is assigned a Diagnosis Related Group or "DRG" with a corresponding payment rate that is weighted based upon the patient's diagnosis. The LTCH is reimbursed the predetermined payment rate for that DRG, regardless of the costs of care. These rates are higher than what CMS provides for other traditional post-acute care providers. Since the establishment of the prospective pay system for LTCHs, concerns about the high reimbursement rate for LTCHs, as well as about the appropriateness of the patients treated in LTCHs, have been raised by the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee ("MedPAC") and the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. CMS administers the Medicare payment program for LTCHs, as well as the reimbursement programs for acute care hospitals, SNFs, and CMRs. MedPAC's role is to help formulate federal policy on Medicare regarding services provided to Medicare beneficiaries (patients) and the appropriate reimbursement rates to be paid to health care providers. The 2006 MedPAC report reported that LTCHs were making a good margin or profit, and recommended against an annual increase in the Medicare reimbursement rate for the upcoming fiscal year. In 2006, CMS adopted a reimbursement rate rule for LTCHs for 2007 that did not raise the base rate, and made other changes that reflect the ongoing concerns of CMS regarding LTCHs. 42 C.F.R. Part 412, May 12, 2006. In that rule, CMS found that approximately 37 percent of LTCH discharges are paid under the short-stay outliers, raising concerns that inappropriate patients may be being admitted to LTCHs. CMS made other changes to the reimbursement system which, taken as a whole, actually reduced the reimbursement that LTCHs will receive for 2007. Even with the concerns raised by MedPAC and CMS and recent changes in federal fiscal policy related to LTCHs, the distinction between general hospitals and LTCHs and the legitimate place for LTCHs in the continuum of care continues to be recognized by the federal government. One way of looking at recent developments at the federal level was articulated at hearing by Mr. Kornblat. Federal regulatory changes will reduce the reimbursement LTCHs receive when treating short-term patients (short-term outliers). "On the other end of the spectrum, there are patients who stay significantly longer than would be expected on average, long- stay outliers, and the reimbursement for those patients was also modified." Tr. 163. There have been other changes with regard to LTCH patients who require surgery the LTCHs cannot provide and patients with a primary psychiatric diagnosis or a primary rehab diagnosis. Requiring the LTCH to "foot the bill" for surgery that it cannot provide for its patients and the elimination from LTCHs of patients with a primary psychiatric or rehab diagnosis send a strong signal to the LTCH industry specifically and those who interact with it: LTCHs should admit only the medically complex and severely acutely ill patient who can be appropriately treated at an LTCH. Despite recent changes at the federal level and the clear recognition by the federal government that LTCHs have a place in the continuum of health care services, AHCA remains concerned about LTCHs in Florida. AHCA's Concerns Regarding LTCHs In deciding on whether to approve or deny new health care facilities, the Agency is responsible for the "coordinated planning of health care services in the state." § 408.033(3)(a), Fla. Stat. In carrying out this responsibility, AHCA looks to federal rules and reports to assist in making health care planning decisions for the state. Regarding LTCHs, MedPAC has reported, and CMS has noted that, nationwide, there has been a recent, rapid increase in the number of LTCHs: "It [LTCHs] represents a growth industry of the last ten years." Nationwide there has also been a huge increase in Medicare spending for LTCH care from $398 million in 1993 to $3.3 billion in 2004. AHCA has also become concerned about the recent rapid increase in LTCH applications in Florida. From 1997 through 2001 there were 8 LTCHs in the state. Starting in 2002, there was a marked increase in the number of applications for LTCHs and the number of approved LTCHs rose quickly to the current 14 in 2006. In addition, 9 new LTCHs have been approved and are expected to be licensed in the next 1-3 years. When all of the approved hospitals are licensed the number of available beds will rise from 876 to 1,351 (adding the approved 475 beds), over a 50 percent increase in LTCH beds statewide. In addition, AHCA is concerned that the occupancy level of LTCHs over the entire state appears to be falling over the last 11 years. In response to the rise in LTCH applications over the last several years, and given the decrease in occupancy of the current LTCHs, the Agency has consistently voiced concerns about lack of identification of the patients that appropriately comprise the LTCH patient population. Because of a lack of specific data from applicants with regard to the composition and acuity level of LTCH patient populations, AHCA is not convinced that there is a need for additional LTCHs in the state or in District 11. There are several reasons for this concern. First, AHCA believes, like MedPAC, that there may be an overlap between the LTCH patient populations and the population of patients served in other health care settings, such as SNFs and CMRs. Kindred's expert, Dr. Muldoon, noted that length of stay in the general acute care hospital has been shortened over the last few years because there are new more effective medical treatments, and because the "post-acute sector has emerged as the place to carry out the treatment plan that 20 years ago may been provided in its entirety in the short-term hospital." (Kindred Ex. 8 at 23). To AHCA, what patients enter what facilities in this "post-acute sector" is unclear. In the absence of the applicants better identifying the acuity of the LTCH patient population, AHCA has reached the conclusion that there may be other options available to those patients targeted by the LTCH applicants. In support of this view, AHCA presented a chart showing SNFs in District 11 that offer to treat patients who need dialysis, tracheotomy or ventilator care. These conditions are typically treated in LTCHs. In addition, AHCA believes that some long-stay patients can be appropriately served in the short-stay acute care hospitals, rather than requiring LTCH care. The length of stay in 2005 for the typical acute care hospital for most patients is five to six days. (Kindred Ex. 8, Dr. Muldoon Depo, at 23). Some hospital patients, however, are in need of acute care services on a long-term basis, that is, much longer than the average lengths of stay for most patients. Thus, patients who may need LTCH services often have lengths of stay in the acute care hospitals that exceed the typical stay. AHCA believes that these long-stay patients can be as appropriately served in the short stay acute care hospitals as in LTCHs. AHCA'S Denial of the Four Applications and Change of Position with regard to MJH On December 15, 2005, the Agency issued its SAAR after review of the applications. The SAAR recommended denial of all four applications based primarily on the Agency's determination that none had adequately demonstrated need for its proposed LTCH in District 11. In denying the four applications, AHCA relied in part on reports issued the Congress annually by MedPAC that discuss the placement of Medicare patients in appropriate post-acute settings. Appropriate use of long term care hospital services is an underlying concern that we [AHCA] have and had the federal government has as evidenced by their MedPAC reports and the CMS information in its most recent proposed rule on the subject. (Tr. 2486). The June 2004 MedPAC report states the following about LTCHs: Using qualitative and quantitative methods, we find the LTCH's role is to provide post- acute care to a small number of medically complex patients. We also find that the supply of LTCHs is a strong predictor of their use and those acute hospitals and skilled nursing facilities are the principal alternatives to LTCHs. We find that, in general, LTCH patients cost Medicare more than similar patients using alternative settings but that if LTCH care is targeted to patients of the highest severity, the cost is comparable. Given these concerns, AHCA looked to the four applicants to prove need through a needs methodology that provides sufficient information on the patient severity criteria to better define the patients that would mostly likely be appropriate candidates for LTCHs. AHCA found the need methodologies of three of the four applicants (Kindred, Promise, and Select) "incomplete" because they lacked specific information on the severity level of the patients the applicants plans to admit, and therefore they "overstate need." AHCA pointed to a former LTCH provider that did provide detailed useful information on the acuity level of its patients, and the acuity level of its patients in reference to similar patients in SNFs. Other then MJH, the applicants presented approaches to projecting need that are based, in one way or another, on long- stay patients in existing acute care hospitals. In the Agency's view these methods "significantly overstate need." The method creates a "candidate pool" for the future long-term care hospital users. But it does not include enough information on severity of illness of the patients, in AHCA's view, to give a sense of who might be expected to appropriately use the service. Further, the Agency sees no reason to believe that all long-stay patients in acute care short-stay hospitals are appropriate candidates for long-term hospital services. Lastly, AHCA believes that LTCH applicants should develop an "acuity coefficient or an acuity factor," tr. 2627, to be considered as part of an LTCH need methodology. The need methodology employed by MJH differed substantially from the methodologies of the other three applicants. Because it is more conservative and yields a need "approximately a tenth of what the other three propose," tr. 2500, at the time of hearing AHCA was much more comfortable with MJH's need methodology. By the time AHCA filed its PRO, its comfort with MJH's need methodology had solidified and improved to the point that AHCA changed its position with regard to MJH. Describing MJH's "use rate model" as conservative, see Agency for Health Care Administration Proposed Recommended Order, at 24, AHCA proposed the following finding of fact in support of its conclusion that MJH's application be approved: "Miami Jewish Home projected a reasonably reliable bed need using approved, conservative, but detailed and supportable, need methodologies." Id. at 25. MJH MJH, is an existing not-for-profit provider of comprehensive health and social services in Miami-Dade County. As recited in the Omissions Response to CON 9893: [MJH's] mission is to be the premier multi- component, not-for-profit charitable health care system in South Florida, guided by traditional Jewish values, dedicated to effectively and efficiently serving a non- sectarian population of elderly, mentally ill, disabled, and chronically ill people with a broad range of the highest quality institutionally-based, community-based and ambulatory care services. MJH Ex. 1. Originally founded in 1945 to provide residential care for Jewish persons unable to access services elsewhere, MJH is now in its 62nd year of operation. MJH enjoys a good reputation within its community. MJH is located at Northeast Second Avenue and 2nd Street in north-central Miami in one of the most densely populated areas of the County. Known as “Little Haiti,” the surrounding community is primarily low income, and is a federally designated “medically underserved area.” A “safety net” provider of health care services, MJH's SNF is the largest provider of Medicaid skilled nursing services in the State of Florida. MJH assists its patients/residents in filing Medicaid applications, and also assists individuals in applying for Medicaid for community-based services. This same kind of assistance will also be provided to patients of the MJH LTCH. A 2004 study conducted by the Center on Aging at Florida International University identified unmet needs among elders living within the zip codes surrounding MJH. The study notes that the greatest predictors of need for home and community-based services are poverty, disability, living alone, and old age. Several of the zip codes within the MJH PSA were found to have relatively large numbers of at risk elders due to poverty and dramatic community changes. The study has assisted MJH in identifying service gaps within the community, and in focusing its efforts to serve this at-risk population. Following its most recent JCAHO accreditation survey, both MJH’s hospital and SNF received a three-year “accreditation without condition,” which is the highest certification awarded by JCAHO. MJH is a national leader in the provision of comprehensive long-term care services. MJH has been recognized on numerous occasions for its innovative long-term and post- acute care programs. The awards and recognitions include the Gold Seal Award for Excellence in Long Term Care, the "Best Nursing Home" Award from Florida Medical Business and "Decade of Excellence Award" from Florida Health Care Association. An indicator of quality of care, AHCA’s “Gold Seal” designation is especially significant. Of the 780 nursing homes in Florida, only 13, including MJH, have met the criteria to be designated as Gold Seal facilities. MJH operates Florida's only Teaching Nursing Home Program. Medical students, interns, and other health professionals rotate through the service program in the nursing home and hospital on a regular basis. Specifically, MJH serves as a student and resident training site for the University of Miami and Nova Southeastern University Medical Schools, and the Barry University, FIU, and University of Miami nursing schools. The LTCH would enhance these capabilities and give physicians in training additional opportunities. Not only will this enhance their education, but also will contribute to the high quality of care to be provided in the MJH LTCH. MJH has been the site and sponsor of many studies to enhance the delivery of social and health services to elderly and disabled persons. Most recently, MJH was awarded a grant to do research on fall prevention in the nursing home. MJH is committed to continue research on the most effective means of delivering rehabilitative and long-term care services to a growing dependent population. The development of an LTCH at MJH will enhance the opportunities for this research. MJH operates Florida’s first and only PACE Center (Program of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly) located on the main Douglas Gardens campus. The program provides comprehensive care (preventive, primary, acute and long-term) to nursing home eligible seniors with chronic care needs while enabling them to continue to reside in their own home as long as possible. MJH was recently approved by the Governor and Legislature to open a second PACE site, to be located in Hialeah. The proposed 30-bed LTCH will be located on MJH’s Douglas Gardens Campus. The Douglas Gardens Campus is the site of a broad array of health and social services that span the continuum of care. These programs include community outreach services, independent and assisted living facilities, nursing home diversion services, chronic illness services, outpatient health services, acute care hospital services, rehabilitation, post-acute services, Alzheimer’s disease services, pain management, skilled nursing and hospice. LTCH services, however, are not currently available at MJH. Fred Stock, the Chief Operating Officer of MJH is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the MJH nursing home and hospital and has 24 years experience in the administration of long-term care facilities. An example of Mr. Stock’s leadership is that when he came to MJH, its hospice program had management issues. He assessed the situation and then made a management change which has resulted in a successful turnaround of the program. There are now 462 skilled nursing beds licensed and operated by MJH at the Douglas Garden’s Campus. All of these beds are certified by Medicare. Community hospitals have come to rely on these skilled nursing beds as a placement alternative for their sickest and most difficult-to-place, post-acute patients. The discharges of post-acute patients in the SNF at Douglas Gardens more than doubled from 350 in FY 2002 to 769 in FY 2005. Dr. Tanira Ferreira is the Medical Director of the MJH ventilator unit. Dr. Ferreira is board-certified in the specialties of Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Diseases, Critical Care Medicine, and Sleep Disorders. Dr. Ferreira will be the Medical Director of the MJH LTCH. In addition to Dr. Ferreira, MJH has five other pulmonologists on its staff. MJH also employs: a full-time Medical Director (Dr. Michael Silverman); three full-time physicians whose practices are restricted to MJH hospital and SNF patients; and four full-time nurse practitioners whose practices are restricted to residents of the SNF. MJH employs two full-time psychiatrists, two full-time psychologists, and seven full-time Master’s level social workers. The MJH medical staff also includes many specialist physicians such as cardiologists, surgeons, orthopedists, nephrologists and opthamologists, and other specialists are called for a consultation as needed. A number of the MJH patients/residents are non-English speakers. However, many of the MJH employees, including all of its medical staff, are bilingual. Among the languages spoken by MJH staff are Haitian, Spanish, Russian, Yiddish, French, and Portuguese. This multi-language capability greatly enhances patient/resident communication and enhances MJH’s ability to provide supportive services. The proposed project is the development of a 30-bed LTCH in Miami-Dade County. The LTCH will be located in renovated space in an existing facility and will conform to all the physical plant and operating standards for a general hospital in Florida. The estimated project cost is $5,315,672. The first patient is expected to be admitted by July 1, 2007. The LTCH will be considered an HIH under Federal regulations 42 CFR Section 412.22(e). The LTCH will comply with these requirements including a separate governing body, separate chief medical officer, separate medical staff, and chief executive officer. The LTCH will perform the hospital functions required in the Medicare Conditions of Participation set forth at 42 CFR Section 482. In addition, fewer than 25 percent of the admissions to the LTCH will originate from the MJH acute care hospital, and less than 15 percent of the LTCH operating expenses will be through contracted services with any other MJH affiliate, including the acute care hospital. The separate LTCH governing body will be legally responsible for the conduct of the LTCH as an institution and will not be under the control of the MJH acute care hospital. Finally, less than five percent of the annual MJH LTCH admissions will be re-admissions of patients who are referred from the MJH SNF or the MJH hospital. Each referral to the LTCH will be carefully assessed using the InterQual level-of-care criteria to ensure that the most appropriate setting is chosen. MJH is also a member of the ECIN (Extended Care Information Network) system. As a member of this system, MJH is able to make referrals and place patients who may not be appropriate for its own programs. Only those patients who are medically and functionally appropriate for the LTCH will be admitted to the LTCH program. Many patients admitted to the MJH LTCH will have complex medical conditions and/or multiple-system diagnoses in one or more of the following categories: Respiratory disorders care (including mechanical ventilation or tracheostomy care) Surgical wound or skin ulcer care Cardiac Care Renal disease care Cancer care Infectious diseases care Stroke care The patient and family will be the focus of the interdisciplinary care provided by the MJH LTCH. The interdisciplinary care team will include the following disciplines: physicians, nurses, social workers, psychologists, spiritual counselors, respiratory therapists, physical therapists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, pharmacists, and dietitians. MJH uses a collaborative care model that will be replicated in the LTCH and will enhance the effectiveness of the interdisciplinary team. The direct care professionals in the LTCH will maintain an integrated medical record, so that each member of the care team will have ready access to all the information and assessments from the other disciplines. Nursing staff will provide at least nine hours of nursing care per patient per day. Seventy-five percent of the nursing staff hours will be RN and LPN hours. Therapists (respiratory, physical, speech and occupational) will provide at least three hours of care per patient day. The MJH medical staff includes a wide array of specialty consultants that will be available to LTCH patients. The specialties of pulmonology, internal medicine, geriatrics and psychiatry will be available to each patient on a daily basis. A complete listing of all of the medical specialties available to MJH patients was included with its application. The interdisciplinary team will meet at least once per week to assess the care plan for each patient. The care plan will emphasize rehabilitation and education to enable the patient to progress to a less restrictive setting. The care team will help the patient and family learn how to manage disabilities and functional impairments to facilitate community re-entry. Approval of the LTCH will allow the MJH to "round out" the continuum of care it can offer the community by placing patients with clinically complex conditions in the most appropriate care setting possible. This is particularly true of persons who would otherwise have difficulty in accessing LTCH services. MJH has committed to providing a minimum of 4.2 percent of its patient discharges to Medicaid and charity patients. However, Mr. Stock anticipates that the actual percentage will be higher. If approved, MJH has committed to licensing and operating its proposed LTCH. MJH already has a number of the key personnel that will be required to implement its LTCH, including the Medical Director and other senior staff. In addition, MJH has extensive experience gleaned from both its acute care hospital and SNF in caring for very sick patients. In short, MJH has the clinical, administrative, and financial infrastructure that will be required to successfully implement its proposed LTCH. Approval of the MJH LTCH will dramatically reduce the number of persons who are now leaving the MJH PSA to access LTCH services. The hospitals in close proximity to MJH have LTCH use rates that are very low in comparison to other hospitals that are closer to existing LTCHs. Thus, it is likely that there are patients being discharged from the hospitals close to MJH that could benefit from LTCH services, but are not getting them because of access issues or because the existing LTCHs are perceived to be too far away. A number of hospitals located close to MJH are now referring ventilator-dependent patients to MJH, and would also likely refer patients to the MJH LTCH. Because the majority of the infrastructure required is already in place, the MJH HIH can be implemented much more quickly and efficiently than can a new freestanding LTCH. For example, ancillary functions such as billing, accounting, human resources, housekeeping and administration already exist, and the LTCH can be efficiently integrated into those existing operations on campus. MJH will be able to appropriately staff its LTCH through a combination of its current employees and recruitment of new staff as necessary. In addition, MJH will be establishing an in-house pharmacy and laboratory within the next six months, which will also provide services to LTCH patients. On-site radiology services are already available to MJH patients. MJH has an excellent track record of successfully implementing new programs and services. There is no reason to believe that MJH will not succeed in implementing a high quality LTCH if its application is approved. MJH's Ventilator Unit By the time ventilator-dependent and other clinically complex patients are admitted to a nursing home they have often exhausted their 100 days of Medicare coverage, and have converted to Medicaid. Since Medicaid reimbursement is less than the cost of providing such care, most nursing homes are unwilling to admit these types of patients. Thus, it is very difficult to place ventilator patients in SNFs statewide. The problem is further exacerbated in District 11 by the lack of any hospital-based skilled nursing units. With the recent closure of two SNF-based vent units (Claridge House and Greynolds Park) there are now only three SNF-based vent units remaining in District 11. They are located at MJH, Hampton Court (10 beds), and Victoria Nursing Home. MJH instituted a ventilator program in its SNF in early 2004. Many of the patients admitted into the ventilator program fall into the SE3 RUG Code. On July 1, 2005, there were 24 patients in the SE3 RUG code in MJH. Only one other SNF in District 11 has more than four SE3 RUG patients in its census on an average day. Over 60 percent of the Medicare post-acute census at the MJH SNF falls into the RUG categories associated with extensive, special care or clinically complex services. This mix of complex cases is about three times higher than average for District 11 SNFs. Although some of the patients now admitted to the MJH SNF vent unit would qualify for admission to an LTCH, there are also a number of patients who are not admitted because MJH cannot provide the LTCH level of care required. SNF admissions are required to be initiated following a STACH admission. MJH has actively marketed its vent unit to STACHs. Similarly most LTCH admissions come from STACHs and, like MJH’s efforts, LTCHs also market themselves to STACHs. Hospitals providing tertiary services and trauma care will generate the greater number of LTCH referrals, with approximately half of all LTCH patients being transferred from an ICU. The implementation of the MJH ventilator unit required the development of protocols, infrastructure, clinical capabilities and internal resources beyond those found in most SNFs. Dr. Ferreira conducted pre-opening comprehensive staff education. These capabilities will serve as a precursor to the development of the next stage of service delivery at MJH: the LTCH. MJH’s vent unit provides care for trauma victims, and recently received a Department of Health research grant to develop a program for long-term ventilator rehab for victims of trauma. Jackson Memorial Hospital is experiencing difficulty in placing "certain" medically complex patients, who at discharge, have continuing comprehensive medical needs. MJH is the only facility in Dade County that has accepted Medicaid ventilator patients from Jackson. Mt. Sinai Medical Center also has difficulty placing medically complex patients, particularly those requiring ventilator support, wound care, dialysis and/or other acute support services. Mt. Sinai is a major referral source to MJH and supports its LTCH application. MJH has received statewide referrals, including from the Governor's Office and from AHCA, of difficult to place vent patients. Most of these referrals are Medicaid patients. Ten of the MJH vent beds are typically utilized by Medicaid patients. Although MJH would like to accommodate more such referrals, there are financial limitations on the number of Medicaid patients that MJH can accept at one time. Promise Promise owns and operates approximately 718 LTCH beds outside of Florida and employs an estimated 2,000 persons. Promise proposes to develop and LTCH facility in the western portion of the County made up of 59,970 gross square feet, 60 private beds including an 8-bed ICU, and various ancillary and support areas. The projected costs to construct its freestanding LTCH is $11,094,500, with a total project cost of $26,370,885. As a condition of its CON if its application is approved, Promise agrees to provide three percent of projected patient days to Medicaid and charity patients. Select Select-Dade proposes to locate its 60-bed, freestanding LTCH in the western portion of Miami-Dade County. The Agency denied Select-Dade's application because of its failure to prove need. Otherwise, the application meets the CON review criteria and qualifies for comparative review with the other three applicants. Select-Dade proposes to serve the entire District, but it has targeted the entire west central portion of the County that includes Hialeah, Hialeah Gardens, Doral, Sweetwater, Kendall, and portions of unincorporated Miami. This area is west of State Road 826 (the "Palmetto Expressway"), south of the County line with Broward County, north of Killian Parkway and east of the Everglades ("Select's Target Service Area"). To be located west of the Palmetto Expressway, east of the Florida Turnpike, north of Miller Drive and south of State Road 836, the site for the LTCH will be generally in the center of Select's Target Service Area. Approximately 700,000 people (about 30 percent of the County's population) reside within Select-Dade's Target Service Area. This population of the area is expected to grow almost ten percent in the next five years. The rest of the County is expected to grow about five and one-half percent. Kindred Kindred proposes to construct a 60-bed LTCH in the County. It will consist of 30 private rooms, 20 beds in 10 semi-private rooms, and 10 ICU beds. The facility would include the necessary ancillary service, including two operating rooms, a radiology suite, and a pharmacy. Kindred utilizes a screening process before admission of a patient to assure that the patient needs LTCH level care that includes the set of criteria known as InterQual. InterQual categorizes patients according to their severity of illness and the intensity of services they require. Every patient admitted to a Kindred hospital must be capable of improving and the desire to undergo those interventions aimed at improvement. Kindred does not provide hospice or custodial care. In addition, through its reimbursement process, the federal government provides strong disincentives toward LTCH admission of inappropriate patients. Furthermore, every Kindred hospital has a utilization review (UR) plan to assure that patients do not receive unnecessary, unwanted or harmful care. In addition to the UR plan, the patient's condition is frequently reviewed by nursing staff, respiratory staff and by a multi-disciplinary team. Kindred had not selected a location at the time it submitted its application. Kindred anticipates, however, that its facility if approved would be located in the western portion of the County. Stipulated Facts As stated by Kindred in its Proposed Recommended Order, the parties stipulated to the following facts (as well as a few other related to identification of the parties): Each applicant timely filed the appropriate letter of intent, and each such letter contained the information required by AHCA. Each CON application was timely filed with AHCA. Following its initial review, AHCA issued a State Agency Action Report ("SAAR") which indicated its intent to deny each of the applications. Each applicant timely filed the appropriate petition with AHCA, seeking a formal hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Fla. Stat. In the CON batch cycle that is the subject of this proceeding, Promise XI proposed to construct a 59,970 square foot building at a total project cost of $26,370,885.00, conditioned upon providing 3 percent of its patient days to Medicaid and charity patients. Select proposes to construct a 62,865 square foot building at a total project cost of $22,304,791.00, conditioned upon providing 2.8 percent of its patient days to Medicaid and charity patients. MJHHA proposes to renovate 17,683 square feet of space at a total project cost of $5,315,672.00, conditioned upon providing 4.2 percent of its patient days to Medicaid and charity patients. Kindred proposes to construct a 69,706 square foot building at a total project cost of $26,538,458.00, conditioned upon providing 2.2 percent of its patient days to Medicaid and charity patients. Long term hospitals meeting the provisions of AHCA Rule 59A-3.065(27), Fla. Admin. Code, are one of the four classes of facilities licensed as Class I hospitals by AHCA. The length of stay in an acute care hospital for most patients is three to five days. Some hospital patients, however, are in need of acute care services on a long- term basis. A long-term basis is 25 to 34 days of additional acute are service after the typical three to five day stay in a short-term hospital. Although some of those patients are "custodial" in nature and not in need of LTCH services, many of these long-term patients are better served in a LTCH than in a traditional acute care hospital. Within the continuum of care, the federal government's Medicare program recognizes LTCHs as distinct providers of services to patients with high levels of acuity. The federal government treats LTCH care as a discrete form of care, and treats the level of service provider by LTCHs as distinct, with its own Medicare payment system of DRGs and case mix reimbursement that provides Medicare payments at rates different from what the Medicare prospective payment system ("PPS") provides for other traditional post-acute care providers. The implementation by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") of categories of payment design specifically for LTCHs, the "LTC-DRG," is a sign of the recognition by CMS and the federal government of the differences between general hospitals and LTCHs when it comes to patient population, costs of care, resources consumed by the patients and health care delivery. Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation at 4, 6-7, 9-10. Applicable Statutory and Rule Criteria The parties stipulated that the review criteria in Subsections (1) through (9) of Section 408.035, Florida Statutes (the "CON Review Criteria Statute"), apply to the applications in this proceeding. Subsection (10) of the CON Review Criteria Statute, relates to the applicant's designation as a Gold Seal Program Nursing facility. Subsection (10) is applicable only "when the applicant is requesting additional nursing home beds at that facility." None of the applicants are making such a request. MJH's designation as a Gold Seal Program is not irrelevant in this proceeding, however, since it substantiates MJH's "record of providing quality of care," a criterion in Subsection (3) of the CON Review Criteria Statute. The Agency does not have a need methodology for LTCHs. Nor has it provided any of the applicants in this proceeding with a policy upon which to determine need for the proposed LTCH beds. The applicants, therefore, are responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology of their own. Topics that must be included in the methodology are listed Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2., a. through d. Subsection (1) of the CON Review Criteria: Need Not only does AHCA not have an LTCH need methodology in rule or a policy upon which to determine need for the proposed LTCH beds, it did not offer a methodology for consideration at hearing. This is the typical approach AHCA takes in LTCH cases; demonstration of LTCH need through a needs assessment methodology is left to the parties, a responsibility placed upon them in situations of this kind by Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. MJH's Need Methodology Unlike the other three applicants, all of whom used one form or another of STACH long-stay methodologies, MJH utilized a use-rate analysis which projects LTCH utilization forward from District 11's recent history of increased utilization. A use-rate methodology is one of the most commonly used health care methodologies. The MJH use-rate methodology projected need based upon all of District 11. The methodology projected need for 42 LTCH beds in 2008, with that number growing incrementally to 55 beds by 2012. Because statewide LTCH utilization data is not reliable when looking at any particular district, MJH developed a District 11 use-rate, by age cohort, to yield a projection of LTCH beds needed. The use-rate is derived from the number of STACH admissions compared to the number of LTCH admissions, by age cohort. Projected demographic growth by age cohort was applied to determine the number of projected LTCH admissions. The historic average LTCH LOS in District 11 was applied to projected admissions and then divided by 365 to arrive at an ADC. That ADC was then adjusted for an occupancy standard of 85 percent, which is consistent with District 11. A number of states have formally adopted need methodologies that use an approach similar to MJH's in this case. Kindred has used a shortcut method of the use rate model in other states for analyzing proposed LTCHs "when there is not much data to work with." Tr. 1744. The methodology used by MJH was developed by its expert health planner, Jay Cushman. The methodology developed by Mr. Cushman was described by Kindred's health planner as "a couple of steps beyond" Kindred's occasionally-used shortcut method. Kindred's health planner described Mr. Cushman's efforts with regard to the MJH need methodology as "a very nice job." Tr. 1745. Mr. Cushman created a use-rate by examining the relationship between STACH admissions and LTCH admissions. The use-rate actually grows as it is segmented by age group, and thus the growth in the elderly population incrementally increases the utilization rate. MJH’s application demonstrated how LTCH utilization has varied greatly statewide, and how the District 11 market has a significant history of utilizing LTCH services. For planning purposes the history of District 11 is a significant factor, and the MJH methodology is premised upon that history, unlike the other methodologies. MJH demonstrated a strong correlation between STACH and LTCH utilization in District 11, where 98 percent of LTCH admissions are referred from STACHs. MJH also demonstrated that the south and western portions of Miami-Dade have overlapping service areas from the three existing LTCHs, while northeastern Miami-Dade has only one provider with a similar service area, Kindred Hollywood in neighboring District 10. This peculiarity explains why the LTCH out-migration trend is much stronger in northeastern portions of the District. The area most proximate to MJH would enjoy enhanced access to LTCH services, including both geographic and financial access, if its program is approved. In short, as AHCA, now agrees, MJH demonstrated need for its project through a thorough and conservative analysis. All parties agree that the number of LTCH beds yielded by MJH's methodology are indeed needed. Whether more are needed is the point of disagreement. For example, Mr. Balsano plugged the 2003 use rate into MJH's methodology instead of the 2004 used by MJH. Employment of the 2003 use rate in the calculation has the advantage that actual 2004 and 2005 data can serve as a basis of comparison. Mr. Balsano explained the result: "The number of filled beds in 2005 in District 11 would exceed by 33 beds what the use rate approach would project as needed in 2005." Tr. 370. The reason, as Mr. Balsano went on to explain, is that the use-rate changed dramatically between 2002, 2003, and 2004. Thus MJH's methodology, while yielding a number of beds that are surely needed in the District, may yield a number that is understated. This is precisely the opposite problem of the need assessment methodologies of the other three applicants, all of which overstated LTCH bed need in the District. The Need Methodologies of the Other Three Applicants The need methodologies presented by the other applicants vary to some degree. All three, however, are based on STACH long-stay data. Long-stay STACH analyses rely upon a number of assumptions, but fundamentally they project need forward from historic utilization of STACHs. The methodologies used by each of these three applicants identify patients in STACHs whose stays exceeded the geometric mean of length of stay plus fifteen days (the "GMLOS+15 Methodologies"), although the extent of the patients so identified varied depending on the number of DRGs from which the patients were drawn. Each of the proponent’s projects would serve only a relatively small fraction of the District 11 patients purported by the GMLOS+15 Methodologies to be in need of LTCH services. The lowest projected need of the three was produced by Promise: 393 beds in 2010. Promise's methodology is more conservative than that of Kindred and Select. Unlike the latter two, Promise reduced the number of potential projected admissions to be used in its calculation. The reduction, in the amount of 25 percent of the projection of 500 beds, was made because of several factors. Among them were anticipation that MedPAC's suggestions for ensuring that patients were appropriate for LTCH admission, which was expected to reduce the number of LTCH admissions, would be adopted. The methodologies proposed by Kindred and Select-Dade did not include the Promise methodology's reduction potentially posed by the impact of new federal regulation. Kindred's methodology projected need for 509 new LTCH beds in District 11; Select-Dade's methodology projected need for 556 beds. One way of looking at the substantial bed need produced by the GMLOS+15 Methodologies used by Promise, Select and Kindred was expressed by Kindred. As an applicant proposing a new hospital of 60 beds, when its need methodology yielded a need in the District for more than 500 beds, Kindred found the methodology to provide assurance that its project is needed. On the other hand, if the methodology was reliable then the utilization levels of the two Kindred hospitals in Broward County in relative proximity to a populated area of District 11 would have been much higher in 2004 and 2005, given the substantial out-migration to those facilities from District 11. The Kindred and Select methodologies are not reliable. Their flaws were outlined at hearing by Mr. Cushman, MJH's expert health planner who qualified as an expert with a specialization in health care methodology. Mr. Cushman attributed the flaws to Promise's methodology as well but as explained below, Promise's methodology is found to be reliable. Comparison of the projections produced by MJH's use rate methodology with the projections produced by the other three methodologies results in "a tremendous disconnect," tr. 1233, between experiences in District 11 upon which MJH's methodology is based and the GMLOS+15 Methodologies' bed need yield "that are three or four or five times as high as have actually been expressed in the existing system." Id. One reason in Mr. Cushman's view for the disconnect is that the GMLOS+15 Methodologies identify all long-stay patients in STACHs as candidates for LTCH admission when "there are many reasons that patients might stay for a long time in an acute care facility that are not related to their clinical needs." Tr. 1234. This criticism overlooks the limited number of long-stay patients in STACHs used by the Promise methodology but is generally applicable to the Select and Kindred methodologies. Mr. Cushman performed detailed analysis of the patients used by Kindred in its projection to reach conclusions applicable to all three GMLOS+15 Methodologies. Mr. Cushman's analysis, therefore, related to actual patients. They are based on payor mix, discharge status, and case mix. The analysis showed that the GMLOS+15 Methodologies are "disconnected from the fundamental facts on the ground," tr. 1240, in that the methodologies produce tremendous unmet need not reconcilable with actual utilization experience. Some of the gaps based on additional case mix testing were closed by Kindred's expert health planner. The additional Kindred test, however, did not completely close the gap between projected unmet need and actual utilization experience. Mr. Cushman summed up his basis for concluding that the GMLOS+15 Methodologies employed by Kindred, Select-Dade and Promise are unreliable: [W]e have an untested method that's disconnected from actual utilization experience on the ground. And it provides projections of need that are way in excess of what the experience would indicate and way in excess of what the applicants are willing to propose and support [for their projects.] So for those reasons, I considered [the GMLOS+15 method used by Kindred, Select-Dade and Promise] to be an unreliable method for projecting the need for LTCH beds. Tr. 1243-44. The criticism is not completely on point with regard to the Promise methodology as explained below. Furthermore, at hearing, Mr. Balsano made adjustments to the Promise GMLOS+15 Methodology ("Promise's Revised Methodology"). Although not sanctioned by the Agency, the adjustments were ones that made the Agency more comfortable with the numeric need they produced similar to the Agency's comments at hearing about MJH's methodology. For example, if the number of needed beds were reduced by 50 percent (instead of 25 percent as done in Promise's methodology) to account for the effect of federal policies and alternative providers and if an 85 percent occupancy rate were assumed instead of an 80 percent occupancy rate, the result would be reduce the LTCH bed need yielded by Promise's methodology to 200. These adjustments make Promise's Revised Methodology more conservative than Select's and Kindred's. In addition, Promise's methodology commenced with a much fewer number of STACH patients because Promise based on its inquiry into the patient population that is "using LTCHs in Florida right now." Tr. 351. Examination of AHCA's database led to Promise's identification of patients in 169 DRGs currently served in Florida LTCHs. In contrast, Select-Dade and Kindred, used 483 and 390 DRGs respectively. Substantially the same methodology was used by Promise in Promise Healthcare of Florida III, Inc. v. AHCA, Case No. 06-0568CON (DOAH April 10, 2007). The methodology, prior to the 25 percent reduction to take into account the effects of new federal regulations, was described there as: Long-stay discharges were defined using the following criteria: age of patient was 18 years or older; the discharge DRG was consistent with the discharge DRGs from a Florida LTCH; and the ALOS in the acute care hospital was at the GMLOS for the specific DRG plus 15 days or more. Applying these criteria reduced the number of DRGs used and the potential patient pool. Id. at 19 (emphasis supplied.) The methodology in this case produced a number that was then reduced by 25 percent, just as Promise did in its application in this case. The methodology was found by the ALJ to be reliable. If the methodology there were reliable then Promise's Revised Methodology (an even more conservative methodology) must be reliable as well as the numeric need for District 11 LTCH beds it yields: 200. Such a number (200) would support approval of MJH's application and two of the others and denial of the remaining application or denial of MJH's application and approval of the three other applications. Neither of these scenarios should take place. However high a number of beds that might have been projected by a reasonable methodology, no more than two of the applications should be granted when one takes into consideration the ability of the market to absorb new providers all at once. Tr. 518-520. Nonetheless, such a revised methodology would allow approval of MJH and one other of the applicants. Furthermore, there are indications of bed need greater than the need produced by MJH's methodology. Market Conditions, Population and History The large majority of patients admitted to LTCHs are elderly, Medicare beneficiaries. Typically, elderly persons seek health care services close to their homes. This is often because the elderly spouse or other family members of the patient cannot drive to visit the patient. This contributes to the compressed service areas observed in District 11. Historic patient migration patterns show that for STACH services, there is nine percent in-migration to Miami- Dade, and only five percent out-migration from Miami-Dade, a normal balance. Most recent data for LTCH service, however, shows an abnormal balance: three percent in-migration and 22 percent out-migration. The current utilization of existing LTCHs in District 11 and the high out-migration indicates that additional LTCH beds are needed. Notably, of the 400 District 11 residents who accessed LTCH care in Broward County in 2004, 114 (over 25 percent) lived in the 15 zip codes closest to MJH. MJH’s location will allow its LTCH to best impact and reduce out- migration from District 11 for LTCH services. Neither Kindred nor Promise has a location selected, and while Select-Dade has a “target area,” its actual location is unknown. None of the existing LTCHs in District 11 or in District 10 have PSAs that overlap with the area around MJH. For example, the Agency had indicated that there was no need in the case which led to approval of the Sister Emmanuel LTCH at Mercy Hospital. It was licensed in July of 2002, barely half a year after the Select-Miami facility was licensed. Both facilities were operating at or near optimal functional capacity less than two years from licensure without adverse impact to Kindred-Coral Gables. The utilization to capacity of new LTCH beds in the District indicate a repressed demand for LTCH services. The demand for new beds, however, is not limited to the eastern portion of the County. The demand exists in the western portion as well where there are no like and existing facilities. Medicare patients who remain in STACHs in excess of the mean DRG LOS become a financial burden on the facility. The positive impact on them of an LTCH with available beds is an incentive for them to refer LTCH appropriate patients for whom costs of care exceeds reimbursement. There were a total of 1,231 adult discharges from within Select-Dade's targeted service area with LOS of 24 or more days in calendar year 2004. Medical Treatment Trends in Post-Acute Service The number of LTCHs in Florida has increased substantially in recent years. The increase is due, in part to the better treatment the medically complex, catastrophically ill, LTCH appropriate patient will usually receive at an LTCH than in traditional post acute settings (SNFs, HBSNUs, CMR, and home health care). The clinical needs and acuity levels of LTCH- appropriate patients require more intense services from both nursing staff and physicians that are available in an LTCH but not typically available in the other post acute settings. LTCH patients require between eight to 12 nursing hours per day and daily physician visits. CMS reimbursement at the Medicare per diem rate would not enable a SNF to treat a person requiring eight to 12 hours of nursing care per day. CMR units and hospitals are inappropriate for long- term acute care patients who are unable to tolerate the minimum three hours of physical therapy associated with comprehensive medical rehabilitation. The primary focus of an LTCH is to provide continued acute care and treatment. Patients in a CMR are medically stable; the primary focus is on restoration of functional capabilities. Subsection (2): Availability, Quality of Care, Accessibility, Extent of Utilization of Existing Facilities There are 27 acute care hospitals dispersed throughout the County. Only three are LTCHs. The three existing LTCHs, all in the eastern portion of the County, are not as readily accessible to the population located in the western portion as would be an LTCH in the west. Approval of an application that will lead to an LTCH in the western portion of the County will enhance access to LTCH services or as Ms. Greenberg put it hearing, "if only one facility is going to be built, the western part of the county is where that needs to go." Tr. 2101. See discussion re: Subsection (5), below. In confirmation of this opinion, Dr. Gonzalez pointed out several occasions when he was not able to place a patient at one of the existing LTCHs due to family member reluctance to place their loved one in a facility that would force the family to travel a long distance for visits. LTCH appropriate patients are currently remaining in the acute care setting with Palmetto General and Hialeah Hospital among the busiest of the STACHs in the County. Both are within Select-Dade's targeted service area. From 2002 to 2005 the number of LTCH beds in the District increased from 53 to 122. During the same period, the number of patient days increased from 18,825 to 37,993. Recently established LTCH facilities in District 11 have consistently reached high occupancy levels, approaching 90 percent at the time of hearing. From 2001 to 2004, the use rate for LTCH services grew from 3.07 per 1,000 to 6.51 per 1,000. The increase in use rate for those aged 65 and over was even more significant; from 19.32 per 1,000 to 41.67 per 1,000. Kindred's Miami-Dade facility is licensed at 53 beds; of those seven are in private rooms; the facility has 23 semi- private rooms. As far back as 2001, the facility has operated at occupancy rates in excess of 85 percent; in 1998 and 1999 its occupancy rate exceeded 92 percent and 93 percent, respectively. More recently, it has operated at an ADC of 53 patients; 100 percent capacity. Several physicians and case managers provided support to Kindred's application by way of form letters, indicating patients would benefit from transfers to LTCHs and "an ever growing need for (these) services." Kindred's daily census has averaged 50 or more patients since 2004. Unlike an acute care hospital, Kindred has not experienced any seasonal fluctuations in its census, running at or above a reasonable functional capacity throughout the year. Taking various factors into consideration, including the number of semi-private beds, the facility is operating at an efficient occupancy level. Looking ahead five years, the capacity at Kindred's facility cannot be increased in order to absorb more patients. As designed, the facility cannot operate more efficiently than it has at 85 percent occupancy. Select's facility, located in a medical arts building, houses 34 private and six semi-private beds. In 2005, Select's facility operated at an average occupancy of almost 88 percent. Unlike Kindred, Select can add at least seven more beds to its facility by converting offices. As a hospital within a hospital, Sister Emmanuel's 29-bed facility is subject to limits on the percentage of admissions it can receive from "host" Mercy Hospital; even with such restrictions, its 2005 occupancy rate was 84.6 percent. Because of gender mix and infection opportunities, among other reasons, it is difficult to utilize semi-private beds. Only three District facilities offer ventilator care: MJHHA, HMA Hampton Court, and Victoria Nursing Home. Other health care facility settings do not serve as reasonable alternatives to the LTCH services proposed here. In 2004, roughly one quarter of District 11 residents, (nearly 400 patients), requiring LTCH services traveled to District 10 facilities. In 2005 that number fell to 369, or about 22 percent. Although there is a correlation between inpatient acute care services and LTCH services, the out-migration of patients requiring LTCH services indicated above differs markedly from the out-migration numbers generated by acute care patients. The primary north-south road configurations in the county are A1A, U.S. 1 and I-95 on the east and the Palmetto Expressway on the west. The primary east-west road configurations are composed of the Palmetto Expressway extension, S.R. 112; the Airport Expressway feeding into the Miami International Airport area and downtown Miami, S.R. 836 to Florida's Turnpike, and the Don Shula Expressway in the southwest. Assuming no delays, a trip by mass transit, used by the elderly and the poor, from various areas in Miami-Dade to the nearest LTCH outside District 11 (Kindred Hollywood) runs two to four hours one way. These travel times pose a special hardship to the elderly traveling to a facility to receive care or visit loved ones. While improvements in the system are planned over the next five years, they will not measurably change the existing travel times. These factors, along with high occupancy levels in District 11 LTCHs, indicate the demand for LTCH services in the District exceeds the existing bed supply. The three existing LTCHs have recently operated at optimal functional capacity or above it. On December 31, 2005, Select Specialty Hospital-Miami was operating with 95 percent occupancy. Subsection (3): Ability of the Applicant to Provide Quality of Care and the Applicant's Record of Providing Quality of Care As discussed above, MJH has the ability to provide high quality of care to its LTCH patients and an outstanding record of providing quality of care. Select-Dade has the ability to provide quality of care to its LTCH patients and a record providing quality of care. In treating and caring for LTCH patients, Select-Dade will use an interdisciplinary team of physicians, dieticians, respiratory therapists, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, nurses, case managers and pharmacists. Each will discipline will play an integral part in assuring the appropriate discharge of the patient in a timely manner. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations (JCAHO) has accredited all Select facilities that have been in existence long enough to qualify for JCAHO accreditation. Both Select and Promise use various tools, including Interqual Criteria, to assure patients who need LTCH services are appropriately evaluated for admission. All Promise facilities are accredited by JCAHO. Promise has developed and implemented a company-wide compliance program, as well as pre-admission screening instruments, standards of performance and a code of conduct for its employees. Its record of providing quality of care was shown at hearing with regard to data related to its ventilator program weaning rate and wound healing rates. None of the parties presented evidence or argument that any of the other applicants was unable to provide adequate quality of care. The Agency adopted its statements from the SAAR at pages 43 through 45. The SAAR noted the existence of certain confirmed complaints at the two existing LTCH providers in Florida Select and Kindred. The number of confirmed complaints is relatively few. Kindred, for example, had 12 confirmed complaints with the State Department of Health at its seven facilities during a three-year period, less than one complaint per Kindred hospital every two years. Each applicant satisfies this criterion. Subsection (4): Availability of Resources, Health and Management Personnel, Funds for Capital and Operating Expenditures, Project Accomplishment and Operation The parties stipulated that all applicants have access to health care and management personnel. Select-Dade, Kindred and MJH all have funds for capital and operating expenditures and project accomplishment and operation. In turn, each of these three contends that Promise did not demonstrate the availability of funds for its project. This issue is dealt with below under the part of this order that discusses Subsection (6) of the Statutory CON Review Criteria. Subsection (5): Access Enhancement The applicants stipulated that "each of the applicants' projects will enhance access to LTCH services for residents of the district to some degree." All four applicants get some credit under this subsection because approval of their application will enhance access by meeting need that all of the parties now agree exists. Select-Dade and Promise propose to locate their projects in the western portion of the County. Kindred did not indicate a location. Location of an LTCH in the western portion of the County will enhance geographic access. MJH's location is in an area that has reasonable geographic access to LTCH services. But approval of its application, given the unique nature of its operation, chiefly its charitable mission, will enhance access to charity and Medicaid recipients. Approval of Select-Dade's application will also enhance cultural access to the Latin population in Hialeah. A substandard public transportation system for this population makes traveling to visit hospitalized loved ones an insurmountable task in some situations. Select-Dade has achieved a competent cultural atmosphere in its LTCH opened in the County in 2003. It has in excess of 100 multi-lingual employees, many of whom communicate in Spanish. The staff effectively communicates with patients with a variety of racial, cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Every new LTCH must undergo a qualifying period to establish itself as an LTCH for Medicare reimbursement. Specifically, the average LOS for all Medicare patients must meet or exceed 25 days. During the qualifying period the LTCH is reimbursed by Medicare under the regular STACH PPS, that is paid on a DRG basis as if the patient were in an ordinary general acute care hospital with its lower reimbursement. Upon initiation of their LTCH services, Promise, Kindred and Select all intend to restrict or suppress admissions to ensure longer LOS to meet the Medicare 25 day average LOS requirement, and to “minimize the costs” of obtaining LTCH certification and reimbursement. MJH will not be artificially restricting its LTCH admissions during the initial 6 month Medicare qualification period, even though the cost of providing services during this period will likely exceed the STACH Medicare reimbursement. MJH’s opening without suppressing admissions (as in the case of Sister Emmanuel), will enhance access by patients in need of these services during the initial qualification period. Subsection (6): Immediate and Long-term Financial Feasibility a. Short-Term Financial Feasibility Short-term financial feasibility is the ability of an applicant to fund the project. None of the parties took the position that the MJH project was not financially feasible in the short term. MJH's current assets are equal to current liabilities, a short-term position found by AHCA to be weak but acceptable. The financial performance of MJH, however, has been improving in the past three years. Expansion of existing services, improved utilization of services, and the development of new programs have all contributed to a significant increase in operational revenue and total revenue during that period. MJH has a history of receiving substantial charitable gifts (ranging from $6.2 million to $13.2 million annually during the past three years) and can reasonably expect to receive financial gifts annually of between $4-5 million in the coming years. However, MJH is moving away from reliance on charitable giving, and toward increasing self-sufficiency from operations. Approval of the LTCH will play a major role in achieving that goal. In addition, MJH has total assets, including land and buildings, of approximately $150 million. The cost to implement the proposed MJH LTCH is $5,319,647. The projected cost is extremely conservative in the sense of overestimating any potential contingency costs that could be incurred. MJH has the resources available to fund the project through endowments and investments (currently $41 million) as well as from operating cash flow and cash on hand. Select-Dade has an adequate short-term position and Kindred a good short-term position. None of the parties contest the short-term financial feasibility of either Select-Dade or Kindred. In contrast, both Select-Dade and Kindred contested the short-term financial feasibility of Promise. In accord is MJH's position expressed in its proposed recommended order: "Promise did not demonstrate the availability of funds for its project." Miami Jewish Home & Hospital For the Aged, Inc.'s Proposed Recommended Order, at 37. Promise's case for short-term financial feasibility rests on the historical relationship between the principals of Promise, Sun Capital Healthcare, Inc., and Mr. William Gunlicks of Founding Partners Capital Management Company ("Founding Partners.") The relationship has led to great success financially over many years. For example, through the efforts of Mr. Gunlicks, Sun Capital has generated over $2 billion in receivable financing. Founding Partners is an investment advisor registered with the Security Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Futures Association and the State of Florida. As a general partner, it manages two private investment funds: Founding Partners Stable Value Fund and Founding Partners Equity Fund. Founding Partners also manages an International Fund for non-U.S. investors. Its base is composed of approximately 130 individuals with high net worth and access to capital. Founding Partners provided Promise with a "letter of interest" dated October 12, 2005, which indicated its interest in providing the "construction, permanent, and working capital financing for the development of a 60 bed long-term acute care hospital to be located in Dade County, Florida." Promise Ex. 3, Exhibit Promise XI, Gunlicks 4, 6-27-06. The letter makes clear, however, that it is not a commitment to finance the project: "The actual terms and conditions of this loan will be determined at the time of your loan request is approved. Please recognize this letter represents our interest in this project and is not a commitment for financing." Id. Testimony at hearing demonstrated a likelihood that Promise would be able to fund the project should it's application be approved. Mr. Balsano opined that this is sufficient to meet short-term financial feasibility: "[I]t's not required at this point that firm funding be in place. . . . [W]e have an appropriate letter from Mr. Gunlicks' organization that they're interested and willing to fund the project. It kind of goes to the second issue, which is, well, what if there were some issue in that regard? Would this project be financed. And I guess I would just have to say bluntly that in doing regulatory work for the last 20-some years, that if an applicant has a certificate of need for a given service, most lending institutions view that as a validation that the project is needed and can be supported. My experience has been that I have never personally witnessed a project that was approved that could not get financing. Tr. 392. Other expert health planners with considerable experience in the CON regulatory arena conceded that they were not aware of a CON-approved hospital project in the state that could not get financing. Despite the proof of a likelihood that Promise's project would be funded if approved, however, Promise failed to demonstrate as MJH, Select-Dade and Kindred continue to maintain, that funds are, indeed, available to fund the project. In sum, Promise failed to demonstrate the short-term financial feasibility of the project. The projects of MJH, Select-Dade and Kindred are all financially feasible in the short-term. b. Long-Term Financial Feasibility Long-term financial feasibility refers to the ability of a proposed project to generate a positive net revenue or profit at the end of the second full year of operation. MJH’s projected patient volumes are both reasonable and appropriate, given its current position in the community, the services it currently provides, and the need for LTCH services in the community. MJH’s projected payor mix was largely based upon the historical experience of the three existing LTCHs in the District, with the exception of the greater commitment to charity and Medicaid patients. The higher commitment to Medicaid/charity is consistent with MJH’s historical experience and status as a safety net provider. Sister Emmanuel is a 29-bed LTCH located within Mercy Hospital. As a similarly-sized HIH, a not-for-profit provider, and an entity with the same kind of commitment to Medicaid/charity patients, Sister Emmanuel is the best proxy for comparison of the financial projections contained in the MJH application. MJH projected its gross revenues based upon Sister Emmanuel’s general charge structure, adjusted for payor mix and inflated at 4 percent per year. The staffing positions, FTEs and salaries contained on Schedule 6 of each of the applications were stipulated to represent reasonable projections. MJH’s Medicaid net revenues were calculated by determining a specific Medicaid per diem rate using the Dade County operating cost ceiling and 80 percent of the capital costs. Given that many LTCH patients exhaust their allowable days of Medicaid coverage, 70 percent of the revenue associated with MJH’s Medicaid patient days were “written off” in total. Similarly, patient days associated with charity care and bad debt reflected no net revenue. MJH's Medicare net revenues were determined using the specific diagnosis (DRG) of each projected patient. For the first six months of operation it was assumed that MJH would receive the short-stay DRG reimbursement, and in the second 6 months and second year of operation would receive the LTCH DRG payment. Net revenues for the remaining payor categories were based upon the historical contractual adjustments of MJH. MJH’s projected gross and net revenues for its proposed LTCH are conservative, reasonable and achievable. However, if MJH has in fact understated the net revenues that it will actually achieve, the impact will be an improved financial performance and improved likelihood of long-term financial feasibility. MJH’s staffing expense projections were derived from its Schedule 6 projections (which were stipulated to be reasonable) with a 28 percent benefit package added. Non- ancillary expense costs were based upon MJH’s historical costs, while ancillary expenses (lab, pharmacy, medical supplies, etc.) were based upon the Sister Emmanuel proxy. Capitalized project costs, depreciation and amortization were derived from Schedule 1 and the historical experience of MJH, as were the non- operating expenses such as G&A, plant maintenance, utilities, insurance and other non-labor expenses. MJH’s income and expense projections are reasonable and appropriate, and demonstrate the long-term financial feasibility of MJH’s proposed LTCH. John Williamson is an Audit Evaluation and Review Analyst for AHCA. He holds a B.S. in accounting and is a Florida CPA. Mr. Williamson conducted a review of the financial schedules contained in each of the four applications at issue. In conducting his review, Mr. Williamson compared the applicants’ financial projections with the “peer group” of existing Florida LTCHs. With regard to the MJH projections, Mr. Williamson noted: Projected cost per patient day (CPD) of $1,087 in year two is at the group lowest value of $1,087. Projected CPD is considered efficient when compared to the peer group with CPD falling at the lowest level. The apparent reason for costs at this level are the low overhead costs associated with operating a hospital-within- a-hospital. MJH Ex.34, depo Ex. 4, Page 3 of 5. Mr. Williamson further concluded that MJH presented an efficient LTCH project, which is likely to be more cost- effective and efficient than the other three proposals. In its application, Kindred projected a profit of $16,747 at the end of year two of operation. Schedule 8A listed interest expense "as a way of making a sound business decision." Tr. 1458. Interest expense, however, is not really applicable because Kindred funds new projects out of operation cash flows. If the interest expense is omitted, profit before taxes would roughly $1.5 million. Taking taxes into consideration, the profit at the end of year two of operation would be roughly $1 million. Promise's projections the facility will be financially feasible in the long term are contained in its Exhibit 2, Schedules 5, 6, 7 and 8A and related assumptions. The parties agreed the information contained in Promise's Schedule 5, and the supporting assumptions, were reasonable. Schedule 5 indicates Promise projects an occupancy rate in Year 2 of 76.1 percent, based on 16,660 patient days and an ADC of 45.6 patients. To reach projected occupancy rates, Promise would have to capture roughly 15-17 percent of the LTCH market in Year 2. AHCA concluded Promise's project would be financially feasible in the long term. Only Select questioned Promise's projected long term financial feasibility. The attack, evidenced by Select Exhibits 12 and 14, was composed of a numbered of arguments, considered below: The estimated Medicare revenue per patient projected by Promise was high, and among other factors, erroneously assumed Medicare would increase reimbursement by an average of 3 percent per year. In determining a project's long-term financial feasibility, AHCA looks to the facility's second full year of operation, and, assuming reasonable projections, determines if there is a net positive profit. The analysis AHCA uses to determine the reasonableness of an applicant's projections in Schedules 7A and 8A begins with a comparison of those figures against a standardized grouping developed over the years and consistently applied by the agency as a policy. In this instance, the grouping consisted of all LTCHs operating in Florida in 2004; a total of 11 facilities; eight operated by Kindred and three operated by Select. The analysis is based on Revenue Per Patient Day (RPPD). Promise estimated it would generate an average RPPD of $1,492 in Year 2, and a net profit for the same period of $2,521.327. Using the above process, AHCA concluded that Promise's projected net income per patient day appeared reasonable. At the time of hearing, other Promise facilities were receiving an average RPPD higher than $1,400; compared to the projected "somewhat over" $1,500 it would expect to receive in Year 2 of its Miami-Dade facility. Approximately half of the existing Promise facilities (including West Valley and San Antonio) received Medicare RPPDs in excess of $1,500. As opposed to total revenue per patient, revenue on a per patient day is the one figure associated with the expenses generated to treat a patient on a given day. A comparison of net RPPDs projected by Promise with those of other applicants and the state median indicate Promise's revenue projections are reasonable. While Medicare recently opted not to increase the rate of LTCH reimbursement for the 2006-07 fiscal year, it is the first year in four that the program has done so. Compared to Promise's assumption that Medicare reimbursement would increase yearly by 3 percent on average, Select assumed a rate of 2.4 percent. The ALOS projected by Promise was too long. In projecting need, Select projected an ALOS similar to Promise's projection. Compared with the statewide ALOS of 35 days, Select's is about 28 days. This is the result of a combination of managing patients and their acuity. Assuming Promise's ability to manage patients in a manner similar to Select and achieve a like ALOS, Promise would have room available to admit more patients. There is no reason to assume Promise could not attain a similar ALOS with a similar population than that served by Select; others have done so. Like other segments of the health care industry, LTCH providers will manage patient care to the reimbursement received from payors. The CMI projected by Promise was too high. The prospective payment system is based to a great extent on how patients' diagnoses and illnesses are "coded," or identified, because the information is translated into a DRG, which, in turn, translates directly into the amount of reimbursement received. Each DRG has a "weight." By obtaining the DRG weight for each patient treated in a hospital, one can obtain the average weight, which will correspond to the average cost of care for the hospital's patients. The term for this average is Case Mix Index (CMI). Each year Medicare determines the rate it will pay for treatment of patients in LTCHs, adjusted for each market in the U.S. to account for variations in labor costs. Mr. Balsano assumed the new facility would experience an average CMI of 1.55 and that Medicare would reimburse the facility based on existing rates with an annual inflation of 3.0 percent. Mr. Balsano then reduced the estimated Medicare RPPD generated by those assumptions by 15 percent. While Select's expert criticized Promise's projected CMI adjusted reimbursement rate for Medicare patients (approximately $50,000) as to high, Select's own Exhibit 12, p. 8, indicates a projected reimbursement of $41,120.44 based on an average CMI of 1.0. However, at hearing it was verified that Select's Miami facility operated at an average CMI of 1.23. Applying a CMI of 1.23 generates an average projected Medicare reimbursement of $50,618 per patient, a number similar to that projected by Mr. Balsano. Select Ex. 14, pages 9-16, contains data on, among other things, the CMI of 161 DRGs used by Promise's expert. The data was taken from each of the existing LTCHs in Florida. In 2004, the statewide average CMI was 1.231. Also in 2004, four of 11 LTCHs in Florida experienced an average CMI of 1.4 or higher. Other Florida facilities have experienced an average CMI at or above 1.59. Indeed, other Florida facilities have experienced average CMIs and ALOS similar to that of the Select facility. While Promises operates no facility with an average CMI of 1.55, it has several with average CMIs of 1.3 or 1.4. Promise expects Medicare will take future steps to restrict the admission of patients with lower CMIs' the effect being more complex patients will access LTCHs than currently do, increasing the average CMI in LTCHs. Reducing the number of lower acuity patients admitted to LTCHs in future years will likely increase the CMI of those admitted. There is a direct correlation between CMI and ALOS. If, in fact, the CMI experienced by Promise's facility is less than 1.55, it will in turn generate a lower ALOS. Applying the reduction in reimbursement advanced by Promise's witness (15 percent) would in turn reduce the projected CMI in Promise's facility from 1.55 to 1.05. Because reimbursement coincides with acuity and ALOS, a representation that reducing one of the three does not likewise affects the others is not realistic. Whatever the CMI and ALOS for LTCHs will be in the future will be governed to a great extent by the policies established by the federal government. The federal government's reimbursement system will drive the delivery of patient services and the efficiencies the system provides, so that, in fact, the providers of care manage patients to the reimbursement provided. Whether the average CMI at Promise's facility reaches 1.55 in the future is subject to debate; however, it is reasonable that the status quo will not likely continue; thus, regardless of a facility's current CMI, more complex patients will access the facility in the future. Various sensitivity analyses generated to test the reliability of Select's criticisms in this area do not indicate any material change in the projected Medicare reimbursement. The interest rate on the loaned funds was 9 percent, rather than 7 percent. The estimated expenses did not include sufficient funds to pay the following: the necessary ad valorem taxes the required PMATF assessment the premiums to obtain premises insurance physician fees housekeeping expenses in Year 1 Using the same standardized "grouping" analysis, AHCA calculated Promise's projected costs per patient day and found them reasonable. Because the projected increase in ad valorem taxes and the PMATF assessment will not be payable until 2010, it is not necessary to borrow additional funds to meet these obligations. Select's expert concluded that, depending on a number of scenarios, the result of the appropriate calculations would produce a loss to Promise's project of between $624,636 and $902,361 of year 2. Assuming they represented sensitivity analyses which included various assumptions based on criticisms from Select. The impact of Select's suggested adjustments, reduced by overstated costs in Promise's application Schedule 8A, increased Promise's projected Year 2 net income from the initial estimate of $2,521,327 to $2,597.453. Even if the 15 percent reduction previously included in Mr. Balsano's assumptions on Medicare reimbursement were not considered, and assuming a lower CMI consistent with the existing statewide average (1.43 vs. 1.23), or that Promise's experience in District 11 will be similar to Select's, Promise's facility would still be financially feasible. Select's witness conceded that if Promise's facility experienced a lower ALOS, the demand for additional LTCH services is high enough to allow the facility to admit additional patients ("backfill"). While assuming a lower reimbursement due to lower acuity patients admitted to Promise's facility, Select's witness did not similarly assume any reduction in expenses associated with treatment of such lower acuity patients. In reality, if revenues are less than expected a facility reduces expenses to generate profits. Select's witness also conceded that Promise could reduce the management fee to reduce costs and generate a profit. The testimony of Promise's Chairman, Mr. Baronoff, established the company would take measures to reduce expenses to assure the profitability, including reducing the facility's corporate allocation. Such a reduction by itself would reduce expenses by between $1 million and $1.5 million. Reduction in corporate allocation has occurred before to maintain the profitability of a Promise facility. With regard to Select-Dade, its forecasted expenses, as detailed on Schedules 7A and 8A of its application are consistent with Select-Miami's historical experience in Miami. Evaluation of the revenues and expenses detailed in Select-Dade's Schedules 7A and 8A (and drawing comparison with SMC's 96 other hospitals, with particular attention paid to the Select-Miami facility), its profitability after year one indicates that Select-Dade's project will be financially feasible in the long term. In sum, all four applicants demonstrated long-term financial feasibility. Subsection (7): Extent to Which the Proposal Will Foster Competition that Promotes Quality and Cost-effectiveness Competition benefits the market. It stimulates providers to offer more programs and to be more innovative. It benefits quality of care generally. Competition to promote quality and cost-effectiveness is generally driven by the best combination of high quality and fair price. The introduction of a new LTCH providers to the market would press Sister Emmanuel, Kindred-Coral Gables and Select-Miami to focus on quality, responsiveness to patients and would drive innovations. Approval of any of the applications, therefore, as the Agency recognizes, see Agency for Health Care Administration Proposed Recommended Order, at 36, will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness. Competition that promotes quality and cost- effectiveness will best be fostered by introduction to the market of a new competitor: either MJH or Promise. Between the two, Promise's application for 60 rather than 30 beds proposed by MJH, if approved, would capture a larger market share and promote more competition. On the other hand, MJH's because of its long-standing status as a well-respected community provider, particularly in the arenas of cost-effectiveness and quality of care, would be very effective in fostering competition that would promote both quality and cost-effectiveness. Kindred and Select dominate LTCH services in Florida with control over 86 percent of the licensed and approved beds: Kindred has eight existing LTCHs and one approved LTCH yet to be licensed; Select has three existing LTCHs and six approved projects in various stages of pre-licensure development. In 2005 the District 11 LTCH market shares were: Kindred-Coral Gables: 42 percent; Select-Miami: 35 percent; and Sister Emmanuel: 23 percent. Approval of Promise would only slightly diminish Select-Miami’s market share and would reduce Sister Emmanuel to a 16 percent share. A Select-Dade approval would give the two Select facilities a combined 54 percent of the market. A Kindred approval would give its two Miami-Dade facilities a combined 57 percent market share. An MJH approval would give it about 16 percent of the market, Sister Emmanuel would decline to 19 percent and Select-Miami and Kindred-Coral Gables would both have market shares above 30 percent. MJH's application is most favored under Subsection (7) of the Statutory Review Criteria. Subsection (8): Costs and Methods of Proposed Construction The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of a number of the project costs identified in Schedule 1, as well as the Schedule 9 project costs. All parties stipulated to the reasonableness of the proposed construction schedule on Schedule 10 of the application. Those additional costs items on Schedule 1 of the respective applications that were not stipulated to were adequately addressed through evidence adduced at final hearing. Given the conceptual-only level of detail required in the schematic drawings submitted as part of a CON application, and based on the evidence, it is concluded that each of the applicants presented a proposed construction design that is reasonable as to cost, method, and construction time. Each applicant demonstrated the reasonableness of its cost and method of construction. Accordingly each gets credit under Subsection (8) of the CON Statutory Review Criteria. But under the subsection, MJH's application is superior to the other three applications. The subsection includes consideration of "the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction." § 408.035(8), Fla. Stat. As an application proposing an HIH rather than a free-standing facility, not only can MJH coordinate its operations with other types of service settings at expected energy savings, its application involves less construction and substantially less cost that the other three applications. Subsection (9): Past and Proposed Provision of Services to Medicaid and Indigent Patients A provider's history of accepting the medically indigent, Medicaid and charity patients, influences patients and referral sources. Success with a provider encourages these patients on their own or through referrals to again seek access at that provider. As a safety net provider, MJH has a history of accepting financially challenged patients, many of whom are medically complex. Its application is superior to the others under Subsection (9) of the Statutory Review Criteria. Promise does not have a history of providing care in Florida. It has a history of providing health care services to Medicaid and the medically indigent at some of its facilities elsewhere in the country. As examples, its facility in Shreveport, Louisiana, provides approximately 7 percent of its care to Medicaid patients and a facility in California provides about 20 percent of its service to Medicaid patients. MJH committed to the highest percentage of patient days to Medicaid: 4.2 percent. Promise proposes a 3.0 percent commitment; Select-Dade and Kindred, 2.8 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively. Select-Dade's proposed condition is structured so as to allow it to include Medicaid days from a patient who later qualifies as a charity patient, thus accruing days toward the condition without expanding the number of patients served. Select-Dade's targeted service area, moreover, has fewer proportionate Medicaid beneficiaries identified (13 percent) as potential LTCH patients than identified by the methodologies used by the applicants (21 percent), indicating that Select's targeted area is generally more affluent than the rest of the County. Kindred does not have a favorable history of providing care to Medicaid and charity patients. For example, during FY 2004, Sister Emmanuel provided 6.1 percent of its services to Medicaid and charity patients. During this same period, Kindred-Coral Gables provided only 1.08 percent of its services to Medicaid and charity patients. Of all four applicants, Kindred proposes the lowest percentage of service to such patients: 2.2 percent. It has not committed to achieving the percentage upon its initiation of services. Its proposed condition and poor history of Medicaid and indigent care merit considerably less weight than the other applicants and reflects poorly on its application in a process that includes comparative review. MJH's proposed condition, although the highest in terms of percentage, is not the highest in terms of patient days because the facility it proposes will have only half as many beds as the facilities proposed by the other three applicants. Nonetheless, the proposal coupled with its past provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent, which is exceptional, makes MJH the superior applicant under Subsection (9) of the Statutory Review Criteria. Subsection (10) Designation as a Gold Seal Program None of the applicants are requesting additional nursing home beds. The subsection is inapplicable to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a final order that: approves Miami Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged, Inc.'s CON Application No. 9893; approves Select Specialty Hospital-Dade, Inc.'s CON Application No. 9892; denies Promise Healthcare of Florida XI, Inc.'s CON Application No. 9891; and, denies Kindred Hospitals East LLC's CON Application No. 9894. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Andrew C. Agwunobi, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig H. Smith, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 W. David Watkins, Esquire Karl David Acuff, Esquire Watkins & Associates, P.A. 3051 Highland Oaks Terrace, Suite D Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5828 Sandra E. Allen, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 F. Philip Blank, Esquire Robert Sechen, Esquire Blank & Meenan, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark A. Emanuele, Esquire Panza, Maurer & Maynard, P.A. 3600 North Federal Highway, Third Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Fifth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: East Pasco Medical Center (EPMC) is a non-profit 85-bed acute care hospital facility located in the East Pasco subdistrict of HRS District V. There are only two hospitals in the subdistrict -- EPMC in Zephyrhills and Humana in Dade City, which is approximately ten miles north. Humana is a 120- bed acute care hospital facility. Both facilities offer the same services and share the same medical staff. On or about September 17, 1987, EPMC submitted an application for a Certificate of Need to add 35 medical/surgical beds via a fourth floor addition to its existing facility. Its existing 85 beds are located in private rooms, and it is proposed that the additional 35 beds will also be placed in separate rooms. The application submitted to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) projected a total project cost of $4,531,000. This figure was revised at the hearing to a project cost of $2,302,900. With regard to acute care services, the State Health Plan seeks to assure geographic accessibility. All residents of East Pasco County currently have access to acute care hospital services within the travel times suggested by the State plan. The State Health Plan also seeks to promote the efficient utilization of acute care services by attaining an average annual occupancy rate of at least 80 percent. The District V Local Health Plan emphasizes that additions to inpatient acute care beds in a subdistrict should not be considered unless a numeric bed need is shown and certain occupancy thresholds have been met. The recommended occupancy thresholds for medical/surgical beds are 80% for the subdistrict and 90% for the facility seeking to add beds. Application of the bed need methodology contained in HRS's Rule 10- 5.011(1)(m), Florida Administrative Code, indicates a numeric need for 57 additional acute care medical/surgical beds in the East Pasco subdistrict for the planning horizon period of July, 1992. The rule provides that HRS will "not normally approve" additional beds unless average occupancy in the subdistrict is greater than 75 percent. However, the rule permits HRS to award additional beds when there is a calculated need, notwithstanding low occupancy in the subdistrict, if the applicant had a minimum of 75% average occupancy during the 12 months ending 14 months prior to the Letter of Intent. Rule 10- 5.011(1)(m)7.e., Florida Administrative Code. The rule also permits HRS to award additional beds where the calculated numeric need substantially exceeds the number of existing and approved beds in the subdistrict and there is an access problem related to travel time. For the relevant time period, the acute care occupancy rate for the East Pasco subdistrict was below 75% percent. Indeed, over the past few years, the average occupancy rate in that subdistrict has been 54 to 58 percent. Humana only operates at about a 55% occupancy. The East Pasco subdistrict does experience seasonal fluctuations in medical/surgical occupancy, with the season for high occupancy beginning in late October and ending in mid- to late April. In addition to tourists, it is expected that the revival of the citrus industry in East Pasco County will bring more migrant pickers to the area during the peak season months. The seasonal increase in occupancy directly corresponds with a large increase in seasonal population, particularly in the Zephyrhills area. The Zephyrhills area population is much older than the Dade City population and is also much older than the State average. The HRS acute care bed need rule includes considerations of seasonal peak demands. When considering both hospitals in the subdistrict, there has been a decline in peak seasonal occupancy rates over the past few years. While the population of the East Pasco subdistrict has grown, and is expected to increase by approximately 7,200 in 1992, there is a trend of declining utilization in the subdistrict. This decline is due to increased used of outpatient services and shorter lengths of hospital stay attributable to the current reimbursement system. The medical/surgical use rate fell from 454 patient days per 1,000 population in 1986 to 414 patient days per 1,000 population in 1988. There was a similar decline in the acute care use rate. Assuming a constant medical/surgical use rate, the projected demand for 1992 would be 2,980 additional medical/surgical patient days in the subdistrict according to population projections, and about 4,267 incremental patient days according to local health council projections. EPMC's Letter of Intent to add 35 additional beds was filed in mid- July, 1987. Its acute care occupancy rate for the period of April, 1986 through March, 1987 was 75.3 percent. Occupancy at EPMC from May, 1986 to April, 1987 was 73.6%; occupancy from June, 1986 through May, 1987 was 73%; and occupancy from July, 1986 to June, 1987 was 72.2 percent. EPMC does experience periods of high occupancy during the peak season months. High occupancy levels have a greater impact upon smaller hospitals due to their lesser degree of flexibility. On occasion, during the winter months, EPNC is required to refuse admittance to patients due to crowded conditions within its facility. Patients are sometimes transferred or referred to other facilities, including Humana, although the necessity for such transfers or referrals is occasionally due to a lack of intensive or critical care beds as opposed to a lack of medical/surgical beds. During the periods of time when EPMC had high occupancy levels, beds were available at Humana. EPMC's current payor mix includes a high level of Medicare (over 60%), and it is committed, through both its Christian mission and an agreement with the County, to treat indigent and Medicaid patients. The actual amount of indigent or charity care provided by EPNC was not established. In any event, EPMC desires to increase its bed size in order to help maintain a proper payor mix at the hospital so as to ensure the financial survival of the hospital. It is felt that a greater number of beds, given the rise in population, and particularly elderly population, would allow EPNC to serve a greater number of private and/or third party insurance paying patients. While the evidence demonstrates that EPMC may operate with a less favorable payor mix than Humana, the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that EPMC will suffer financial ruin without additional beds. Likewise, it was not established that the patients which EPNC must turn away in the winter months are consistently paying patients. Increasing the number of beds at EPNC to 120 beds does not necessarily mean that its profitability would be improved. Volume and payor mix are the most critical factors in determining whether a hospital will be profitable. There is currently a nursing shortage throughout the nation. Rural areas, such as the eastern portion of Pasco County, experience even greater difficulty in attracting nursing personnel to the area. Due to the shortage of nurses, as well as the seasonal demand, EPMC is required to use contract care nurses throughout the year. While it would prefer to employ its own nursing staff, EPMC will use contract staff due to the seasonal variations in its nursing requirements. The use of contract or registry nurses costs 50% to 60% more on a daily basis; however, lower occupancy during the off-peak months does not justify year- round employment for as large an in-house nursing staff. For its proposed 35 beds, EPMC projects nurse manpower requirements as follows: 1 nurse manager, 4.2 R.N. charge nurses, 15.1 R.N. staff and 14.1 L.P.N. staff, for a total of 34.4 full time equivalent nursing positions. The recruiting efforts of EPNC to fill these positions will include advertising, visiting nursing schools and colleges, utilizing student nurses at the hospital and use of the Adventist Health System international network. Humana currently has 15 vacancies, or 12 to 13% of its nursing staff. Humana's nursing salaries have increased 20% over the past eighteen months. As noted above, EPNC and Humana compete for the same nursing personnel. Humana's personnel director believes that if EPNC increases its nursing staff by 34 FTEs, Humana's nursing staff will be approached to fill those positions. As a consequence, Humana will experience additional nursing shortages and will be required to further increase salaries. It is proposed that the project cost of adding 35 beds to EPMC will be financed with 100% debt financing through a bond issue. The financing will be part of a much larger bond issuance intended to finance several other projects within the Adventist hospital system. No evidence was adduced that such a bond issuance had been prepared or approved, and there was no evidence concerning the other projects which would be financed in conjunction with this project. In 1987, EPNC was carrying about five million dollars of negative equity. The hospital is currently greater than 100% financed. As noted above, the original Certificate of Need application filed with HRS listed the total project cost to be $4,531,000. In its response to omissions, EPMC stated that the construction cost would be $175 per square foot. In the updates submitted at the hearing, EPNC proposed a project cost of $2,302,900, which included a construction cost of $85 per square foot. A more reasonable cost for the addition of a floor to an existing facility would be $125 per square foot, plus an inflation factor of 6% and architectural and engineering fees of 6 to 7%. The proposed equipment list submitted by EPNC fails to include major equipment items such as an overhead paging system, a nurse call system, examination room equipment, medication distribution equipment, bed curtains, shower curtains, patient and staff support lounge items, and IV pumps. EPNC's updated equipment cost budget fails to include tax, freight, contingency and installation costs. The projected equipment costs should be tripled to adequately and reasonably equip a 35-bed nursing unit. The projected utilization and pro formas submitted by EPMC are not reasonable and were not supported by competent substantial evidence. EPMC's projected utilization for the proposed 35-bed unit is 8,950 patient days in the first year of operation and 9,580 in the second year of operation. Applying the current use rate to the population projections submitted by EPMC's expert in demographics and population projections produces only about 2,980 additional patient days in the year 1992. Given the fact that EPMC's current market share is approximately 54%, there is no reason to believe that Humana would not absorb at least some of those projected additional patient days. There are many months of the year in which additional patient days could be filled within the existing complement of 85 beds at EPNC. Depending upon the ultimate cost of the project, the break even point for financial feasibility purposes would be approximately 3,500 to 4,000 patient days. The concept behind a pro forma is to develop a financial picture of what operations will be in the first two years of operation. EPMC stated its revenues and expenses in terms of 1988 dollars and used its current revenue- to-expense ratios for projecting operations four years into the future. This is improper because gross revenues are going up, reimbursement is not increasing as rapidly and expenses, particularly salaries and insurance, are increasing. In addition, EPMC's projected 1992 salaries in several categories were less than they are currently paying for such positions. EPMC currently provides good quality of care to its patients. The only future concern in this realm is the fact that in the winter months, its intensive and critical care unit beds are often full and there is no room for additional patients. Additional medical/surgical volume from the proposed 35- bed unit would lead to additional intensive and critical care bed demand.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of East Pasco Medical Center for a Certificate of Need to add 35 acute care beds to its existing facility be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30 day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. (Case No. 88-1227) The proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties have been carefully considered and are accepted, incorporated and/or summarized in this Recommended Order, with the following exceptions: Petitioner: Third sentence rejected as not established by competent, substantial evidence. Accepted, but not included as irrelevant to the ultimate resolution of the issues. Rejected. The Personnel Director of Humana presented testimony in this proceeding. Accepted as an accurate restatement of testimony, but rejected as an erroneous conclusion of law. 16. Second sentence rejected as an erroneous conclusion of law. A18. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 20. First sentence rejected as an erroneous conclusion of law. First sentence rejected as an erroneous conclusion of law. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. 27 and 30. Accepted as an accurate restatement of testimony, but rejected as an erroneous conclusion of law. Rejected as immaterial to the issue of need in the year 1992. First sentence rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. First and third sentences rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. 37 and 38. Rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. 44. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Accepted only if the factors of volume and payor mix are also considered. Partially rejected as speculative and not supported by competent substantial evidence. All but first two sentences rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence and an erroneous conclusion of law. Rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence and an erroneous conclusion of law. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Second sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 58. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 60. Rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. 62 - 67. The actual figures regarding total costs, projected utilization and those figures utilized in the pro formas were not established by competent substantial evidence and, therefore, the findings regarding the financial feasibility of the project are rejected. 71. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. 74. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. 77. Rejected as an improper factual finding and contrary to the evidence. 78 and 79. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Respondent: 2 and 6. Partially accepted with the additional considerations of the applicant's occupancy levels and geographic accessibility. 9. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 19(a) Interpretation of rule not sufficiently explicated at hearing. 56 - 58. Actual figures are not established by competent evidence due to the failure to establish with reliability the total costs of the project. Intervenor: Second sentence accepted with the additional considerations of the applicant's occupancy levels and geographic accessibility. Third sentence rejected. Interpretation of rule not sufficiently explicated at hearing. First sentence rejected, but this does not preclude a consideration of such a period. Third sentence rejected as not established by the greater weight of the evidence. 31. Second sentence rejected as speculative. 40 and 41. Accepted as factually correct, but not included due to the showing of unused capacity within the East Pasco subdistrict. 55 and 56. Actual figures are not established by competent evidence due to the failure to establish with reliability the total costs of the project. 63 and 72. Same as above with regard to second sentence. 92. Rejected as an overbroad statement or conclusion. 97. Second sentence rejected as overbroad and not supported by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: E.G. Boone and Jeffrey Boone 1001 Avenida del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Stephen M. Presnell Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 323a2 James C. Hauser Messer, Vickers, Caparello, French & Madsen, P.A. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The parties have stipulated that these cases are properly before the Division of Administrative Hearings for de novo review of the Petitioners' applications for a certificate of need and that this action is controlled by the provisions of Chapters 120 and 381, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 10-5 and 28- 5, F.A.C. The parties have further stipulated that portions of Section 481.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), and its counterparts under Section 10-5.11, F.A.C., have either been met or are not applicable. The portions of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which the parties have stipulated have been met or do not apply and the parties' summary of the content of those subsections are as follows: (3) both applicants have the ability to manage and operate facilities such as those applied for; (6) need in the services district for special equipment and services not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas; (7) need for research and training programs; (8) health and management manpower and personnel only. The remaining parts of (8) remain in issue; (10) special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations; (11) needs and circumstances of those entities which provide a special portion of their services or resources, or both, to individuals not residing in the service district. The parties stipulated that the remaining portions of Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), remain in issue. Based upon the stipulations of the parties, the following issues require resolution: Is there a need for a 100-bed acute care hospital in Orange County, Florida? Do the Petitioners' proposals meet the criteria of Sections 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which have not been stipulated to as having been met or as not being applicable? If a need exists for only one proposal and both Petitioners meet the appropriate criteria, which of the Petitioners should be granted a certificate of need? Should a certificate of need for a computerized axial tomography scanner (hereinafter referred to as a "CAT Scanner") be issued to AMI? Does Florida Hospital and/or OGH have the requisite standing to take part as parties in these proceedings?
Findings Of Fact AMI is a publicly traded for-profit Delaware corporation which owned, managed or operated 103 hospitals in the United States and 29 hospitals outside the United States as of January, 1985. AMI also owns, manages or operates a number of other health care facilities, i.e., psychiatric care facilities and freestanding outpatient surgery centers. AMI also owns a number of subsidiary corporations which provide a variety of technologies and services in support of its hospitals. In Florida, AMI owns 100 percent or a majority interest of 9 hospitals. In its proposed findings of fact AMI has indicated that it "operates" these 9 hospitals. The record supports this finding, although the record also supports a finding that the 9 hospitals are separate legal entities. AMI initially filed a letter of intent to file a certificate of need application with the Department for a 175-bed hospital in Orange County, Florida, for review in the August 15, 1983, batching cycle. The letter of intent was rejected because it had not been timely submitted to the local health council. On October 12, 1983, AMI filed a second letter of intent with the Department in which it informed the Department that AMI "or a to-be-formed wholly-owned subsidiary of AMI intends to file a Certificate of Need application for a 175-bed hospital to be located along Highway 50 in the vicinity of the University of Central Florida in Orange County, Florida." On October 19, 1983, seven days after the letter of intent was filed, Articles of Incorporation were filed for University Community Hospital of Orlando, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "UCH, Inc."). UCH, Inc., is a for-profit Florida corporation. It currently owns no assets. AMI's application, which was reviewed in the November 15, 1983, batching cycle, was denied by the Department. AMI subsequently reduced the number of beds it had requested in its application from 175 to 100 beds. No change in the application with regard to the services to be provided has been made by AMI. Based upon its amended application AMI has proposed to construct and operate a 100-bed "full-service" acute care hospital to be located in Orange County, Florida. The proposed 100 beds will consist of 84 medical/surgical beds, 8 obstetric beds and 8 ICU/CCU beds. The proposed hospital will include a separate outpatient unit, an on-site stationary CAT Scanner, a 24-hour a day emergency room and birthing rooms and will provide therapeutic and diagnostic inpatient services, and community outreach and wellness programs. Tertiary care services will not be provided at the proposed hospital but AMI intends to contract with existing providers of tertiary care services to provide those services to its patients. AMI has projected that the total cost of its proposal will be $19,698,831.00. This figure includes $566,700.00 for architectural and engineering fees, $6,268,747.00 for equipment, $1,025,000.00 for the acquisition of land, $10,095,000.00 for construction, $250,000.00 for start-up costs and $1,285,385.00 for capitalized interest. The proposed AMI facility will include separate entrances for outpatient surgery and the emergency room. The facility has been designed to take into account the trend in health care to provide outpatient and ambulatory services. Two of the four proposed operating rooms in the facility will be used primarily for outpatient surgery. The 8 birthing rooms to be included in the facility are designed in recognition of the trend in health care to provide a room in which the family can participate in the birthing process. A delivery room will also be provided. Finally, classroom space will be provided in the facility for allied health services training and continuing education. Winter Park. Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., is a not for-profit Florida corporation. It operates Winter Park, a 301 bed hospital in Winter Park, Orange County, Florida. The hospital provides a full range of medical services including a full-body CAT Scanner. Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., qualifies for exemption from federal income tax under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"), because it is an organization designated in Section 501(c)(3) of the Code. On October 31, 1983, Winter Park filed its letter of intent to file an application for a certificate of need with the Department in the same batching cycle as AMI. In its application Winter Park proposed to build a 100-bed acute care hospital in Orange County, Florida. The proposed 100 beds will consist of 84 medical/surgical beds, 8 obstetric beds and 8 ICU/CCU beds. The proposal does not include a CAT Scanner. Winter Park has projected that the total cost of its proposed facility will be $16,015,000.00. This amount includes $75,000.00 for project development, $50,000.00 for financing, $685,000.00 for professional services, $10,395,900.00 for construction, $4,457,700.00 for equipment and $351,400.00 for other related cost. Florida Hospital Florida Hospital is a not-for-project hospital owned by Adventist Health Systems Sunbelt, a division of the Adventist Church. Florida Hospital presently consists of 3 campuses: the main campus in Orlando and satellite campuses in Altamonte Springs, Seminole County, Florida and Apopka, Orange County, Florida. In the 75 years since the hospital was begun it has grown from a 20 bed hospital to its present size of 959 beds. Florida Hospital is a tertiary acute care hospital providing a full range of services including ambulatory surgery, a stationary full-body CAT Scanner, general inpatient medical and surgical services, obstetrics, pediatrics, psychiatric services, substance abuse treatment, open heart surgery, oncology and other services. Florida Hospital is involved in a number of teaching programs and internship programs. It is a teaching hospital with a number of positions dedicated to teaching, including a director of education. Florida Hospital would be substantially affected if a certificate of need is granted to either Petitioner. Florida Hospital has standing to intervene. OGH OGH is a not-for-profit 171-bed hospital located in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. It was founded in 1941 and has operated as a not-for-profit facility since 1945. OGH is licensed by the State of Florida as an acute care general hospital. The services provided by OGH include obstetrics, outpatient services, general inpatient medical and surgical services, pediatrics, a mobile CAT Scanner and other services. OGH would be substantially affected if a certificate of need is issued to either Petitioner. OGH has standing to intervene. THE NEED FOR ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL BEDS. Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C. Pursuant to Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), the Department is responsible for determining whether health care facilities and services are needed in the State of Florida. To fulfill its responsibility with regard to acute care hospital beds, the Department has promulgated Section 10 5.11(23), F.A.C. Section 10-5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides the following Department goal: The Department will consider applications for acute care hospital beds in context with all applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional acute care hospital beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of beds in that district to exceed the number of beds calculated to be needed according to the methodology included in paragraphs (f),(g) and (h) below. A favorable Certificate of Need determination may be made when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided for in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, demonstrate need. An unfavorable Certificate of Need determination may be made when a calculated bed need exists but other criteria specified in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, are not met. Based upon this Department goal, the need for acute care hospital beds is first determined by service district based upon the methodology included in Section 10-5.11(23)(f)-(h), F.A.C. (Hereinafter referred to as the "Formula"). For purposes of the Formula, acute care beds include general medical and surgical, intensive care, pediatric and obstetrical beds. Section 10 5.11(23)(c), F.A.C. The Petitioners are proposing to build a hospital with general medical and surgical, intensive care and obstetrical beds. Therefore, the Formula must be applied to determine if there is a need for their proposed hospitals. Under the Formula, acute care bed need is to be determined five years in the future: 1990 in these cases. Generally, acute care bed need is determined under the Formula based upon two age cohort population projections, statewide service-specific discharge rates, statewide service-specific lengths of stay, statewide service-specific occupancy standards and patient flow adjustments. See Section 10-5.11(23)(f), F.A.C. The bed need for the service district determined in accordance with Section 10-5.11(23)(f), F.A.C., is adjusted based upon the service district's historical use rate and projected occupancy rate. Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. The historical use rate to be used under the Formula is for the three most recent years and is based upon utilization of hospitals located in the service district. After applying the adjustment of Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C., one final adjustment is required to complete the determination of acute care bed need under the Formula. Section 10-5.11(23)(h), F.A.C. provides for an adjustment to reflect peak demand in the service district. Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing of these cases, application of the Formula results in a net acute care bed need of 89 beds or 146 beds, or an excess of 464 beds. These projections are all for the Department's District 7, which consists of Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Brevard Counties, The Petitioners are proposing to build new hospitals in Orange County. The Formula projection of a net acute care bed need in District 7 of 89 beds is an outdated Department application of the Formula. The 146 net acute care bed need projection for District 7 is the Department's most current application of the Formula, dated March 12, 1985. The Department's most recent application of the Formula is not based upon a proper application of the adjustment for the District 7 projected occupancy rate and historical use rate under Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. In making this adjustment, the Department relied upon utilization data in determining the District 7 historical use rate from 1981, 1982 and 1983. Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C., requires that the historical use rate be based upon the most recent three years available. In these cases 1982, 1983 and 1984 utilization data was available to the Department. The fact that incorrect utilization data was used in determining the District 7 historical use rate was confirmed by Mr. Eugene Nelson, the Director of the Office of Community Medical Facilities of the Department, Mr. Steve Windham, the Executive Director of the Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Inc., and Mr. Lawrence W. Margolis, an expert health planner. Mr. Nelson also indicated that if 1982, 1983 and 1984 utilization data had been used by the Department in applying the Formula a more "contemporary picture of what's actually happening" would have be given. Mr. Margolis did apply the Formula using the most current utilization data to calculate the historical use rate of District 7. Based upon the data used by the Department in its most recent projection of acute care bed need for District 7, but substituting the current utilization data of 1982, 1983 and 1984, an application of the Formula results in a projected total acute care bed need in 1989 for District 7 of 4,416 beds. There are currently 4,880 licensed and approved beds in District 7. Therefore, a proper application of the Formula based upon the most current data indicates that District 7 will have an excess of 464 acute care beds in 1989. A finding that District 7 will have an excess of acute care beds in 1989 is supported by the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals in District 7. This reduction in hospital utilization, which began in 1982, has been evidenced by reductions in occupancy rates, average lengths of stay and admissions. This trend is likely to continue for an additional two to four years. The trend is sufficient to cause an excess in acute care beds despite increases in population. To add another 100 acute care hospital beds to Orange County would further reduce utilization. The reduced utilization of hospitals could become worse when new hospital beds are opened by Florida Hospital (210 beds) and Holmes Regional Medical Center in Brevard County (81 beds). The opening of these beds could create a further excess of beds in District 7. There are a number of factors which have contributed to the decline in the use of hospitals: (1) there has been an increase in the use of health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations; (2) the introduction of Diagnostic Related Groups, a method of reimbursement now being used by Medicare; and (3) there has been an increase in the use of outpatient medical services. Health maintenance organizations in Orange County alone could decrease patient days in hospitals from 800 days per 1,000 population to 350 days per 1,000 population. Because of the introduction of Diagnostic Related Groups by Medicare, hospitals are trying to discharge patients as quickly as possible. Finally, there are 8 to 10 freestanding ambulatory surgery centers approved for Orange County which are, or will be, providing outpatient medical services. All of these factors have reduced hospital utilization in District 7. The current trend of reduced utilization of hospitals was recognized by Mr. Mark Richardson, AMI's expert in health planning. Mr. Richardson therefore recommended that AMI reduce its application for a certificate of need to construct and operate a hospital in Orange County from 175 acute care beds to 100 beds, which AMI did. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that District 7 will have an excess of at least 464 acute care beds in 1989 according to a proper application of the Formula of Section 10 5.11(23), F.A.C. Although insufficient evidence was presented at the final hearing to forecast the exact acute care bed need for District 7 under the Formula for 1990, it does not appear that there will be any need for acute care beds in District 7 in 1990 in light of the fact that the trend toward decreased utilization of hospitals will probably continue for 2 to 4 more years. In fact, the evidence supports the conclusion that District 7 will continue to have an excess of beds in 1990. AMI has proposed findings of fact to the effect that there has been too much concern with "over-bedding" based upon computations such as those provided in the Formula. AMI further proposed findings of fact to the effect that a more rational approach to health planning "should be assuming adequate supply as opposed to considering a negative approach." These proposed findings of fact are rejected. The Department's rules and in particular, the Formula, are the law and will be followed in these cases. Whether "over-bedding" is over emphasized, the Formula clearly indicates that District 7 will be greatly overbedding in 1990. In addition to requiring an application of the Formula to determine acute care bed need for each Department service district, Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., requires that local health councils adopt acute care service subdistricts as an element of their local health plans. Section 10-5.11(23)(d), F.A.C. District 7 has been divided along county lines into four subdistricts: Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Brevard Counties. Section 10-17.008, F.A.C. Prior to this proceeding AMI challenged the validity of Section 10- 17.008, F.A.C., the rule establishing subdistricts along county lines in District 7. The rule was upheld as valid in American Medical International, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 83- 3092R, September 28, 1984. Therefore, Orange, Seminole, Brevard and Osceola Counties constitute the only recognized subdistricts in District 7 for purposes of allocating acute care bed need in District 7. Section 10-5.11(23)(e), F.A.C., further provides that the district acute care bed need as determined by application of the Formula is to be allocated to each subdistrict established pursuant to Section 10-5.11(23)(d), F.A.C. This allocation of acute care bed need to the subdistricts is to be made consistent with Section 381.494(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which provides that the local health council is to develop a district health plan and submit it to the Department. Elements of the district health plan necessary in the Department's review of certificate of need applications are required to be adopted by the Department as a part of its rules. Section 381.494(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as the "Council"), has developed a district health plan which includes the methodology it employs to allocate the District 7 acute care bed need to the subdistricts of District 7. That plan has also been submitted to the Department. The Department, however, has not adopted the district health plan for District 7 in its rules. This does not mean, however, that evidence pertaining to the Council's method of allocation is not relevant to, or should be ignored for purposes of, this proceeding. Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, Orange County has an excess of acute care beds. This is true even if it is assumed that the Department's determination under the Formula that there is a need for 89 or 146 acute care beds in District 7 is correct. According to Mr. Windham, application of the Council's subdistrict allocation methodology to the Department's determination under the Formula that there is a need in District 7 for 89 acute care beds indicates that Orange County ",4 will have an excess of 81 acute care beds and that Seminole County will have an excess of 36 acute care beds. Mr. Windham's application of the Council's methodology for allocating bed need to the subdistricts of District 7 was based upon the Department's application of the Formula without the benefit of the more current utilization data. Therefore, if the most current data had been used, the projected excess beds for Orange County would be even greater. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the Petitioners have failed to prove that there is any need under Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., for additional acute care beds in District 7 or in Orange or Seminole Counties. In fact, under Section 10- 5.11(23), F.A.C., there is a significant excess of acute care beds projected for Orange and Seminole Counties and District 7 as a whole. Winter Park has conceded this conclusion. AMI has in essence argued that any evidence as to the application of the Formula based upon the most current utilization data should be ignored because the Department has not yet officially applied the Formula based upon such data. Mr. Margolis, an expert in health planning, was clearly capable of applying the Formula based upon the most current information. His conclusions were also supported by Mr. Nelson's and Mr. Windham's testimony. AMI has in essence also argued that any evidence as to how acute care bed need in District 7 under the Formula should be allocated to the properly designated subdistricts should be ignored because the Council's methods of allocation have not been adopted as part of the Department's rules. Mr. Windham's unrebutted testimony, however, supports a finding that the Council's method of allocating the District 7 acute care bed need to the subdistricts is a reasonable method for health planning purposes. The determination that there is no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County does not necessarily preclude the issuance of a certificate of need for a new hospital to either or both of the Petitioners. Section 10- 5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides that the Department will "not normally" approve an application if such an approval would result in acute care beds in excess of those needed as determined under the Formula. The rule goes on to provide that an application may be approved "when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, demonstrate need." Bed Need Based upon the Petitioner's Alternative to the Formula. AMI has suggested in its proposed recommended order that there is a need for 146 acute care beds in District 7 based upon an application of the Formula. That finding of fact has been rejected, supra, because it was based upon the use of outdated utilization data. The Petitioner also failed to prove that there is a need for beds in Orange County based upon an application of the Formula. Winter Park's position throughout this proceeding and AMI's alternative position has been essentially that the population of east Orange County where the Petitioners propose to locate their facilities and parts of Seminole County do not have adequate accessibility to acute care hospital beds. In determining whether an application for a certificate of need should be issued for acute care hospital beds, Section 381.484(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), provides that the accessibility . . of like and existing health care services and hospitals in the service district of the applicant" should be considered. The Petitioners have attempted to prove that like and existing health care services are not accessible in portions of Orange and Seminole Counties and therefore there is a need for their proposed hospitals. The Petitioners' Medical Service Areas. AMI has identified and proposed to serve portions of Orange and Seminole Counties which purportedly have an access problem which it has designated as a "medical service area." AMI projects that the majority of its patients will be attracted from its medical service area (hereinafter referred to as an MSA) AMI's MSA consists of most of east Orange County and southeastern Seminole County. Generally, the MSA boundary runs south along most of the western shore of Lake Jessup in Seminole County, to and along Tuscawilla Road (Seminole and Orange County), to and along Highway 436 in Orange County, south to the Bee Line Expressway, east along the Bee Line Expressway to Highway 15, south along Highway 15 to the Orange-Osceola County line, east and then north along the Orange County line to the Seminole County line and along the Seminole County line north and then west to Lake Jessup. Winter Park has also identified and proposed to serve a MSA very similar to, although a little smaller than, AMI's MSA. The difference in size amounts to only a difference of 1000 less population in Winter Park's MSA. The portion of east Orange County included in the MSAs represents a distinct geopolitical and economic base. Each of the Petitioners and Florida Hospital presented testimony by experts in the field of demographics. Frederick A. Raffa, Ph.D., for AMI, William J. Serow, Ph.D, for Winter Park and Stanley Smith, Ph.D., for Florida Hospital. Based upon their testimony, it is clear that the MSAs have experienced a great deal of population and economic growth since 1970 and that this growth will probably continue through 1990. During the period 1980 to 1985, the rate of population growth for Orange and Seminole Counties was 16 percent (23 percent for Seminole County alone). The rate of growth in Winter Park's MSA during this same period was 32 percent. For the period 1985 through 1990 the projected rate of growth for Orange County is 12 percent. The projected rate of growth from 1985 through 1990 for Winter Park's MSA is 23.3 percent. These figures indicate that the rate of growth for Orange County and the MSAs is slowing down. The figures also show that the MSA rate of growth is twice that of Orange and Seminole Counties. Looking at only the rate of growth of an area can be misleading. For example, a 50 percent rate of growth may not be as significant when applied to a population base of 10 as when applied to a larger population base. In terms of actual growth, the evidence proves that Orange County's population growth in terms of additional people is greater than the population growth of the MSAs. The evidence also establishes that population growth in the MSAs is projected to be greater for young adults and women of child bearing age (15 to 44 years of age), that there will be larger families and a greater number of children under 18 years of age in the MSAs than in Orange County as a whole and that the projected population of the MSAs will be newer to the area and generally more mobile than Orange County as a whole. Florida Hospital has suggested that "logic" leads to the conclusion that some of these projected trends will cause a decrease in utilization. No evidence was presented at the hearing to support such a finding of fact. The evidence clearly establishes that population growth in the MSAs will be concentrated between the western boundary of the MSAs at Highway 436 and Alafaya Trail (Highway 419), which is located in the western portion of the MSAs, during the next five years. In fact, more than half of the projected growth of east Orange County will occur in a one and a half mile corridor between Highway 436 and Goldenrod. It will be 5 to 10 years before population growth will begin to expand into any area east of Highway 419. Accessibility under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. The Department has promulgated Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1 and 2, F.A.C., for purposes of determining accessibility: Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within an automobile travel time of 30 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population in an urban area subdistrict. Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within a maximum automobile travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population residing in a rural area subdistrict. The terms "urban area" and "rural area" are defined in Section 10- 5.11(23)(a)4 and 5, F.A.C., as follows: Urban Area. Urban area means a county designated as all or part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as determined by the United States Bureau of the Census, and having 50,000 or more persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Rural Area. Rural area means a county not designated as all or part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as determined by the United States Bureau of the Census, or a county so designated but having fewer than 50,000 persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Orange County meets the definition of an "urban area." It has been designated as part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area and has 50,000 or more persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Orange County is not also a "rural area" as defined above as suggested by OGH although it does have some incorporated areas with less than 50,000 persons. AMI has suggested in its proposed recommended order that Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is to be used only by local health councils in determining subdistrict allocations of acute care bed need and where a subdistrict allocation reveals a surplus of beds in a subdistrict. Although Section 10 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is to be used in the manner suggested by AMI, Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is not clearly limited to such use. This section of the rule is titled "Geographic Accessibility Considerations." Its provisions are applicable in determining whether a geographic accessibility problem exists in District 7 or in the subdistricts of District 7. AMI, Winter Park and Florida Hospital presented testimony of expert traffic engineers: Mr. William A. Tipton for AMI, Mr. R. Sans Lassiter, P.E., for Winter Park and Mr. Sven Kansman for Florida Hospital. All three of these gentlemen based their travel studies on travel times to and from certain control points. The travel times were then averaged. Florida Hospital has suggested in its proposed recommended order that this method of determining travel times to and from control points and Mr. Tipton's testimony that "you probably wouldn't get as far in a given time going outbound [east" is significant because travel times from the MSAs west into Orlando, where the majority of the existing hospitals are presently located, would be shorter. This conclusion is reasonable. Therefore, travel times for the population of the MSAs to existing Orange County hospitals would be less than indicated by the traffic engineers. Also, the 30 minute contour lines on the traffic engineers' exhibits would extend farther into the MSAs. The studies performed by all three traffic engineers were performed in the same general manner as to the speed of the test vehicles. Test vehicle drivers were instructed to drive at average speed employing the "average car method," the "floating car technique" or the "moving car method." All three methods are essentially the same. The test runs were conducted in November and February by AMI'S expert, in the fall by Winter Park's expert and during the last two weeks of January by Florida Hospital's expert. January to March is the most congested time of the year in Orange County. Only two of the traffic engineers testified that their tests were conducted under "average travel conditions" as required by Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C.: Winter Park's and Florida Hospital's traffic engineers. These traffic engineers properly conducted their tests during off-peak and peak hours. Mr. Tipton, AMI's traffic engineer, conducted his tests only during the peak hours of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and only on week days (Monday to Thursday). According to Mr. Tipton, average travel conditions "doesn't mean anything" to a traffic engineer. Average travel conditions does mean something under the rule and to the other two traffic engineers. Mr. Tipton also indicated that the peak hours he conducted his tests during would not show "average travel conditions." Mr. Tipton also admitted that he averaged what amounted to the "worst case scenario" because it represented "real world conditions." Mr. Tipton's "real world conditions," however, is not the test of Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1, F.A.C. Mr. Tipton's tests have been given little weight because of his failure to take into account average travel conditions. None of the exhibits prepared by the three traffic engineers and accepted in evidence (AMI'S composite exhibit 8, Winter Park's exhibit 11 and Florida Hospital's exhibit 10) are totally consistent with the requirements of Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. AMI's composite exhibit 8 includes 30 minute contour lines representing Mr. Tipton's 30 minute drive times from only three hospitals in Orange County and one hospital in Seminole County and only shows the travel times to the east of those hospitals. Winter Park's exhibit 11 shows the 30 minute contour lines for seven hospitals in Orange County and two hospitals in Seminole County and generally only showns the travel times to the east. Florida Hospital's exhibit 10 shows the location of eight hospitals in Orange County, three in Seminole County and three in Brevard County but only shows the total 30 minute contour line for Florida Hospital's Orlando campus. The test under Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1, F.A.C., is whether existing acute care hospital beds are available and accessible within 30 minutes by automobile by 90 percent of the subdistrict's population. In order for AMI and Winter Park to prove that acute care hospital beds are not available and accessible within 30 minutes in Orange County, they needed to prove that more than 10 percent of the population of Orange County cannot access on existing acute care hospital bed within 30 minutes by automobile. In order to prove this crucial fact it is necessary to show the travel time based upon average travel conditions of the entire population of Orange County to all existing acute care hospitals. AMI and Winter Park have failed to do so. The evidence fails to show that more than 10 percent of Orange County's population is more than 30 minutes by automobile from existing Orange County hospitals. The evidence does not support a conclusion that there is an accessibility problem under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. Only 1 percent of the population of Orange County residing in the MSAs is located more than 30 minutes by automobile from existing hospitals in Orange and Seminole Counties. This is based upon the 1985 population and the projected 1990 population. In 1985 there are 4,232 people residing in the MSAs more than 30 minutes from existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals. By 1990, there will only be 5,276 people projected to live more than 30 minutes from existing hospitals. These figures are maximum numbers. As indicated, supra, the evidence with regard to population growth in the MSAs proves that the projected population growth will be concentrated in the western portion of the MSAs--the portion of the MSAs closest to where existing hospitals are located. Most of the projected population growth through 1990 in the MSAs will clearly be within 30 minutes of existing hospitals. The projected 1990 population of 5,276 people who will reside more than 30 minutes from an existing Orange County or Seminole County hospital is well below 10 percent of Orange County's total projected population of 596,713. Additionally, the people in the MSAs who reside more than 30 minutes from existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals are probably within 30 minutes of Jess Parrish Hospital in Titusville, Brevard County, Florida. There are no natural obstacles in Orange County which impede or prevent access to existing health care facilities. Well over 90 percent of Orange County's population can access a hospital within 30 minutes driving time. OGH has proposed findings of fact pertaining to the availability of motor vehicle and air ambulance services in Orange County. The accessibility test of Section 10-5.11 (23)(i), F.A.C., requires a consideration of automobile travel times under "average travel conditions," not emergency services. Therefore, these proposed findings of fact and OGH's proposed findings of fact as to the requirements of obtaining a trauma level designation are unnecessary. The evidence also clearly establishes that there are acute care hospital beds available in Orange County. The average occupancy rates in District 7, Orange County and Seminole County for 1982, 1983 and 1984 were as follows: 1982 1983 1984 District 7 71.8% 70.34% 61.71% Orange County 69.5% 68.68% 60.80% Seminole County 76.0% 74.20% 59.39% Florida Hospital and OGH have experienced similar declines in utilization similar to those evidenced by these figures. Florida Hospital's utilization rate dropped from 86.3 percent in 1982 to 78.6 percent in 1984 and OGH's rate dropped from 88.5 percent in 1982 to 44.4 percent in 1984. There are currently 4,880 licensed and approved acute care hospital beds in District 7. Based upon the 1984 utilization rate for District 7, over 1,800 acute care beds were empty on an average day in District 7 during 1984; In Orange County, approximately 1,000 acute care beds were empty on average during 1984. As indicated, supra, the decreasing acute care bed utilization rate is expected to continue for 2 to 4 years. Therefore, there are acute care hospital beds available in Orange County at existing hospitals and there will be in 1990. Additionally, new acute care hospital beds have been approved for Orange County and Seminole County which are not yet open: 134 acute care beds to be opened by Florida Hospital at its Orlando campus and 76 acute care beds to be opened by Florida Hospital at its Altamonte Springs campus. Also 81 new beds will be opened in Brevard County. These additional beds will further increase the number of available acute care hospital beds in Orange and Seminole Counties and in District 7. Based upon the foregoing and the fact that there is a large number of unoccupied acute care beds available on average in Orange County, there is no geographic accessibility problem in Orange County or Seminole County under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. Other Accessibility Considerations. Despite the evidence with regard to geographic accessibility under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., the Petitioners have argued that accessibility to acute care beds is a problem in the MSAs. Mr. Willard Wisler, Winter Park's administrator, although agreeing that "planning studies" indicated no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County, stated: But our posture has been that they have been misallocated, and that the east Orange County [sic) is a greatly underserved area on the basis of the number of hospital beds that are available to the people that live there. The evidence does establish that the majority of the hospitals in Orange County are located in the center of the County, in the City of Orlando, where the majority of the population is located and that there is only one hospital currently located in the MSAs. Currently, 6 percent of Orange County's acute care hospital beds are located in the MSAs at OGH while 19 percent of Orange County's population is located in the MSAs. The Petitioners have characterized this geographic distribution of acute care beds and population as a "maldistribution" of acute care beds. The disparity between the precentage of population and acute care beds in the MSAs will increase in the future because the projected rate of growth in the MSAs is greater than that of Orange County. It is projected that by 1990 22 percent of the Orange County population will be located in the MSAs. The centralization of acute care beds in Orange County, according to Mr. Van Talbert, Winter Park's expert health planner, constitutes irresponsible health planning: "It tends to perpetuate the old patterns of centralization, and I think that is inconsistent with contemporary thought in American society." Mr. Talbert also testified that the MSAs and particularly east Orange County, are greatly underserved based upon the number of hospital beds conveniently available to the people who live there. Even if Mr. Talbert's conclusions are correct and even if there is a "maldistribution" of acute care beds as defined by the Petitioners, this does not mean there is an accessibility problem in the MSAs sufficient to conclude that additional acute care beds are needed in District 7, Orange County or the MSAs. The fact that 22 percent of the population of Orange County may reside in the MSAs by 1990 with only 6 percent of the County's acute care beds is not the test. Even if it is true that "contemporary planning may indicate that centralization of acute care beds is poor planning," the pertinent statutes and rules only require a determination of whether acute care beds are available and accessible. The evidence in these cases clearly indicates that the population of the MSAs can access available acute care hospital beds in District 7. All the Petitioners have shown is that some residents of the MSAs "will be forced to make inconvenient drives to downtown hospitals," as stated in Winter Park's proposed recommended order. Likewise, AMI's proposed finding of fact that ",the realities of the situation reveal that the residents of the MSA and their physicians perceive serious access problems due to excessive travel distance, traffic congestion, the lack of convenience for patients who have to go to hospitals for tests, and the lack of convenience for families and friends having to make several trips a day to see a person in a hospital" does not prove there is an access problem. The perception of patients and physicians as to the inconvenience in accessing acute care beds does not prove there is an access problem sufficient to warrant a new hospital. In conjunction with the Petitioners' position with regard to "maldistribution" of acute care beds, the Petitioners have proposed findings of fact to the effect that previous Department responses to shifts in population growth away from where hospitals are located have been to authorize new hospitals. New hospitals in Altamonte Springs and Longwood in Seminole County, and in southwest Orange County (Sand Lake) have been cited as examples. Although Mr. Talbert's testimony supports these proposed findings of fact to some extent, there is insufficient evidence to conclude why those hospitals were authorized by the Department. If the evidence showed that additional acute care beds were needed in Seminole and Orange Counties when those hospitals were approved it would be consistent with the Department's rules to locate the additional acute care beds where population growth had occurred. In these cases, if there was an established need for an additional acute care hospital in Orange County, the evidence would probably justify placing it in east Orange County. The facts, however, do not indicate any need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. Other MSA Considerations. It is not essential to identify a MSA for purposes of considering an application for a new acute care hospital as suggested by AMI. As discussed, infra, the designation of a MSA by an applicant may be helpful for some purposes, but not to determine whether there is a need for a new hospital. AMI has proposed a finding of fact that Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, both of which are located in Orlando, are tertiary care facilities providing services of higher complexity for patients; they therefore attract a substantial number of referral patients in need of more extensive, complex services which are not available from primary care hospitals. The existence of these tertiary facilities has justified the allocation of more acute care beds to Orange and Seminole Counties in the past. Although these facts were proved at the hearing, the overriding fact remains clear that there is no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. AMI attempted to prove through Mr. Mark Richardson an expert in health planning, that there is a need for acute care beds in AMI's MSA based upon the characteristics of the MSA. Mr. Richardson testified that his projections were not based or contingent on the Formula of Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., and acknowledged the decline in utilization of acute care hospital beds in Orange County. Mr. Richardson did state that the Department's projection of a net acute care bed need of 89 beds under the Formula supported his projections. The projection of a need for 89 beds was clearly based upon outdated data. Use of current utilization data indicates an excess of 464 acute care beds. Therefore, if application of the Formula resulting in a bed need of 89 beds supports Mr. Richardson's projections, an application of the Formula which results in an excess of 464 acute care beds must indicate that Mr. Richardson's projections are suspect. Mr. Richardson's projections were clearly based primarily on the characteristics of AMI's MSA. Because of the narrow scope of Mr. Richardson's analysis, the trend in Orange County and District 7 as to reduced occupancy rates did not affect his projections. In particular, Mr. Richardson used an 80 percent occupancy rate for all beds except obstetric beds, for which he used a 75 percent rate. These occupancy rates are excessive when compared to the occupancy rates for District 7, and Orange and Seminole Counties. Additionally, Mr. Richardson failed to consider the effect of unopened acute care beds in Orange County on occupancy rates. On average, there are over 1,800 unoccupied acute care beds in District 7 and 1,000 unoccupied beds in Orange County. This does not include 134 acute care beds to be opened at Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, 76 acute care beds to be opened at Florida Hospital's Altamonte Springs campus or 81 acute care beds to be opened at Holmes Regional Medical Center in Brevard County. When opened, these additional acute care beds will further decrease occupancy rates in Orange County and District 7. Even if Mr. Richardson's projections were totally accurate, such a finding would not be relevant to the question of whether there is a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. That is the crucial question in these cases. Mr. Richardson and AMI have attempted to justify Mr. Richardson's projections by suggesting that the Department does not consider itself precluded from assessing the need for acute case beds on an area within a subdistrict based upon Mr. Nelson's testimony. Mr. Nelson's testimony clearly does not support the use of a MSA to determine if there is a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. Mr. Nelson, when asked whether an applicant could determine bed need based upon the character of a part of Orange County replied: There's nothing to preclude an Applicant from doing that, from carving out what I would call an Applicant's service area, running their own calculations of bed need, and doing whatever they feel they want to do in that regard. And we're not ,precluded from looking at it, either. But our position is that that has no official basis in determinations of bed need. We do look at those subdistricts but not to determine bed need. We look at them to get a better understanding of an application, because we get a sense, from looking at the unique service areas, what they' re trying to accomplish. That would be number one. Number two, and from having worked on the private side, I know one of the reasons why this is done, this is an attempt to define a market share or market area and a percent of all the considerations of what the existing hospitals that are already in the area have in the way of markets and market shares, and so on. So on the second hand, looking at the subdistricts is very important, from the standpoint of helping us to assess the financial feasibility of these proposals, which is another criterion, of course, altogether, specifically in the longer term. Because, you know, you have to know who is getting patients from where in order to be able to fully understand that. And I think the third way in which these subdistricts, these Applicants -- pardon the expression, subdistricts, that's not what these things are -- the Applicant's medical services areas are useful is in those cases where we may have a need helping us to decide where, within, let's say a subdistrict that need should be met. For example, let's suppose in this case, we were showning a need of sufficient magnitude to approve a hospital. But instead of having two applications within a few miles of each other, we had one for east Orange County, and one in west Orange County, and portions of other counties, each of which had carved out their own service area, then it would be very important for us, in that case, to look at these things very carefully, to consider them to help us determine which location was preferable. But in terms of calculating bed need from the Department's perspective, we don't put any stock in those whatsoever from that perspective. ,Emphasis added. Based upon the above testimony, it is clear that MSAs may be looked at if an applicant uses one in order to provide a better understanding of the applicant's proposal, to assess financial feasibility and, where there is an established need for acute care beds, to decide where in the subdistrict the need is the greatest. MSAs are clearly not relied upon to determine the initial question of whether there is a need for acute care beds. To determine acute care bed need based upon a MSA without considering `the' entire subdistrict of Orange County is not appropriate. The Department, as the statute and rules require, determines need at the district level and allocates the district bed need to the subdistricts. In fact, the Department has ruled that it is improper to divide a district into subdistricts smaller than those designated by a local health council for purposes of determining need as pointed out by Winter Park in its proposed recommended order. Southeastern Palm Beach County Hospital District v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 5 F.A.L.R. 1091A (1983). For purposes of determining whether there is a need for additional acute care hospital beds in Orange County, Mr. Richardson's testimony is of very little value. STATUTORY CRITERIA. Section 10-5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides that a certificate of need may be issued when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided in Section 38l.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), demonstrate need. The Petitioners have attempted to prove that there is an accessibility problem in Orange County which demonstrates acute care bed need under Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The facts do not support such a conclusion as discussed, supra. This section of the Recommended Order contains findings of fact with regard to the other criteria contained in Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d) Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Consistency with the State and Local Health Plan: Section 381.494(6(c)1, Florida Statutes. The applications of the Petitioners are only partly consistent with the State Health Plan and the Council's Local Health Plan. The Council's Local Health Plan establishes the following occupancy levels for acute care beds which should be met before new acute care beds are approved: TYPE OF BEDS OCCUPANCY LEVEL Medical - Surgical 80% Obstetrical 75% As already discussed, occupancy levels for acute care beds in District 7, and in Orange and Seminole Counties were below 70 percent in 1984. The declining utilization of acute care beds will continue for the next 2 to 4 years and therefore it does not appear that the occupancy level goals in the Local Health Plan will be met by either applicant. These occupancy level goals are intended to be used as checks on the bed need methodologies. The importance of existing occupancy levels in determining whether to add additional acute care beds to a district is recognized in Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. The Petitioners have projected that they will achieve an occupancy rate of 45-50 percent after one year of operation. South Seminole Community Hospital, which was opened in May of 1984 in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida, achieved only a 27 percent occupancy rate after 8 months of operation. In light of the fact that South Seminole Community Hospital is located in Longwood, it is doubtful the Petitioners will achieve their projected occupancy rate. The Petitioners have projected that their proposed hospitals will achieve an 80 percent occupancy rate, which is an optimal occupancy rate. Their projections, based upon the findings of fact as to acute care bed need in Orange County and current occupancy levels, are highly unlikely to be reached. Especially in light of the fact that the average occupancy rate in Orange County was only 60.80 percent in 1984. The proposals are also inconsistent with the Local Health Plan goal that a proposal be consistent with the state's acute care bed need methodology. Based upon an application of the Formula, using current data, District 7 and Orange County will have an excess of acute care beds in 1990. Winter Park's proposal is consistent with several other portions of the Local Health Plan. Winter Park's facility will have an active outpatient program, its beds can be available within 24 hours and it will meet several priorities under the Local Health Plan such as being accredited and licensed, and being willing to serve indigents and other patients without regard to payment source. AMI's proposal also meets some of these goals. The Local Health Plan also contains a provision to the effect that "needed" beds should be approved at existing hospitals unless the addition of a new hospital would substantially improve access by at least 15 minutes for 25,000 or more residents. Winter Park has suggested a finding of fact that this provision has been met. If there was a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County such a finding would be appropriate. There is, however, clearly no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. This portion of the Local Health Plan therefore does not apply. Finally, the Local Health Plan provides that applicants should be able to document community and provider support for their proposals. Community support for the proposals has been demonstrated. Provider support, however, has not been demonstrated. In fact, there is opposition from some providers to the proposed new hospitals, i.e., Florida Hospital and OGH. The proposals are also partially consistent with the State's health plan. The evidence does not clearly establish, however, that the proposals are totally consistent with the goals of the State health plan. Mr. Talbert did testify that Winter Park's proposal is consistent with the goals of the State health plan. It was not clear, however, whether all of the goals were met. Also, Mr. Talbert's testimony was inconsistent with other evidence in this proceeding in some respects. For example, Mr. Talbert testified that one goal of the State health plan is to provide adequate access to acute care resources. The evidence clearly shows that adequate access is already available in Orange County. To the extent it can be inferred that Mr. Talbert's testimony also applies to AMI's proposal, the same problems exist. The evidence does not support a finding that AMI's proposal is totally consistent with the State health plan. Based upon the foregoing, it does not appear that either proposal is totally consistent with the Local Health Plan or the State health plan. The Availability, Quality of Care, Efficiency, Appropriateness, Accessibility, Extent of Utilization and Adequacy of Like and Existing Health Care Services in the Service District; Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), requires that the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the service district be considered. The service district for this purpose is District 7. The designation of subdistricts in District 7 is specifically for purposes of allocating district bed need to the subdistricts. The parties, to the extent they addressed this criterion, presented evidence primarily for Orange County only, however. The availability, accessibility and extent of utilization of like and existing acute care hospitals in Orange County has been discussed and findings of fact with regard thereto have been made, supra. To summarize, like and existing services in Orange County are available and accessible and are underutilized. The Petitioners have not shown that like an existing services in District 7 do not provide quality of care or that they are not efficient, appropriate or adequate. Winter Park has argued that like and existing services are not accessible. The evidence does not support such a finding of fact. AMI has argued that there are no like and existing services accessible in the MSAs. That is not the test. The determination to made under Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), is whether there are like and existing services in the service district. The service district in these cases is all of District 7, not the MSAs. There are currently seven acute care hospitals in Orange County: Florida Hospital, OGH, Orlando Regional Medical Center, Brookwood Hospital, Humana Lucerne, Winter Park Hospital and West Orange Memorial Hospital. Additionally, Orlando Regional Medical Center - Sand Lake is expected to be opened before 1990. These district. The evidence does not support a finding that some or all of these facilities or others in District 7 are not available, providing quality of care, efficient, appropriate, accessible, over utilized or adequate. AMI and OGH spent an inordinate amount of time and effort presenting evidence on the issue of whether OGH is a like and existing service. The evidence supports a finding that OGH is a like and existing service. Even if OGH was not a like and existing service, such a conclusion would only be relevant if it were concluded that like and existing services must exist within the boundaries of the MSAs or that OGH was the only accessible acute care hospital to the residents of the MSAs. As stated, supra, the pertinent area is not the MSA but District 7 and there are clearly other acute care hospitals in District 7 and some of those hospitals are accessible. If Orange County alone is the appropriate service area for purposes of applying this criterion, the evidence clearly proves that the Petitioners do not meet the criterion. The evidence proves that there are available, quality, appropriate, efficient and adequate like and existing health care services in Orange County and District 7. The Ability of the Applicants to Provide Quality of Care; Section 381.494(6)(c)3. Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion has been meet. 113.. The Availability and Adequacy of Other Health Care Facilities and Services in the Service District which may Serve as Alternatives: Section 381.494(6)(c)4, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). There are clearly other health care facilities in Orange County providing like and existing services. The evidence does not, however, establish that there are other health care facilities and services in Orange County which are alternatives to a 100 bed acute care hospital. Transferring beds from existing facilities has been suggested as an alternative to the proposed new hospitals. This suggested "alternative" could be achieved as easily by approving a new hospital and closing some existing beds. The cost would be essentially the some. Transferring beds is not an alternative. Use of existing beds which are not being occupied is not a viable alternative either, as suggested by OGH in its proposed findings of fact. Probable Economies and Improvements in Service that may be Derived from Operation of Joint, Cooperative or Shared Health Care Resources; Section 381.494(6)(c)5, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). AMI's proposed facility may eventually share some services with Brookwood Community Hospital in the area of administrative management. Brookwood Community Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Brookwood") is a 157 bed general acute care hospital owned and operated by a limited partnership. The general partner and owner of 82.5 percent of the partnership is Brookwood Medical Center of Orlando, Inc., which in turn is owned by AMI. AMI presented its proposal assuming that there would not be any shared services with Brookwood. Through AMI, UCH, Inc., can receive price discounts for its purchases, typically 15 percent to 20 percent lower than the lowest price available in the market generally. UCH, Inc., will also be able to participate in Brookwood's preferred provider organization agreement. This could result in enhanced utilization of UCH, Inc., which could result in decreased health care costs. Winter Park will share some resources with its new hospital. The resources to be shared include Winter Park's incinerator, CAT Scanner, cardiac catheterization ion laboratory, and certain personnel. Centralized accounting, centralized purchasing and some centralized management would also be employed. Both proposals will have joint, cooperative or shared health care resources which would result in probable economics and improvements in service. The Need in the Service District of the Applicant for Special Equipment and Services not Reasonably and Economically Accessible in Adjoining Areas; Section 381.494(6)(c)6, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. The Need for Research and Educational Facilities: Section 81.494(6)(c) 7, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. The Availability of Resources; the Effects on Clinical Needs of Health Professional Training Programs in the Service District: Accessibility to Schools for Health Professionals: the Availability of Alternative Uses of Resources: Extent Accessible to All Residents; Section 381.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that Section 81.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), has been met to the extent it deals with "health and management manpower and personnel only." The other factors to be considered under this criterion were not stipulated to. The first factor to be considered is the availability of resources, including physicians and funds for capital and operating expenditures. The availability of funds will be discussed, infra. As to the availability of physicians, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that physicians are available to staff either of the proposed facilities. AMI proposed a finding of fact that ", unlike WPMH, AMI demonstrated that the major medical specialty areas will be represented by various physicians who will joint the UCH medical staff." AMI did demonstrate that various medical specialty physicians would be willing to work at UCH, Inc. It is also true that Winter Park did not demonstrate that all of the medical specialty physicians would be willing to work at its proposed facility. Despite these facts, several physicians testified that they would use Winter Park's proposed facility if it were approved instead of UCH, Inc., and Mr. Willard Wisler's unrebutted testimony establishes that Winter Park would have no difficulty staffing its proposed hospital. Both Petitioners have established that physician resources are available for project accomplishment and operation. The second and third factors to be considered are the effect the projects will have on clinical needs of health professional training programs in Orange County and, if available in a limited number of facilities, the extent to which services will be available to schools for health professionals in Orange County. The weight of the evidence does not establish that professional training programs are available in a limited number of facilities. In fact the evidence establishes that the University of Central Florida (hereinafter referred to as "UCF"), which is located in east Orange County, has fifty-two affiliation agreements with hospitals and other medical facilities. These affiliation agreements include agreements involving clinical training of radiology technicians at Florida Hospital and, in Brevard County, at Halifax Hospital. Approximately 32 radiology students are currently involved in hospital training programs. AMI presented evidence proving the existence of a proposed "affiliation agreement" between its proposed hospital and UCF. AMI and UCF have in fact entered into an Agreement of Intent. The Agreement of intent essentially provides, in relevant part, that AMI's proposed hospital, if approved, would provide clinical training to UCF radiology technician students. Approximately three to six UCF students per semester would receive training at the new hospital. The program with UCF will clearly have a positive effect on "clinical needs of health professional training programs" in Orange County. The agreement also provides for certain other benefits to UCF in the form of certain gifts. Those benefits, however, are not relevant in considering whether a certificate of need should be issued to AMI. The portion of Section 381.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), at issue in this proceeding requires only that the effect on "clinical needs of health professional training programs" be considered. AMI's gifts will not meet the "clinical needs" of health professional training programs. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to its gifts to UCF are unnecessary. Florida Hospital and Winter Park have proposed several findings of fact concerning AMI's motive in entering into the agreement with UCF. Those proposed findings are not supported by the evidence and are not relevant. Florida Hospital also has proposed findings of fact concerning whether a tertiary hospital would be a better facility for training, the effect of patient mix on training, the lack of any study by UCF to assess the benefits of the agreement and the fact that AMI's proposed facility will not be a teaching hospital or have full-time teachers. Those proposed findings are unnecessary. The fact is, the clinical training to be provided by AMI's facility will be a benefit to the clinical needs of health professional training programs in District 7. Because of the substantial amount of gifts to be made to UCF, which will be paid for by patients of AMI's facility, the costs of AMI's clinical program will be substantial. Winter Park is currently involved in meeting clinical needs of health professional training programs at a number of educational institutions, including UCF. Winter Park's involvement includes radiology and several other programs. Although no agreements have been entered into, programs to meet such clinical needs will be provided at Winter Park's new facility. Because Winter Park has not committed to make any gifts to educational institutions, the costs of its programs will probably be less than AMI's program. The fourth factor to be considered is the availability of alternative uses of resources for the' provision of other health services. The evidence presented at the hearing does not establish that there are not alternative uses of resources. The petitioners failed to present evidence sufficient to conclude that there are not alternative uses for available resources. Finally, the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district is to be considered. Both Petitioners are willing to accept all patients regardless of age, sex, race, color or national origin, and medically underserved groups. The Petitioners have met most, but not all, of the requirements of this criterion. Immediate and Long-Term Financial Feasibility; Section 1.494(6)(c)9. Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Immediate Financial Feasibility. AMI's proposed facility will be financed by a 50 percent equity contribution from AMI to UCF, Inc., and 50 percent debt financing from AMI at a maximum interest rate of 12 percent amortized over 30 years. AMI has sufficient lines of credit to cover the amount needed for debt financing. AMI also has sufficient cash and unrestricted liquid assets (almost $300,000,000.00 by the end of its 1984 fiscal year) and generates enough capital ($300,000,000.00 to $400,000,000.00 a year) to fund its equity contribution and the debt. AMI also has sufficient funds to provide working capital needs of UCF, Inc. Exactly how Winter Park's proposed facility will be financed is less clear. Both of the Petitioners have suggested that the other has not proved that it has "committed" itself to funding their respective proposals. Although the evidence does raise questions as to whether AMI or Winter Park has finally committed the total funds necessary to complete their proposals, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that both Petitioners are committed to funding their proposals. More importantly, the test is whether the Petitioners have available financing sources. University Community Hospital, et ala v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 5 F.A.L.R. 1346-A, 1360-A (1983). AMI clearly proved that its Executive Committee had approved its proposal. One of its witnesses, however, testified that the approval of capital expenditures of over $1,000,000.00 took approval of the full AMI Board of Directors. Winter Park clearly proved that its Board of Trustees had approved only $4,000,000.00 of the costs of its facility. Despite these facts, the evidence establishes that, although final approval of all the funds necessary to fund the proposals may not have been given, the funds necessary to insure the immediate, financial feasibility of both proposals are available. Where the funds will come from in Winter Park's case and the total amount of funds needed by Winter Park is far from being crystal clear. Winter Park failed to take into account several expenses it will incur, including sewer capacity reserve fees (approximately $160,500.00), telephone lease costs ($20,000.00) and possibly some interest expenses. There may also be an underestimate of the cost of debt financing, depending upon whether tax-exempt loans are available to Winter Park. The costs of sewer capacity reserve and the telephone lease can probably be covered by the contingency funds projected by Winter Park. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to equipment costs underestimates are rejected as unsupported by the weight of all of the evidence. Even with the understatement of project costs, the evidence supports a conclusion that Winter Park's proposal is immediately financial feasible. Winter Park currently has set aside "over $7,000,000.00" which can be applied to fund its proposal. (Although Winter Park has certain planned or ongoing capital improvements, the evidence does not prove that these improvements will be funded out of the funds set aside for the proposed new hospital, as suggested by AMI)'. Winter Park also has lines of credit with Barnett Bank and Sun Bank of $5,000,000.00 each. Neither line of credit has been used in the past. The Sun Bank line of credit was recently renewed and is available for one year. The Barnett Bank line of credit is also good for only one year. Both lines of credit have been renewed in the past. These lines of credit will have to be renewed before construction of Winter Park's facility begins. Winter Park presented no evidence as to whether the lines of credit would be renewed by either bank, however. Therefore, the record does not contain evidence as to whether the lines of credit will be available. Winter Park is also the sole beneficiary of the Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association Foundation, a not-for-profit foundation set upon to receive donations for the support of Winter Park. The Foundation "would make funds available to it [Winter Parka when needed." (Although testimony concerning Winter Park's alleged ability to "request" funds from the Foundation was struck, the quoted testimony was not objected to). The Foundation currently has $2,000,000.00 which could be provided to Winter Park. Finally, Winter Park has a commitment from Barnett Bank for a loan of $9,181,648.00. The loan has been committed whether interest on the loan is tax- free or taxable to Barnett Banks. Whether the loan is tax-free will affect the immediate and long- term financial feasibility of the proposal. If the loan is not tax-free, additional interest expense will be incurred; instead of being financed at a 7.696 interest rate, Winter Park will be charged approximately 11.5 percent interest if the loan is not tax- free. If the loan is tax-free, Winter Park may have failed to take into account costs associated with obtaining tax-free financing, i.e., underwriter's fees. AMI has proposed a number of findings of fact concerning additional costs associated with whether the Barnett Bank loan is tax-free. Those findings of fact are not relevant, however, in determining immediate financial `feasibility of Winter Park's proposal. The evidence establishes that the funds available to Winter Park are sufficient to cover Winter Park's projected costs and the costs it failed to include in its proposal (including the $1,20 0,000.00 of working capital which will be needed by the and of 1988). Both proposals are financially feasible in the short-term. Long Term Financial Feasibility. The Petitioners have failed to prove that their proposals are financially feasible in the long run. The projections of the Petitioners with regard to expected gross revenue depends upon whether their utilization projections are correct. Based upon the conclusion that there is no need for the proprosed facilities it is unrealistic to expect the facilities to be financially feasible. AMI's projections as to gross revenue depend on Mr. Richardson's need analysis for AMI's MSA. As discussed, supra, Mr. Richardson's projections were based upon unrealistic occupancy rates. Winter Park's projected utilization is based upon Winter Park's historical experience with its MSA for 1983. Mr. Talbert's and Mr. John Winfrey's reliance on this data in light of the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals in Orange County is misplaced. Determining utilization of Winter Park's proposed hospital in future years based on utilization of an existing hospital in light of the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals is very suspect. The fact that east Orange County is expected to grow in terms of population does not eliminate the concern with regard to utilization. Orange County has been growing since 1980 and before. Despite that growth, hospital utilization has declined. As to the projected expenses of the proposed hospitals which effect the financial feasibility of the proposals, it appears that AMI's projections are reasonable. A number of questions concerning Winter Park's expenses were raised, however, by the evidence. The evidence supports a finding that Winter Park has failed to take into account some expenses which will affect the long term financial feasibility of its proposal. Expenses not taken into account include phone lease expenses ($15,000.00 to $20,000.00), indigent care assessments ($58,000.00 in the second year of operation) and start-up costs ($22,680.00 a year). The evidence, however, also supports a finding that Winter Park's estimate of medicare contractual allowances was $318,900.00 too high and that depreciation expense was $130,000.00 too high. These overstatements of expenses are more than sufficient to cover the understatements of expenses discussed in this paragraph. The primary problem with Winter Park's estimate of expenses is that Winter Park has projected interest expense at a tax- exempt rate of 7.6 percent. The evidence does not prove that Winter Park can, however, obtain tax-exempt financing. Winter Park only presented evidence that Barnett Bank is willing to loan funds on a tax-exempt or taxable basis. Winter Park must, however, obtain approval of its proposed tax-exempt financing from the Orange County Health Facilities Authority. See Chapter 154, Florida Statutes (1983). No evidence that such approval could be obtained was presented at the hearing. Winter has therefore failed to prove that its estimated interest expenses can be achieved. The evidence also shows that if Winter Park cannot obtain tax-exempt financing, it will have to borrow funds at an 11.5 percent interest rate. This rate of interest can be obtained, but the additional interest expense would result in a net loss for the second year of operation. Based upon the foregoing, Winter Park has failed to prove that its proposal is financially feasible in the long-term. Winter Park has proposed findings of fact to the effect that it could charge a higher rate for its services to cover understated expenses. No evidence was presented, however, that proves that Winter Park would be willing or committed to a higher charge for its services. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to expenses for utilities, food and drugs, other operating expenses, incinerator costs and equipment costs are rejected. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to the goal of Winter Park to achieve an optimum profit margin of 5 percent to 7 percent are rejected because that goal does not apply to the proposed facility. The projected profit margin of the proposed facility is only seven-tenths of one percent. AMI's proposed findings of fact as to the years projections were made for (two years instead of five), the manner of making those projections (no balance sheet, no cash flow statements and no quarterly breakdowns) and the lack of a feasibility study are not necessary. AMI's remaining proposed findings of facts concerning "soft spots" in Winter Park's projections are also rejected. Special Needs and Circumstances of Health Maintenance Organizations; Section 381.494(6)(c)10, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. Needs and Circumstances of Entities which Provide Services or Resources to Individuals not Residing in the Service District or Adjacent Service Districts; Section 381.494(6)(c)11, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. Probable Impact of the Proposal on the Costs of Providing Health Services; Section 381.494(6)(c)12, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The weight of the evidence clearly supports a conclusion that if either of the proposed hospitals is approved, the probable impact on the costs of providing health services would be negative. The only real question raised by the evidence is the degree of the negative impact. It has already been found that there will be an excess of beds in Orange County in 1990 and that utilization rates are decreasing and will continue to do so. To add 100 acute care beds to an already over-bedded subdistrict can only further add to the number of excessive beds. Patients who would occupy 100 new acute care beds would have access to other hospitals in Orange County if a new hospital is not approved. If it is assumed that patients could be attracted to a new hospital in the MSA's it necessarily follows that those patients will not use an existing, already underutilized, hospital in Orange County, Seminole County or the rest of District 7. Additionally, the evidence clearly shows that some patients who currently use existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals would be attracted to a new hospital in the MSAs. AMI has suggested that such a loss of patients would be "minimal." Minimal or not, the loss of any number of patients would result in a loss of patient days and revenue to existing hospitals which are on average already underutilized. If patients are lost by existing hospitals, the ability to serve indigents could be adversely affected. The projected population growth for the MSA's does not solve the problem either. Orange County has been experiencing population growth during the 1980's, as well as prior to 1980. Despite this population growth, utilization rates have been decreasing. Even Mr. Richardson, AMI's expert health planner, admitted there would be an impact on existing hospitals. Mr. Richardson indicated that there would a "1.5 percent occupancy impact on the system" by 1990 based upon Mr. Margolis' analysis. Mr. Richardson indicated that such an impact would be "minimal." Whether a 1.5 percent impact is minimal is not the issue. The issue is what effect such an impact would have. The weight of the evidence clearly supports the finding that the impact would be negative and the citizens of Orange County would suffer the consequences of that "minimal" impact. Florida Hospital's expert health planner, Mr. Margolis, was the most credible witness with regard to this criterion. His testimony proves that Florida Hospital and OGH could lose 5,400 to 6,000 patient days if a new 100 acute care hospital is approved. How much the dollar loss would be as a result of such a decrease in patient days is not clear. There was testimony that OGH could lose $1,000,000.00 to $3,500,000.00 in gross revenue. AMI has again suggested that the loss in patient days and revenue to OGH would be minimal and that OGH's testimony as to the amount of loss was misleading. Mr. Patrick Deegan, who testified as an expert in finance for OGH, did fail to take into account any reduction in expenses which might be associated with a loss in revenue and also failed to take into account increases in revenue as a result of growth. Although these factors could influence the amount of projected losses in revenue, the fact remains that a new acute care hospital could and probably would have a negative impact on OGH. AMI has also suggested that OGH could and should reduce its staff. This suggestion is based upon a comparison of OGH's staffing patterns and UCH Inc's proposed staffing. The record does not support AMI's proposed findings of fact. The record does not prove that UCH, Inc's, proposed staff will be at a more appropriate staffing level. Nor does the record establish that a reduction in staff at OGH would be detrimental, as suggested by OGH. As to Florida Hospital, AMI also suggests that any impact to its campuses would be minimal, if any. It is true that there probably would be no impact on Florida Hospital's Apopka campus. Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, however, gets 20 percent of its admission from the MSAs and its Altamonte Springs campus gets 3 percent of its admissions from the MSAs, as AMI points out in its proposed findings of fact. If any of those patients utilize a new hospital in the MSAs, Florida Hospital will lose patients and will be adversely affected. AMI suggested several findings of fact with regard to the financial well-being of Florida Hospital, the addition of beds at its Altamonte Springs and Orlando campuses and its motives in intervening in these cases. These proposed facts do not support a finding that Florida Hospital would not be negatively affected by the opening of a new 100 acute care bed hospital in Orange County. Finally, Winter Park has proposed findings of fact to the effect that a new Winter Park hospital in the MSAs will foster competition and thereby lower costs in Orange County for hospital services. The record does not support these proposed findings of fact in light of the excess of beds in District 7 and the underutilization of existing beds. Based upon the foregoing, Section 381.494(6)(c)12, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), has not been met by the Petitioners' proposals. Costs and Methods of Construction; Section 381.494(6)(c)13, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The Petitioners only partially proved that Section 381.494(6)(c)13, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), will be met. This section requires proof as to the costs and methods of construction, including methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly or more effective methods of construction. The Petitioners only proved that the costs of construction would be reasonable. AMI's proposed facility will have 99,000 square feet. The total cost of construction will be $10,095,000.00 including $650,000.00 for site preparation, $8,161,000.00 for labor, materials, overhead and profit, $406,000.00 for contingencies and $878,000.00 for inflation. Architectural and engineering fees will cost an additional $566,700.00. AMI's costs of construction do not include the $236,800.00 cost of reserving sewage capacity or the costs of obtaining appropriate rezoning of its property. These costs will add to the total cost of construction and the total cost of the proposal. AMI's contingency funds are sufficient to cover these amounts. AMI's additional findings of fact concerning construction costs are cumulative or unnecessary for purposes of determining if this criterion has been met. Winter Parks's proposed facility will have 98,763 square feet. Total cost of construction projected by Winter Park is $10,415,000.00, consisting of $375,000.00 for site preparation, $9,000,000.00 for labor, materials, overhead and profit, $468,700.00 for contingencies and $552,200.00 for inflation. Winter Park's projections do not include the costs of reserving sewage capacity which will add approximately $150,000.00 in costs. This additional amount can be covered by the contingency amount. Although the evidence was contradictory, Winter Park did not inadvertently leave out the cost of an incinerator--there will be no incinerator at the new hospital. Although the Petitioners presented testimony to the effect that their projected costs of construction are reasonable, no consideration was given to whether the proposed facilities would be developments of regional impact (hereinafter referred to as "DRI") under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (1983), and the costs associated with such a determination. The evidence supports conclusion that there will be some costs associated with the determination of whether the proposals are DRIs. The additional cost, however, does not appear to be significant. The Petitioners have failed to prove that the methods of construction are reasonable. They have also failed to prove that the provision of energy will be reasonable or that there are not alternative, less costly, or more efficient methods of construction available. Section 381.494(6)(d). Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). In addition to considering the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), Section 381.494(6)(d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), requires findings of fact in cases of capital expenditure proposals for new health services to inpatients as follows: That less costly, more efficient, or more appropriate alternatives to such inpatient services are not available and the development of such alternatives has been studied and found not practicable. The existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. In the case of new construction, that alternatives to new construction, for example, modernization or sharing arrangements, have been considered and have been implemented to the maximum extent practicable. That patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed, in the absence of the proposed new service. In the case of a proposal for the addition of beds for the provision of skilled nursing or intermediate care services, that the addition will be consistent with the plans of other agencies of the state responsible for the provision and financing of long-term care, including home health services. The facts concerning the first three items quoted are favorable to the Petitioners. The last one does not apply. The fourth item has not been proved to be true in this case. Summary. In summary, the evidence proves that an application of the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), does not demonstrate the need for either of the proposed facilities. The Petitioners have only proved that they can provide quality of care, that there are not alternatives to their proposals, that they will have shared resources, that personnel are available, that they have the capital to create the facilities, that they will improve the clinical needs of health professional training programs, and that their proposals are `financially feasible in the short-run. The Petitioners, however, have failed to prove any need for the facilities. Their proposals are not consistent with the local health plan or the State health plan. There are sufficient, underutilized existing hospitals to meet any need for hospital care and they will be adversely affected by the proposed facilities. The proposed facilities are not financially feasible in the long run. THE NEED FOR A CAT SCANNER AMI is also seeking a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner in this proceeding. The determination of whether such a certificate of need should be issued is governed by Section 10-5.11(13), F.A.C. In order to qualify for CAT Scanner, AMI must first obtain approval of its proposed hospital. Because it has been concluded that a certificate of need for a new hospital should not be granted, AMI should not be granted a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner; it will not qualify under Section 10- 5.11(13), F.A.C. In an abundance of caution, the following findings of fact are made as to whether a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner should be issued if AMI's application for a certificate of need for an acute care hospital is approved by the Department. Section 10-5.11(13)(b), F.A.C., provides that a favorable determination will not be given to applicants failing to meet the standards and criteria of Section 10-5.11(13)(b)1-10, F.A.C. The evidence clearly establishes that AMI's CAT Scanner application meets the standards of Sections 10- 5.11(13)(b) 1-3 and 7-9, F.A.C. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)4, F.A.C., does not apply. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)5, F.A.C., requires that an applicant document that there is a need for at least 1,800 scans to be accomplished in the first year of operation and at least 2,400 scans per year thereafter. Mr. Richardson testified that this standard is intended to apply to existing providers and that for a new hospital the need should apply to a five year horizon (1990 in this case). Mr. Richardson indicated that in 1990, this standard can be met. The language of Section 10-5.11(13(b)5, is clear; there must be a need documented for the first year of operation and each year thereafter. In this case, the first year of operation will be 1987. AMI has not documented that there is a need for 1800 scans in 1987 or 2,400 scans per year thereafter. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)6, F.A.C., requires that the applicant document that the number of scans per existing scanner exceeded 2,400 during the "preceding 12 months." The evidence establishes that during the 12 months preceding the hearing all of the fixed CAT Scanners located at hospitals except two were being used for more than 2,400 scans. Again, Mr. Richardson indicated that this standard should be applied to the 12 months preceding 1990. That is not what the rule specifies. The standard applies to the 12 months preceding the hearing. The two units that have not been used for 2,400 scans just started operation, however. Because the rule requires that in the first year of operation only 1,800 scans need to be performed, those units should not be considered in determining if AMI meets this standard. Therefore, AMI meets the requirements of Section 10-5.11(13)(b)6, F.A.C. The last standard, Section 10-5.11(13)(b)10, F.A.C., provides that extenuating circumstances pertaining to health care quality or access problems, improved cost benefit consideration or research needs may be considered. The facts do not support a finding that there are extenuating circumstances in this case. The facts do prove that any hospital such as the AMI proposed hospital should have access to a CAT Scanner. This need, however, can be met by a mobile CAT Scanner or by transferring patients to a facility with a CAT Scanner, although the latter alternative is less desirable. The evidence clearly proves that there is not access problem with regard to obtaining the services of a CAT Scanner. AMI has not met the requirements of Section 10-5.11(13)(b), F.A.C. Taking into account the factors to be considered under Section 10-5.11(13)(a)1- 8, F.A.C., also supports a finding that a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner should not be issued to AMI even if there is a need for its proposed hospital.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the certificate of need applications for a 100-bed acute care hospital and CAT Scanner filed by AMI, case number 84-1819, be denied. It is further DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Baggett, Esquire Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire ROBERTS, BAGGETT, LaFACE & RICHARD 101 East College Avenue Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Von Eckhardt, Esquire American Medical International, Inc. 414 Camden Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire OERTEL & HOFFMAN, P.A. Suite C 2700 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. P. "Rusty" Carolan, III, Esquire WINDERWEEDLE, HAINES, WARD & WOODMAN, P.A. P.O. Box 880 Winter Park, Florida 32790-0880 Harden King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 E. G. "Dan" Boone, Esquire Stephen K. Boone, Esquire E.G. BOONE, P.A. P.O. Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire Brain D. Stokes, Esquire MATEER & HARBERT, P.A. 100 East Robinson Street P.O. Box 2854 Orlando, Florida 32802 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 LIST OF WITNESSES AMI NAME EXPERTISE Jim Palmer Phillip L. Coppage Hospital administration including staffing. Thomas C. Wohlford Patient group and insurance programs in the health care industry. J.D. Garland Health care facilities, including hospital construction management and budgeting and cost estimating. Manuel Viamonte, M.D. Radiology. Dick Chadbourne Manpower staffing requirements for health care facilities. Jan Stirrat Health care facility equipment planning and equipment cost budgeting. Preston Thompson Physician relations and recruiting. Joseph Akerman, M.D. Peter Hiribarnc, M.D. Louis Trefonas, Ph.D. Need, development and operation of sponsored research projects at UCF. Thomas S. Mendenhall, Ph.D. Need, development and operation of health education and affiliation programs. Alan Denner, M.D. Louis C. Murray, M.D. Joseph Sandberg, M.D. Myles Douglas, M.D. Robert D. Fennell Corporate health facilities planning, processing, implementation and development. Manuel J. Coto, M.D. Jerold J. Faden, M.D. Zivko Z. Gajk, M.D. Don Steigman Hospital operations and administration. William A. Tipton Traffic and transportation. Neal B. Hiler Civil engineering and property site analysis. Trevor Colbourn Ben E. Whisenant Frederick A. Raffa, Ph.D. Demographics and socioeconomic forecasting. Nilo Regis, M.D. Richard Pajot Mark Richardson Health planning. Richard Altman Hospital management engineering. Walter Wozniak Armond Balsano Health care facility financial feasibility and analysis and third- party reimbursements. Rick Knapp Health care facility financial feasibility and analysis, third- party reimbursement and rate-setting for health care facilities. Richard Anderson Edward E. Weller Real estate appraisal. John Winfrey Health care accounting and financial feasibility analysis. Van Talbert Health care planning. Margo Kelly Financial management, analysis and feasibility. WINTER PARK NAME EXPERTISE Katherine J. Brown Florida Hospital Cost Containment Board procedures; hospital costs and charges, data gathering and review; and hospital costs and charges comparisons. Karl Schramm, Ph.D. Hospital cost and charges and comparisons thereof and health care financing, including the impact upon the health care consumer. Willard Wisler Hospital administration including staffing and operating hospitals. John H. Roger Construction design and costs, including site preparation, and analysis thereof, in central Florida; including health care facilities construction. R. Sans Lassiter Traffic engineering, travel times and access in central Florida. Richard Anderson Sarah Mobley Equipment and cost of equipment. William J. Serow, Ph.D. Demographics. Van Talbert Health care planning. John Winfrey Health care accounting and financial feasibility analysis. Robert C. Liden Investment banking, including tax-exempt financing of health care facilities. Lewis A. Siefert Hospital accounting and Medicare Reimbursement. FLORIDA HOSPITAL NAME EXPERTISE Steven Windham Health planning. W. Eugene Nelson Health planning, CON administration and transportation planning. Ronald J. Skantz Radiology training and management. Sven Kansman Traffic engineering and travel time studies. John Crissey Stan Smith, Ph.D. Demographics. Gabriel Mayer, M.D. Physician. Larry Margolis Health care planning, hospital administration, facility planning, HMO's and PPO's. Scott Allen Miller Health care accounting and financial feasibility. OGH NAME EXPERTISE Patrick J. Carson, D.O. Medical emergencies and operation of an emergency room. Tracey Watson Michael Sherry B. Jean Martell Walter J. Wozniak Lawrence Kramer, O.D. Family practice. Patrick Deegan Accounting, hospital finance and budgeting. Andrea Walsh DEPARTMENT NAME EXPERTISE W. Eugene Nelson Health planning, CON administration and transportation planning. PUBLIC WITNESSES Mike Baumann Bob Mandell Luddy Goetz Martin Goodman Yvonne Opfell Martin Lebnick
The Issue Whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 9992, filed by Sun City Hospital, Inc., d/b/a South Bay Hospital to establish a 112-bed replacement hospital in Riverview, Hillsborough County, Florida, satisfies, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for approval.
Findings Of Fact The Parties A. South Bay South Bay is a 112-bed general acute care hospital located at 4016 Sun City Center Boulevard, Sun City Center, Florida. It has served south Hillsborough County from that location since its original construction in 1982. South Bay is a wholly-owned for-profit subsidiary of Hospital Corporation of America, Inc. (HCA), a for-profit corporation. South Bay's service area includes the immediate vicinity of Sun City Center, the communities of Ruskin and Wimauma (to the west and east of Sun City Center, respectively), and the communities of Riverview, Gibsonton, and Apollo Beach to the north. See FOF 68-72. South Bay is located on the western edge of Sun City Center. The Sun City Center area is comprised of the age- restricted communities of Sun City Center, Kings Point, Freedom Plaza, and numerous nearby senior living complexes, assisted- living facilities, and nursing homes. This area geographically comprises the developed area along the north side of State Road (SR) 674 between I–75 and U.S. Highway 301, north to 19th Avenue and south to the Little Manatee River. South Bay predominantly serves the residents of the Sun City Center area. In 2009, Sun City Center residents comprised approximately 57% of all discharges from SB. South Bay had approximately 72% market share in Sun City Center zip code 33573. (Approximately 32% of all market service area discharges came from zip code 33573.) South Bay provides educational programs at the hospital that are well–attended by community residents. South Bay provides comprehensive acute care services typical of a small to mid-sized community hospital, including emergency services, surgery, diagnostic imaging, non-invasive cardiology services, and endoscopy. It does not provide diagnostic or therapeutic cardiac catheterization or open-heart surgery. Patients requiring interventional cardiology services or open-heart surgery are taken directly by Hillsborough County Fire Rescue or other transport to a hospital providing those services, such as Brandon Regional Hospital (Brandon) or SJH, or are transferred from SB to one of those hospitals. South Bay has received a number of specialty accreditations, which include accreditation by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), specialty accreditation as an advanced primary stroke center, and specialty accreditation by the Society for Chest Pain. South Bay has also received recognition for its quality of care and, in particular, for surgical infection prevention and outstanding services relating to heart attack, heart failure, and pneumonia. South Bay's 112 licensed beds comprise 104 general medical-surgical beds and eight Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds. Of the general medical-surgical beds, 64 are in semi-private rooms, where two patient beds are situated side-by-side, separated by a curtain. Forty-eight are in private rooms. Semi- private rooms present challenges in terms of infection control and patient privacy, and are no longer the standard of care in hospital design and construction. Over the years, SB has upgraded its hospital physical plant to accommodate new medical technology, including an MRI suite and state-of-the-art telemetry equipment. South Bay is implementing automated dispensing cabinets on patient floors for storage of medications and an electronic medication administration record system that provides an extra safety measure for dispensing medications. Since 2009, SB has implemented numerous programmatic initiatives that have improved the quality of care. South Bay is converting one wing of the hospital to an orthopedic unit. In 2001, South Bay completed a major expansion of its ED and support spaces, but has not added new beds. Patients presenting to the ED have received high quality of care and timely care. Since 2009, SB has improved its systems of care and triage of patients in the ED to improve patient flow and reduce ED wait times. Overall, South Bay has a reputation of providing high- quality care in a timely manner, notwithstanding problems with its physical plant and location. South Bay's utilization has been high historically. From 2006 to 2009, SB's average occupancy has been 79.5%, 80.3%, 77.2%, and 77.7%, respectively. Its number of patient discharges also increased in that time, from 6,190 in 2006 to 6,540 in 2009, at an average annual rate increase of 1.9%. (From late November until May, the seasonal months, utilization is very high, sometimes at 100% or greater.) Despite its relatively high utilization, SB has also had marginal financial results historically. It lost money in 2005 and 2007, with operating losses of $644,259 in 2005 and $1,151,496 in 2007 and bottom-line net losses of $447,957 (2005) and $698,305 (2007). The hospital had a significantly better year in 2009, with an operating gain of $3,365,113 and a bottom- line net profit of $2,144,292. However, this was achieved largely due to a reduction in bad debt from $11,927,320 in 2008 to $7,772,889 in 2009, an event the hospital does not expect to repeat, and a coincidence of high surgical volume. Its 2010 financial results were lagging behind those of 2009 at the time of the hearing. South Bay's 2009 results amount to an aberration, and it is likely that 2010 would be considerably less profitable. South Bay's marginal financial performance is due, in part, to its disproportionate share of Medicare patients and a disproportionate percentage of Medicare reimbursement in its payor mix. Medicare reimburses hospitals at a significantly lower rate than managed care payors. As noted, SB is organizationally a part of HCA's West Florida Division, and is one of two HCA-affiliated hospitals in Hillsborough County; Brandon is the other. (There are approximately 16 hospitals in this division.) Brandon has been able to add beds over the past several years, and its services include interventional cardiology and open-heart surgery. However, SB and Brandon combined still have fewer licensed beds than either St. Joseph's Hospital or Tampa General Hospital, and fewer than the BayCare Health System- affiliated hospitals in Hillsborough in total. South Bay's existing physical plant is undersized and outdated. See discussion below. Whether it has a meaningful opportunity for expansion and renovation at its 17.5-acre site is a question for this proceeding to resolve. South Bay proposes the replacement and relocation of its facility to the community of Riverview. In 2005, SB planned to establish an 80-bed satellite hospital in Riverview, on a parcel owned by HCA and located on the north side of Big Bend Road between I-75 and U.S. Highway 301. SB filed CON Application No. 9834 in the February 2005 batching cycle. The application was preliminarily denied by AHCA, and SB initially contested AHCA's determination. South Bay pursued the satellite hospital CON at that time because of limited availability of intercompany financing from HCA. By the time of the August 2007 batching cycle, intercompany financing had improved, allowing SB to pursue the bigger project of replacing and relocating the hospital. South Bay dismissed its petition for formal administrative hearing, allowing AHCA's preliminary denial of CON Application No. 9834 to become final, and filed CON Application No. 9992 to establish a replacement hospital facility on Big Bend Road in Riverview. St. Joseph's Hospital St. Joseph's Hospital was founded by the Franciscan Sisters of Allegany, New York, as a small hospital in a converted house in downtown Tampa in 1934. In 1967, SJH opened its existing main hospital facility on Martin Luther King Avenue in Tampa, Florida. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc., a not-for-profit entity, is the licensee of St. Joseph's Hospital, an acute care hospital located at 3001 West Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. As a not-for-profit organization, SJH's mission is to improve the health care of the community by providing high- quality compassionate care. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc., is a Medicaid disproportionate share provider and provided $145 million in charity and uncompensated care in 2009. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc., is licensed to operate approximately 883 beds, including acute care beds; Level II and Level III neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) beds; and adult and child-adolescent psychiatric beds. The majority of beds are semi-private. Services include Level II and pediatric trauma services, angioplasty, and open-heart surgery. These beds and services are distributed among SJH's main campus; St. Joseph's Women's Hospital; St. Joseph's Hospital North, a newer satellite hospital in north Tampa; and St. Joseph's Children's Hospital. Except for St. Joseph's Hospital North, these facilities are land-locked. Nevertheless, SJH has continued to invest in its physical plant and to upgrade its medical technology and equipment. In February 2010, SJH opened St. Joseph's Hospital North, a state-of-the-art, 76-bed satellite hospital in Lutz, north Hillsborough County, at a cost of approximately $225 million. This facility is approximately 14 miles away from the main campus. This followed the award of CON No. 9610 to SJH for the establishment of St. Joseph's Hospital North, which was unsuccessfully opposed by University Community Hospital and Tampa General Hospital, two existing hospital providers in Tampa. Univ. Cmty. Hosp., Inc., d/b/a Univ. Cmty. Hosp. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., Case Nos. 03-0337CON and 03-0338CON. St. Joseph's Hospital North operates under the same license and under common management. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc., is also the holder of CON No. 9833 for the establishment of a 90-bed state-of-the-art satellite hospital on Big Bend Road, Riverview, Hillsborough County. These all private beds include general medical-surgical beds, an ICU, and a 10-bed obstetrical unit. On October 21, 2009, the Agency revised CON No. 9833 with a termination date of October 21, 2012. This project was unsuccessfully opposed by TG, SB, and Brandon. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., Case No. 05-2754CON, supra. St. Joseph's Hospital anticipates construction beginning in October 2012 and opening the satellite hospital, to be known as St. Joseph's Hospital South, in early 2015. This hospital will be operating under SJH's existing license and Medicare and Medicaid provider numbers and will in all respects be an integral component of SJH. The implementation of St. Joseph's Hospital South is underway. SJH has contracted with consultants, engineers, architects, and contractors and has funded the first phase of the project with $6 million, a portion of which has been spent. The application for CON No. 9833 refers to "evidence- based design" and the construction of a state-of-the-art facility. (The design of St. Joseph's Hospital North also uses "evidence-based design.") St. Joseph's Hospital South will have all private rooms, general surgery operating rooms as well as endoscopy, and a 10-bed obstetrics unit. Although CON No. 9833 is for a project involving 228,810 square feet of new construction, SJH intends to build a much larger facility, approximately 400,000 square feet on approximately 70 acres. St. Joseph's Hospital Main's physical plant is 43 years old. The majority of the patient rooms are semi–private and about 35% of patients admitted at this hospital received private rooms. Notwithstanding the age of its physical plant and its semi–private bed configuration, SJH has a reputation of providing high quality of care and is a strong competitor in its market. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc., has two facility expansions currently in progress at its main location in Tampa: a new five-story building that will house SJH neonatal intensive care unit, obstetrical, and gynecology services; and a separate, two-story addition with 52 private patient rooms. Of the 52 private patient rooms, 26 will be dedicated to patients recovering from orthopedic surgery, and will be large enough to allow physical therapy to be done in the patient room itself. The other 26 rooms will be new medical-surgical ICU beds at the hospital. At the same time that SJH expands its main location, it is pursuing a strategic plan whereby the main location is the "hub" of its system, with community hospitals and health facilities located in outlying communities. As proposed in CON Application No. 9610, St. Joseph's Hospital North was to be 240,000 square feet in size. Following the award of CON No. 9610, SJH requested that AHCA modify the CON to provide for construction of a larger facility. In its modification request, SJH requested to establish a large, state- of-the-art facility with all private patient rooms, and the desirability of private patient rooms as a matter of infection control and patient preference. AHCA granted the modification. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc., thereafter planned to construct St. Joseph's Hospital North to be four stories in height. The plan was opposed. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc., offered to construct a three-story building, large enough horizontally to accommodate the CON square footage modification. The offer was accepted. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc., markets St. Joseph's Hospital North as "The Hospital of the Future, Today." The hospital was constructed using "evidence-based design" to maximize operational efficiencies and enhance the healing process of its residents –- recognizing, among other things, the role of the patient's family and friends. The facility's patient care units are all state-of-the-art and include, for example, obstetrical suites in which a visiting family member can spend the night. A spacious, sunlit atrium and a "healing garden" are also provided. The hospital's dining facility is frequented by community residents. In addition, SJH owns a physician group practice under HealthPoint Medical Group, a subsidiary of St. Joseph's Health Care Center, Inc. The group practice has approximately 19 different office locations, including several within the service area for the proposed hospital. The group includes approximately 106 physicians. However, most of the office locations are in Tampa, and the group does not have an office in Riverview, although there are plans to expand locations to include the Big Bend Road site. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc., anticipates having to establish a new medical staff for St. Joseph's Hospital South, and will build a medical office building at the site for the purpose of attracting physicians. It further anticipates that some number of physicians on SB's existing medical staff will apply for privileges at St. Joseph's Hospital South. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc., is the market leader among Hillsborough County hospitals and is currently doing well financially, as it has historically. For 2010, St. Joseph's Hospital Main's operating income was approximately $78 million. Organizationally, SJH has a parent organization, St. Joseph's Health Care Center, Inc., and is one of eight hospitals in the greater Tampa Bay area affiliated with BayCare. On behalf of its member hospitals, BayCare arranges financing for capital projects, provides support for various administrative functions, and negotiates managed care contracts that cover its members as a group. St. Joseph's Hospital characterizes fees paid for BayCare services as an allocation of expenses rather than a management fee for its services. In 2009, SJH paid BayCare approximately $42 million for services. St. Joseph's Hospital is one of three BayCare affiliates in Hillsborough County. The other two are St. Joseph's Hospital North and South Florida Baptist Hospital, a community hospital in Plant City. St. Joseph's Hospital South would be the fourth BayCare hospital in the county. Tampa General The Hillsborough County Hospital Authority, a public body appointed by the county, operated Tampa General Hospital until 1997. In that year, TG was leased to Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., a non-profit corporation and the current hospital licensee. Tampa General is a 1,018-bed acute care hospital located at 2 Columbia Drive, Davis Island, Tampa, Florida. In addition to trauma surgery services, TG provides tertiary services, such as angioplasty, open-heart surgery, and organ transplantation. Tampa General operates the only burn center in the area. A rehabilitation hospital is connected to the main hospital, but there are plans to relocate this facility. Tampa General owns a medical office building. Tampa General is JCAHO accredited and has received numerous honors. Tampa General provides high-quality of care. Approximately half of the beds at TG are private rooms. Tampa General's service area for non-tertiary services includes all of Hillsborough County. Tampa General is also the teaching hospital for the University of South Florida's College of Medicine. As a statutory teaching hospital, TG has 550 residents and funds over 300 postgraduate physicians in training. Tampa General is the predominant provider of services to Medicaid recipients and the medically indigent of Hillsborough County. It is considered the only safety-net hospital in Hillsborough County. (A safety net hospital provides a disproportionate amount of care to indigent and underinsured patients in comparison to other hospitals.) A high volume of indigent (Medicaid and charity) patients are discharged from TG. In 2009, the costs TG incurred treating indigent patients exceeded reimbursement by $56.5 million. Approximately 33% of Tampa General's patients are Medicare patients and 25% commercial. Tampa General has grown in the past 10 years. It added 31 licensed acute care beds in 2004 and 82 more since SB's application was filed in 2007. In addition, the Bayshore Pavilion, a $300-million project, was recently completed. The project enlarged TG's ED, and added a new cardiovascular unit, a new neurosciences and trauma center, a new OB-GYN floor, and a new gastrointestinal unit. Facility improvements are generally ongoing. Tampa General's capital budget for 2011 is approximately $100 million. In 2010, TG's operating margin was approximately $43 million and a small operating margin in 2011. AHCA AHCA is the state agency that administers the CON law. Jeff Gregg testified that during his tenure, AHCA has never preliminarily denied a replacement hospital CON application or required consideration of alternatives to a replacement hospital. Mr. Gregg opined that the lack of alternatives or options is a relevant consideration when reviewing a replacement hospital CON application. T 468. The Agency's State Agency Action Report (SAAR) provides reasons for preliminarily approving SB's CON application. During the hearing, Mr. Gregg testified, in part, that the primary reasons for preliminary approval were issues related to quality of care "because the facility represents itself as being unable to expand or adapt significantly to the rapidly changing world of acute care. This is consistent with what [he has] heard about other replacement hospitals." T 413. Mr. Gregg also noted that SB focused on improving access "[a]nd as the years go by, it is reasonable to expect that the population outside of Sun City Center, the immediate Sun City Center area, will steadily increase and improve access for more people, and that's particularly true because this application includes both a freestanding emergency department and a shuttle service for the people in the immediate area. And that was intended to address their concerns based upon the fact that they have had this facility very conveniently located for them in the past at a time when there was little development in the general south Hillsborough area. But the applicant wants to position itself for the expected growth in the future, and we think has made an excellent effort to accommodate the immediate interests of Sun City Center residents with their promises to do the emergency, freestanding emergency department and the shuttle service so that the people will continue to have very comfortable access to the hospital." T 413-14. Mr. Gregg reiterated "that the improvements in quality outweigh any concerns that [the Agency] should have about the replacement and relocation of this facility; that if this facility were to be forced to remain where it is, over time it would be reasonable to expect that quality would diminish." T 435. For AHCA, replacement hospital applications receive the same level of scrutiny as any other acute care hospital applications. T 439-40. South Bay's existing facility and site South Bay is located on the north side of SR 674, an east-west thoroughfare in south Hillsborough County. The area around the hospital is "built out" with predominantly residential development. Sun City Center, an age-restricted (55 and older) retirement community, is located directly across SR 674 from the hospital as well as on the north side of SR 674 to the east of the hospital. Other residential development is immediately to the west of the hospital on the north side of SR 674. See FOF 3-6. Sun City Center is flanked by two north-south arterial roadways, I-75 to the west and U.S. Highway 301 to the east, both of which intersect with SR 674. The community of Ruskin is situated generally around the intersection of SR 674 and U.S. 41, west of I-75. The community of Wimauma is situated along SR 674 just east of U.S. Highway 301. South Bay is located in a three-story building that is well–maintained and in relatively good repair. The facility is well laid out in terms of design as a community hospital. Patients and staff at SB are satisfied with the quality of care and scope of acute care services provided at the hospital. Notwithstanding current space limitations, and problems in the ICU, see FOF 77-82, patients receive a high quality of care. One of the stated reasons for replacement is with respect to SB's request to have all private patient rooms in order to be more competitive with St. Joseph's Hospital South. South Bay's inpatient rooms are located within the original construction. The hospital is approximately 115,800 square feet, or a little over 1,000 square feet per inpatient bed. By comparison, small to mid-sized community hospitals built today are commonly 2,400 square feet per inpatient bed on average. All of SB's patient care units are undersized by today's standards, with the exception of the ED. ICU patients, often not ambulatory, require a higher level of care than other hospital patients. The ICU at SB is not adequate to meet the level of care required by the ICU patient. SB's ICU comprises eight rooms with one bed apiece. Eight beds are not enough. As Dr. Ksaibati put it at hearing: "Right now we have eight and we are always short . . . double . . . the number of beds, that's at least [the] minimum [t]hat I expect we are going to have if we go to a new facility." T 198-99 (emphasis added). The shortage of beds is not the only problem. The size of SB's ICU rooms is too small. (Problems with the ICU have existed at least since 2006.) Inadequate size prohibits separate, adjoining bathrooms. For patients able to leave their beds, therefore, portable bathroom equipment in the ICU room is required. Inadequate size, the presence of furniture, and the presence of equipment in the ICU room creates serious quality of care issues. When an EKG is conducted, the nurse cannot be present in the room. Otherwise, there would be no space for the EKG equipment. It is difficult to intubate a patient and, at times, "extremely dangerous." T 170. A major concern is when a life-threatening problem occurs that requires emergency treatment at the ICU patient's bedside. For example, when a cardiac arrest "code" is called, furniture and the portable bathroom equipment must be removed before emergency cardiac staff and equipment necessary to restore the function of the patient's heart can reach the patient for the commencement of treatment. Comparison to ICU rooms at other facilities underscores the inadequate size of SB's ICU rooms. Many of the ICU rooms at Brandon are much larger -- more than twice the size of SB's ICU rooms. Support spaces are inadequate in most areas, resulting in corridors (at times) being used for inappropriate storage. In addition, the hospital's general storage is inadequate, resulting in movable equipment being stored in mechanical and electrical rooms. Of the medical-surgical beds at SB, 48 are private and 64 are semi-private. The current standard in hospital design is for acute care hospitals to have private rooms exclusively. Private patient rooms are superior to semi-private rooms for infection control and patient well-being in general. The patient is spared the disruption and occasional unpleasantness that accompanies sharing a patient room –- for example, another patient's persistent cough or inability to use the toilet (many of SB's semi-private rooms have bedside commodes). Private rooms are generally recognized as promoting quality of care. South Bay's site is approximately 17.5 acres, bordered on all sides by parcels not owned by either SB or by HCA- affiliated entities. The facility is set back from SR 674 by a visitor parking lot. Proceeding clockwise around the facility from the visitor parking lot, there is a small service road on the western edge of the site; two large, adjacent ponds for stormwater retention; the rear parking lot for ED visitors and patients; and another small service road which connects the east side of the site to SR 674, and which is used by ambulances to access the ED. Dedicated parking for SB's employees is absent. A medical office building (MOB), which is not owned by SB, is located to the north of the ED parking lot. The MOB houses SB's Human Resources Department as well as medical offices. Most of SB's specialty physicians have either full or part-time offices in close proximity to SB. Employee parking is not available in the MOB parking lot. Some of SB's employees park in a hospital-owned parking lot to the north of the MOB, and then walk around the MOB to enter the hospital. South Bay's CEO and management employees park on a strip of a gravel lot, which is rented from the Methodist church to the northeast of the hospital's site. In 2007, as part of the CON application to relocate, SB commissioned a site and facility assessment (SFA) of the hospital. The SFA was prepared for the purpose of supporting SB's replacement hospital application and has not been updated since its preparation in 2007. The architects or engineers who prepared the SFA were not asked to evaluate proposed options for expansion or upgrade of SB on-site. However, the SFA concludes that the SB site has been built out to its maximum capacity. On the other hand, the SFA concluded that the existing building systems at SB met codes and standards in force when constructed and are in adequate condition and have the capacity to meet the current needs of the hospital. The report also stated that if SB wanted to substantially expand its physical plant to accommodate future growth, upgrades to some of the existing building systems likely would be required. Notwithstanding these reports and relative costs, expansion of SB at its existing site is not realistic or cost- effective as compared to a replacement hospital. Vertical expansion is complicated by two factors. First, the hospital's original construction in 1982 was done under the former Southern Standard Building Code, which did not contain the "wind-loading" requirements of the present-day Florida Building Code. Any vertical expansion of SB would not only require the new construction to meet current wind-loading requirements, but would also require the original construction to be retrofitted to meet current wind-loading requirements (assuming this was even possible as a structural matter). Second, if vertical expansion were to meet current standards for hospital square footage, the new floor or floors would "overhang" the smaller existing construction, complicating utility connections from the lower floor as well as the placement of structural columns to support the additional load. The alternative (assuming feasibility due to current wind-loading requirements) would be to vertically stack patient care units identical to SB's existing patient care units, thereby perpetuating its undersized and outdated design. Vertical expansion at SB has not been proposed by the Gould Turner Group (Gould Turner), which did a Master Facility Plan for SB in May 2010, but included a new patient bed tower, or by HBE Corporation (HBE). Horizontal expansion of SB is no less complicated. The hospital would more than double in size to meet the modern-day standard of 2,400 square feet per bed, and its site is too small for such expansion. It is apparent that such expansion would displace the visitor parking lot if located to the south of the existing building, and likely have to extend into SR 674 itself. South Bay's architectural consultant expert witness substantiated that replacing SB is justified as an architectural matter, and that the facility cannot be brought up to present-day standards at its existing location. According to Mr. Siconolfi, the overall building at SB is approximately half of the total size that would normally be in place for a new hospital meeting modern codes and industry standards. The more modest expansions offered by Gould Turner and HBE are still problematic, if feasible at all. Moreover, with either proposal, SB would ultimately remain on its existing 17.5-acre site, with few opportunities to expand further. Gould Turner's study was requested by SB's CEO in May 2010, to determine whether and to what extent SB would be able to expand on-site. (Gould Turner was involved with SB's recent ED expansion project area.) The resulting Master Facility Plan essentially proposes building a new patient tower in SB's existing visitor parking lot, to the left and right of the existing main entrance to SB. This would require construction of a new visitor parking lot in whatever space remained in between the new construction and SR 674. The Master Facility Plan contains no discussion of the new impervious area that would be added to the site and the consequential requirement of additional stormwater capacity, assuming the site can even accommodate additional stormwater capacity. This study also included a new 12-bed ICU and the existing ICU would be renovated into private patient rooms. For example, "[t]he second floor would be all telemetry beds while the third floor would be a combination of medical/surgical, PCU, and telemetry beds." In Gould Turner's drawings, the construction itself would be to the left and to the right of the hospital's existing main entrance. Two scenarios are proposed: in the first, the hospital's existing semi-private rooms would become private rooms and, with the new construction, the hospital would have 114 licensed beds (including two new beds), all private; in the second, some of the hospital's existing semi-private rooms would become private rooms and, with the new construction, the hospital would have 146 licensed beds (adding 34 beds), of which 32 would be semi-private. South Bay did not consider Gould Turner's alternative further or request additional, more detailed drawings or analysis, and instead determined to pursue the replacement hospital project, in part, because it was better not to "piecemeal" the hospital together. Mr. Miller, who is responsible for strategic decisions regarding SB, was aware of, but did not review the Master Facility Plan and believes that it is not economically feasible to expand the hospital. St. Joseph's Hospital presented testimony of an architect representing the hospital design/build firm of HBE, to evaluate SB's current condition, to provide options for expansion and upgrading on-site, and to provide a professional cost estimate for the expansion. Mr. Oliver personally inspected SB's site and facility in October 2010 and reviewed numerous reports regarding the facility and other documents. Mr. Oliver performed an analysis of SB's existing physical plant and land surrounding the hospital. HBE's analysis concluded that SB has the option to expand and upgrade on-site, including the construction of a modern surgical suite, a modern 10-bed ICU, additional elevators, and expansion and upgrading of the ancillary support spaces identified by SB as less than ideal. HBE's proposal involves the addition of 50,000 square feet of space to the hospital through the construction of a three-story patient tower at the south side of the hospital. The additional square footage included in the HBE proposal would allow the hospital to convert to an all-private bed configuration with either 126 private beds by building out both second and third floors of a new patient tower, or to 126 private beds if the hospital chose to "shell in" the third floor for future expansion. Under the HBE proposal, SB would have the option to increase its licensed bed capacity 158 beds by completing the second and third floors of the new patient tower (all private rooms) while maintaining the mix of semi-private and private patient rooms in the existing bed tower. The HBE proposal also provides for a phased renovation of the interior of SB to allow for an expanded post-anesthesia care unit, expanded laboratory, pharmacy, endoscopy, women's center, prep/hold/recovery areas, central sterile supply and distribution, expanded dining, and a new covered lobby entrance to the left side of the hospital. Phasing of the expansion would permit the hospital to remain in operation during expansion and renovation with minimal disruption. During construction the north entrance of the hospital would provide access through the waiting rooms that are currently part of the 2001 renovated area of the hospital with direct access to the circulation patterns of the hospital. The HBE proposal also provides for the addition of parking to bring the number of parking spaces on-site to 400. The HBE proposal includes additional stormwater retention/detention areas that could serve as attractive water features and, similar to the earlier civil engineering reports obtained by SB, proposes the construction of a parking garage at the rear of the facility should additional parking be needed in the future. However, HBE essentially proposes the alternative already rejected by SB: construction of a new patient tower in front of the existing hospital. Similar to Gould Turner, HBE proposes new construction to the left and right of the hospital's existing lobby entrance and the other changes described above. HBE's proposal recognizes the need for additional stormwater retention: the stand of trees that sets off the existing visitor parking lot from SR 674 would be uprooted; in their place, a retention pond would be constructed. Approval of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) would be required for the proposal to be feasible. Assuming the SWFWMD approved the proposal, the retention pond would have to be enclosed by a fence. This would then be the "face" of the hospital to the public on SR 674. HBE's proposal poses significant problems. The first floor of the three-story component would be flush against the exterior wall of the hospital's administrative offices, where the CEO and others currently have windows with a vista of the front parking lot and SR 674. Since the three-story component would be constructed first in the "phased" construction, and since the hospital's administration has no other place to work in the existing facility, the CEO and other management team would have to work off-site until the new administrative offices (to the left of the existing hospital lobby entrance) were constructed. The existing main entrance to the hospital, which faces SR 674, would be relocated to the west side of the hospital once construction was completed in its entirety. In the interim, patients and visitors would have to enter the facility from the rear, as the existing main entrance would be inaccessible. This would be for a period of months, if not longer. For the second and third floors, HBE's proposal poses two scenarios. Under the first, SB would build the 24 general medical-surgical beds on the tower's second floor, but leave the third floor as "shelled" space. This would leave SB with a total of 106 licensed beds, six fewer than it has at present. Further, since HBE's proposal involves a second ICU at SB, 18 of the 106 beds are ICU beds, leaving 88 general medical-surgical beds. By comparison, SB currently has 104 general medical- surgical beds, meaning that it loses 16 general medical-surgical beds under HBE's first scenario. In the second scenario, SB would build 24 general medical-surgical beds on the third floor as well, and would have a total of 126 licensed beds. Since 18 of those beds would be ICU beds, SB would have 108 general medical-surgical beds, or only four more than it has at present. Further, the proposal does not make SB appreciably bigger. The second and third floors in HBE's proposal are designed in "elongated" fashion such that several rooms may be obscured from the nursing station's line of sight by a new elevator, which is undesirable as a matter of patient safety and security. Further, construction of the second and third floors would be against the existing second and third floors above the lobby entrance's east side. This would require 12 existing private patient rooms to be taken out of service due to loss of their vista windows. At the same time, the new second and third floors would be parallel to, but set back from, existing semi- private patient rooms and their vista windows along the southeast side of the hospital. This means that patients and visitors in the existing semi-private patient rooms and patients and visitors in the new private patient rooms on the north side of the new construction may be looking into each other's rooms. HBE's proposal also involves reorganization and renovation of SB's existing facility, and the demolition and disruption that goes with it. To accommodate patient circulation within the existing facility from the ED (at the north side of the hospital) to the new patient tower (at the south side of the hospital), two new corridors are proposed to be routed through and displace the existing departments of Data Processing and Medical Records. Thus, until the new administrative office space would be constructed, Data Processing and Medical Records (along with the management team) would have to be relocated off-site. Once the new first floor of the three-story component is completed, the hospital's four ORs and six PACU beds will be relocated there. In the existing vacated surgical space, HBE proposes to relocate SB's existing cardiology unit, thus requiring the vacated surgical space to be completely reconfigured (building a nursing station and support spaces that do not currently exist in that location). In the space vacated by the existing cardiology unit, HBE proposed expanding the hospital's clinical laboratory, meaning extensive demolition and reconfiguration in that area. The pharmacy is proposed to be relocated to where the existing PACU is located, requiring the building of a new pharmacy with a secure area for controlled substances, cabinets for other medications, and the like. The vacated existing pharmacy is in turn proposed to be dedicated to general storage, which involves still more construction and demolition, tearing out the old pharmacy to make the space suitable for general storage. HBE's proposal is described as a "substantial upgrade" of SB, but it was stated that a substantial upgrade could likewise be achieved by replacing the facility outright. This is SB's preference, which is not unreasonable. There have been documented problems with other hospital expansions, including patient infection due to construction dust. South Bay's proposal South Bay proposes to establish a 112-bed replacement hospital on a 39-acre parcel (acquired in 2005) located in the Riverview community, on the north side of Big Bend Road between I-75 and U.S. Highway 301. The hospital is designed to include 32 observation beds built to acute care occupancy standards, to be available for conversion to licensed acute care beds should the need arise. The original total project cost of $215,641,934, calculated when the application was filed in October 2007 has been revised to $192,967,399. The decrease in total project cost is largely due to the decrease in construction costs since 2007. The parties stipulated that SB's estimated construction costs are reasonable. The remainder of the project budget is likewise reasonable. The budgeted number for land, $9,400,000, is more than SB needs: the 39-acre parcel is held in its behalf by HCA Services of Florida, Inc., and was acquired in March 2005 for $7,823,100. An environmental study has been done, and the site has no environmental development issues. The original site preparation budgeted number of $5 million has been increased to $7 million to allow for possible impact fees, based on HCA's experience with similar projects. Building costs, other than construction cost, flow from the construction cost number as a matter of percentages and are reasonable. The equipment costs are reasonable. Construction period interest as revised from the original project budget is approximately $4 million less, commensurate with the revised project cost. Other smaller numbers in the budget, such as contingencies and start-up costs, were calculated in the usual and accepted manner for estimated project costs and are reasonable. South Bay's proposed service area (PSA) comprises six zip codes (33573 (Sun City Center), 33570 (Ruskin), 33569 (Riverview), 33598 (Wimauma), 33572 (Apollo Beach), and 33534 (Gibsonton)) in South Hillsborough County. These six zip codes accounted for 92.2% of SB's discharges in 2006. The first three zip codes, which include Riverview (33569), accounted for 76.1% of the discharges. Following the filing of the application in 2007, the U.S. Postal Service subdivided the former zip code 33569 into three zip codes: 33569, 33578, and 33579. (The proposed service area consists of eight zip codes.) The same geographic area comprises the three Riverview zip codes taken together as the former zip code 33569. In 2009, the three Riverview zip codes combined accounted for approximately 504 to 511/514 of SB's discharges, with 589 discharges in 2006 from the zip code 33569. Of SB's total discharges in 2009, approximately 8 to 9% originated from these three zip codes. In 2009, approximately 7,398 out of 14,424 market/service-area discharges, or approximately 51% of the total market discharges came from the three southern zip codes, 33573 (Sun City Center), 33570 (Ruskin), and 33598 (Wimauma). Also, approximately 81% of SB's discharges in 2009 originated from the same three zip codes. (The discharge numbers for SB for 2009 presented by St. Joseph's Hospital and SB are similar. See SB Ex. 9 at 11 and SJH Ex. 4 at 8-9. See also TG Ex. 4 at 3-4.) In 2009, SB and Brandon had an approximate 68% market share for the eight zip codes. See FOF 152-54 and 162-65 for additional demographic data. St. Joseph's Hospital had an approximate 5% market share within the service area and using 2009-2010 data, TG had approximately 6% market share in zip code 33573 and an overall market share in the three Riverview zip codes of approximately 19% and a market share of approximately 23% in zip code 33579. South Bay's application projects 37,292 patient days in year 1; 39,581 patient days in year 2; and 41,563 patient days in year 3 for the proposed replacement hospital. The projection was based on the January 2007 population for the service area as reflected in the application, and what was then a projected population growth rate of 20.8% for the five-year period 2007 to 2012. These projections were updated for the purposes of hearing. See FOF 246-7. The application also noted a downturn in the housing market, which began in 2007 and has continued since then. The application projected a five-year (2007-2012) change of 20.8% for the original five zip codes. At hearing, SB introduced updated utilization projections for 2010-2015, which show the service area population growing at 15.3% for that five-year period. South Bay's revised utilization projections for 2015- 2017 (projected years 1-3 of the replacement hospital) are 28,168 patient days in year 1; 28,569 patient days in year 2; and 29,582 patient days in year 3. The lesser utilization as compared with SB's original projections is partly due to slowed population growth, but predominantly due to SB's assumption that St. Joseph's Hospital will build its proposed satellite hospital in Riverview, and that SB will accordingly lose 20% of its market share. The revised utilization projections are conservative, reasonable, and achievable. With the relocation, SB will be more proximate to the entirety of its service area, and will be toward the center of population growth in south Hillsborough County. In addition, it will have a more viable and more sustainable hospital operation even with the reduced market share. Its financial projections reflect a better payor mix and profitability in the proposed location despite the projection of fewer patient days. Conversely, if SB remains in Sun City Center, it is subject to material operating losses even if its lost market share in that location is the same 20%, as compared to the 30 to 40% it estimates that it would lose in competition with St. Joseph's Hospital South. South Bay's medical staff and employees support the replacement facility, notwithstanding that their satisfaction with SB is very high. The proposal is also supported by various business organizations, including the Riverview Chamber of Commerce and Ruskin Chamber of Commerce. However, many of the residents of Sun City Center who testified opposed relocation of SB. See FOF 210-11. South Bay will accept several preconditions on approval of its CON application: (1) the location of SB on Big Bend Road in Riverview; (2) combined Medicaid and charity care equal to 7.0% of gross revenues; and (3) operating a free- standing ED at the Sun City location and providing a shuttle service between the Sun City location and the new hospital campus ("for patients and visitors"). SB Ex. 46, Schedule C. In its SAAR, the Agency preliminarily approved the application including the following: This approval includes, as a component of the proposal: the operation of a freestanding emergency department on a 24-hour, seven-day per week basis at the current Sun City location, the provision of extended hours shuttle service between the existing Sun City Center and the new campuses to transport patients and visitors between the facilities to locations; and the offering of primary care and diagnostic testing at the Sun City Center location. These components are required services to be provided by the replacement hospital as approved by the Agency. Mr. Gregg explained that the requirement for transport of patients and visitors was included based on his understanding of the concerns of the Sun City Center community for emergency as well as routine access to hospital services. Notwithstanding the Agency statement that the foregoing elements are required, the Agency did not condition approval on the described elements. See SB Ex. 12 at 39 and 67. Instead, the Agency only required SB, as a condition of approval, to provide a minimum of 7.0% of the hospital's patient days to Medicaid and charity care patients. (As noted above, SB's proposed condition says 7.0% of gross revenues.) Because conditions on approval of the CON are generally subject to modification, there would be no legal mechanism for monitoring or enforcement of the aspects of the project not made a condition of approval. If the Agency approves SB's CON application, the Agency should condition any approval based on the conditions referenced above, which SB set forth in its CON application. SB Ex. 12 at 39 and 67. See also T 450 ("[The Agency] can take any statement made in the application and turn that into a condition," although conditions may be modified.1 St. Joseph's Hospital and Tampa General are critical of SB's offer of a freestanding ED and proposed shuttle transportation services. Other than agreeing to condition its CON application by offering these services, SB has not evaluated the manner in which these services would be offered. South Bay envisions that the shuttle service (provided without charge) would be more for visitors than it would be for patients and for outpatients or patients that are ambulatory and able to ride by shuttle. Other patients would be expected to be transported by EMS or other medical transport. As of the date of hearing, Hillsborough County does not have a protocol to address the transport of patients to a freestanding ED. South Bay contacted Hillsborough County Fire Rescue prior to filing its CON application and was advised that they would support SB's establishment of a satellite hospital on Big Bend Road, but did not support the closure and relocation of SB, even with a freestanding ED left behind. See FOF 195-207. At hearing, SB representatives stated that SB would not be closed if the project is denied. Compliance with applicable statutory and rule criteria Section 408.035(1): The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed The need for SB itself and at its current location is not an issue in this case. That need was demonstrated years ago, when SB was initially approved. For the Agency, consideration of a replacement hospital application "diminishes the concept of need in [the Agency's] weighing and balancing of criteria in this case." There is no express language in the CON law, as amended, which indicates that CON review of a replacement hospital application does not require consideration of other statutory review criteria, including "need," unless otherwise stipulated. Replacement hospital applicants, like SB, may advocate the need for replacement rather than expansion or renovation of the existing hospital, but a showing of "need" is still required. Nevertheless, institution-specific factors may be relevant when "need" is considered. The determination of "need" for SB's relocation involves an analysis of whether the relocation of the hospital as proposed will enhance access or quality of care, and whether the relocation may result in changes in the health care delivery system that may adversely impact the community, as well as options SB may have for expansion or upgrading on-site. In this case, the overall "need" for the project is resolved, in part, by considering, in conjunction with weighing and balancing other statutory criteria, including quality of care, whether the institution-specific needs of SB to replace the existing hospital are more reasonable than other alternatives, including renovation and whether, if replacement is recommended, the residents of the service area, including the Sun City Center area, will retain reasonable access to general acute care hospital services. The overall need for the project has not been proven. See COL 360-70 for ultimate conclusions of law regarding the need for this project. Section 408.035(2): 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 The "service district" in this case is acute care subdistrict 6-1, Hillsborough County. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-2.100. The acute care hospital services SB proposes to relocate to Big Bend Road are available to residents of SB's service area. Except as otherwise noted herein with respect to constraints at SB, there are no capacity constraints limiting access to acute care hospital services in the subdistrict. The availability of acute care services for residents of the service area, and specifically the Riverview area, will increase with the opening of St. Joseph's Hospital South. All existing providers serving the service area provide high quality of care. Within the service district as a whole, SB proposes to relocate the existing hospital approximately 5.7 linear miles north of its current location and approximately 7.7 miles using I-75, one exit north. South Bay would remain in south Hillsborough County, as well as the southernmost existing health care facility in Hillsborough County, along with St. Joseph's Hospital South when it is constructed. The eight zip codes of SB's proposed service area occupy a large area of south Hillsborough County south of Tampa (to the northwest) and Brandon (to the northeast). Included are the communities of Gibsonton, Riverview, Apollo Beach, Ruskin, Sun City Center, and Wimauma. The service area is still growing despite the housing downturn, with a forecast of 15.3% growth for the five-year period 2010 to 2015. The service area's population is projected to be 168,344 in 2015, increasing from 145,986 in 2010. The service area is currently served primarily by SB, which is the only existing provider in the service area, and Brandon. For non-tertiary, non-specialty discharges from the service area in 2009, SB had approximately 40% market share, including market share in the three Riverview zip codes of approximately 10% (33569), 6% (33578), and 16% (33579). Brandon had approximately 28% of the market in the service area, and a market share in the three Riverview zip codes of approximately 58% (33569), 46% (33578), and 40% (33579). Thus, SB and Brandon have approximately a 61% market share in the Riverview zip codes and approximately a 68% market share service area-wide. The persuasive evidence indicates that Riverview is the center of present and future population in the service area. It is the fastest-growing part of the service area overall and the fastest-growing part of the service area for patients age 65 and over. Of the projected 168,334 residents in 2015, the three Riverview zip codes account for 80,779 or nearly half the total population. With its proposed relocation to Riverview, SB will be situated in the most populous and fastest-growing part of south Hillsborough County. At the same time, it will be between seven and eight minutes farther away from Sun City Center. In conjunction with St. Joseph's Hospital South when constructed, SB's proposed relocation will enhance the availability and accessibility of existing health care facilities and health services in south Hillsborough County, especially for the Riverview-area residents. However, it is likely that access will be reduced for the elderly residents of the Sun City Center area needing general acute care hospital services. St. Joseph's Hospital and Tampa General contend that: (1) it would be problematic to locate two hospitals in close proximity in Riverview (those being St. Joseph's Hospital South and the relocated SB hospital) and (2) SB's relocation would deprive Sun City Center's elderly of reasonable access to hospital services. St. Joseph's Hospital seems to agree that the utilization projections for SB's replacement hospital are reasonable. Also, St. Joseph's Hospital expects St. Joseph's Hospital South to reach its utilization as projected in CON Application No. 9833, notwithstanding the decline in population growth and the proposed establishment of SB's proposed replacement hospital, although the achievement of projected utilization may be extended. There are examples of Florida hospitals operating successfully in close proximity. The evidence at hearing included examples where existing unaffiliated acute care hospitals in Florida operate within three miles of each another; in two of those, the two hospitals are less than one-half mile apart. These hospitals have been in operation for years. However, some or all of the examples preceded CON review. There are also demographic differences and other unique factors in the service areas in the five examples that could explain the close proximity of the hospitals. Also, in three of the five examples, at least one of the hospitals had an operating loss and most appeared underutilized. One such example, however, is pertinent in this case: Tallahassee Memorial Hospital and Capital Regional Medical Center (CRMC) in Tallahassee, which are approximately six minutes apart by car. CRMC was formerly Tallahassee Community Hospital (TCH), a struggling, older facility with a majority of semi-private patient rooms, similar to South Bay. Sharon Roush, SB's current CEO, became CEO at TCH in 1999. As she explained at hearing, HCA was able to successfully replace the facility outright on the same parcel of land. TCH was renamed CRMC and re-opened as a state-of-the-art hospital facility with all private rooms. The transformation improved the hospital's quality of care and its attractiveness to patients, better enabling it to compete with Tallahassee Memorial Hospital. St. Joseph's Hospital and Tampa General also contend that SB's relocation would deprive Sun City Center's elderly of reasonable access to hospital services. When the application was filed in 2007, Sun City Center residents in zip code 33573 accounted for approximately 52% of all acute care discharges to SB and SB had a 69% market share. By 2009, Sun City Center residents accounted for approximately 57% of all SB discharges and SB had approximately 72% market share. Approximately half of the age 65-plus residents in the service area reside within the Sun City Center area. This was true in 2010 and will continue to be true in 2015. The projected percentage of the total population in the Sun City Center zip code over 65 for 2009-2010 is approximately 87%. This percentage is expected to grow to approximately 91% by 2015. Sun City Center also has a high percentage of residents who are over the age of 75. Demand for acute care hospital services is largely driven by the age of the population. The age 65-plus population utilizes acute-care hospital services at a rate that is approximately two to three times that of the age 64 and younger population. South Bay plans to relocate its hospital from the Sun City Center zip code 33573 much closer to an area (Riverview covering three zip codes) that has a less elderly population. Elderly patients are known to have more transportation difficulties than other segments of the population, particularly with respect to night driving and congested traffic in busy areas. Appropriate transportation services for individuals who are transportation disadvantaged typically require door-to- door pickup, but may vary from community to community. At the time of preliminary approval of SB's proposed relocation, the Agency was not provided and did not take into consideration data reflecting the percentage of persons in Sun City Center area who are aged 65 or older or aged 75 and older. The Agency was not provided data reflecting the number of residents within the Sun City Center area who reside in nursing homes or assisted living facilities. In general, the 2010 median household incomes and median home values for the residents of Sun City Center, Ruskin, and Gibsonton are materially less than the income and home values for the residents from the other service areas. Freedom Village is located near Sun City Center and within walking distance to SB. Freedom Village is comprises a nursing home, assisted living, and senior independent living facilities, and includes approximately 120 skilled nursing facility beds, 90 assisted living beds, and 30 Alzheimer's beds. Freedom Village is home to approximately 1,500 people. There are additional skilled nursing and assisted living facilities within one to two miles of SB comprising approximately an additional 400 to 500 skilled nursing facility beds and approximately 1,500 to 2,000 residents in assistant or independent living facilities. Residents in skilled nursing facilities and assisted living facilities generally require a substantial level of acute- care services on an ongoing basis. Many patients 65 and older requiring admission to an acute-care facility have complex medical conditions and co-morbidities such that immediate access to inpatient acute care services is of prime importance. Area patients and caregivers travel to SB via a golf cart to access outpatient health care services and to obtain post-discharge follow-up care. Although there are some crossing points along SR 674, golf carts are not allowed on SR 674 itself, and the majority of Sun City Center residents who utilize SB in its existing location do not arrive by golf cart -– rather, they travel by automobile. The Sun City Center area has a long–established culture of volunteerism. Residents of Sun City Center provide a substantial number of man-hours of volunteer services to community organizations, including SB. Among the many services provided by community volunteers is the Sun City Center Emergency Squad, an emergency medical transport service that operates three ambulances and provides EMT and basic life support transport services in Sun City Center 24-hours a day, seven days a week. The Emergency Squad provides emergency services free of charge, but charges patients for transport which is deemed a non-emergency. Most patients transported by the Emergency Squad are taken to the SB ED. It is customary for specialists to locate their offices adjacent to an acute-care hospital. Most of the specialty physicians on the medical staff of SB have full-time or part-time offices adjacent to SB. The location of physician offices adjacent to the hospital facilitates access to care by patients in the provision of care on a timely basis by physicians. The relocation of SB may result in the relocation of physician offices currently operating adjacent to SB in Sun City Center, which may cause additional access problems for local residents. In 2009, the SB ED had approximately 22,000 patient visits. Approximately 25% of the patients that visit the South Bay ED are admitted for inpatient care. South Bay recently expanded its ED to accommodate approximately 34,000 patient visits annually. The average age of patients who visit the South Bay ED is approximately 70. Patients who travel by ambulance may or may not experience undue transportation difficulties as a result of the proposed relocation of SB; however, patients also arrive at the South Bay ED by private transportation. But, most patients are transported to the ED by automobile or emergency transport. In October 2010, the Board of Directors of the Sun City Center Association adopted a resolution on behalf of its 11,000 members opposing the closure of SB. The Board of Directors and membership of Federation of Kings Point passed a similar resolution on behalf of its members. Residents of the Sun City Center area currently enjoy easy access to SB in part because the roadways are low-volume, low-speed, accessible residential streets. SR 674 is the only east-west roadway connecting residents of the Sun City Center area to I-75 and U.S. Highway 301. The section of SR 674 between I-75 and U.S. Highway 301 is a four-lane divided roadway with a speed limit of 40-45 mph. To access Big Bend Road from the Sun City Center area, residents travel east on SR 674 then north on U.S. Highway 301 or west on SR 674 then north on I-75. U.S. Highway 301 is a two-lane undivided roadway from SR 674 north to Balm Road, with a speed limit of 55 mph and a number of driveways and intersections accessing the roadway. (Two lanes from Balm Road South, then widened to six lanes from Balm Road North.) U.S. Highway 301 is a busy and congested roadway, and there is a significant backup of traffic turning left from U.S. Highway 301 onto Big Bend Road. A portion of U.S. Highway 301 is being widened to six lanes, from Balm Road to Big Bend Road. The widening of this portion of U.S. Highway 301 is not likely to alleviate the backup of traffic at Big Bend Road. I-75 is the only other north-south alternative for residents of the Sun City Center area seeking access to Big Bend Road. I-75 is a busy four-lane interstate with a 70 mph speed limit. The exchange on I-75 and Big Bend Road is problematic not only because of traffic volume, but also because of the unusual design of the interchange, which offloads all traffic on the south side of Big Bend Road, rather than divide traffic to the north and south as is typically done in freeway design. The design of the interchange at I-75 in Big Bend Road creates additional backup and delays for traffic seeking to exit onto Big Bend Road. St. Joseph's Hospital commissioned a travel (drive) time study that compared travel times to SB's existing location and to its proposed location from three intersections within Sun City Center. This showed an increase of between seven and eight minutes' average travel time to get to the proposed location as compared to the existing location of SB. The study corroborated SB's travel time analysis, included in its CON application, which shows four minutes to get to SB from the "centroid" of zip code 33573 (Sun City Center) and 11 minutes to get to SB's proposed location from that centroid, or a difference of seven minutes. The St. Joseph's Hospital travel time study also sets forth the average travel times from the three Sun City Center intersections to Big Bend Road and Simmons Loop, as follows: Intersection Using I-75 Using U.S. 301 South Pebble Beach Blvd. and Weatherford Drive 12 min. 17 secs. 14 min. 19 secs. Kings Blvd. and Manchester Woods Drive 15 min. 44 secs. 20 min. 39 secs. North Pebble Beach Blvd. and Ft. Dusquesna Drive 13 min. 15 secs. 15 min. 41 secs. The average travel time from Wimauma (Center Street and Delia Street) to Big Bend Road and Simmons Loop was 15 minutes and 16 seconds using I-75 and 13 minutes and 52 seconds using U.S. Highway 301, an increase of more than six minutes to the proposed site. The average travel time from Ruskin (7th Street and 4th Avenue SW) to Big Bend Road and Simmons Loop was 15 minutes and 22 seconds using U.S. 41 and 14 minutes and 15 seconds using I-75, an increase of more than five minutes to the proposed site. Currently, the average travel time from Sun City Center to Big Bend Road using U.S. Highway 301 is approximately to 16 minutes. The average travel time to Big Bend Road via I-75 assuming travel with the flow of traffic is approximately 13 minutes. The incremental increase in travel time to the proposed site for SB for residents of the Sun City Center area, assuming travel with the flow of traffic, ranges from nine to 11 minutes. For residents who currently access SB in approximately five to 10 minutes, travel time to Big Bend Road is approximately 15 to 20 minutes. As the area develops, traffic is likely to continue to increase. There are no funded roadway improvements beyond the current widening of U.S. Highway 301 north of Balm Road. Most of the roadways serving Sun City Center, Ruskin, and Wimauma have a county-adopted Level of Service (LOS) of "D." LOS designations range from "A" to "F", with "F" considered gridlock. Currently, Big Bend Road from Simmons Loop Road (the approximate location of SB's propose replacement hospital) to I-75 is at LOS "F" with an average travel speed of less than mph. Based on a conservative analysis of the projected growth in traffic volume, SR 674 east of U.S. Highway 301 is projected to degrade from LOS "C" to "F" by 2015. By 2020, several additional links on SR 674 will have degraded to LOS "F." The LOS of I-75 is expected to drop to "D" in the entirety of Big Bend Road between U.S. Highway 301 and I-75 is projected to degrade to LOS "F" by 2020. The Hillsborough County Fire Rescue Department (Rescue Department) opposes the relocation of SB to Big Bend Road. The Rescue Department supports SB's establishment of a satellite hospital on Big Bend Road, but does not support the closure of SB in Sun City Center. The Rescue Department anticipates that the relocation of SB will result in a reduction in access to emergency services for patients and increased incident response times for the Rescue Department. The Rescue Department would support a freestanding ED should SB relocate. David Travis, formerly (until February 2010) the rescue division chief of the Rescue Department, testified against SB's proposal. The basis of his opposition is his concern that relocating the hospital from Sun City Center to Riverview would tend to increase response times for rescue units operating out of the Sun City Center Fire Station. The term response time refers to the time from dispatch of the rescue unit to its arrival on the scene for a given call. Mr. Travis noted that rescue units responding from the Sun City Center Fire Station would make a longer drive (perhaps seven to eight minutes) to the new location in Riverview to the extent that hospital services are needed, and during the time of transportation would necessarily be unavailable to respond to another call. However, Mr. Travis had not specifically quantified increases in response times for Sun City Center's rescue units in the event that SB relocates. Further, SB is not the sole destination for the Rescue Department's Sun City Center rescue units. While a majority of the patients were transported to SB, out of the total patient transports from the greater Sun City Center area in 2009, approximately one-third went to other hospitals other than SB, including St. Joseph's Hospital, Tampa General, and Brandon. The Rescue Department is the only advanced life support (ALS) ground transport service in the unincorporated areas of Hillsborough County responding to 911 calls. The ALS vehicles provide at least one certified paramedic on the vehicle, cardiac monitors, IV medications, advanced air way equipment, and other services. The Rescue Department has two rescue units in south Hillsborough County - Station 17 in Ruskin and Station 28 in Sun City Center. (Station 22 is in Wimauma, but does not have a rescue unit.) Stations 17 and 28 run the majority of their calls in and around the Sun City Center area, with the majority of transports to the South Bay ED. The Rescue Department had 3,643 transports from the Sun City Center area in 2009, with 54.5% transports to SB. If SB is relocated to Big Bend Road, the rescue units for Stations 17 and 28 are likely to experience longer out-of- service intervals and may not be as readily available for responding to calls in their primary service area. The Rescue Department seeks to place an individual on the scene within approximately seven minutes, 90% of the time (an ALS personnel goal) in the Sun City Center area. Relocation of SB out of Sun City Center may make it difficult for the Rescue Department to meet this response time, notwithstanding the proximity of I-75. A rapid response time is critical to providing quality care. The establishment of a freestanding ED in Sun City Center would not completely alleviate the Rescue Department's concerns, including a subset of patients who may need to be transported to a general acute care facility. There are other licensed emergency medical service providers in Hillsborough County, with at least one basic life support EMS provider in Sun City Center. The shuttle service proposed by SB may not alleviate the transportation difficulties experienced by the patients and caregivers of Sun City Center. Also, SB has not provided a plan for the scope or method of the provisional shuttle services. Six residents of Sun City Center testified against SB's proposed relocation to Riverview, including Ed Barnes, president of the Sun City Center Community Association. Mr. Barnes and two other Sun City Center residents (including Donald Schings, president of the Handicapped Club, Sun City Center) spoke in favor of St. Joseph's Hospital's proposed hospital in Riverview at a public land-use meeting in July 2010, thus demonstrating their willingness to travel to Riverview for hospital services. Mr. Barnes supported St. Joseph's Hospital's proposal for a hospital in Riverview since its inception in 2005, when St. Joseph's Hospital filed CON Application No. 9833 and thought that St. Joseph's Hospital South would serve the Sun City Center area. There are no public transportation services per se available within the Sun City Center area. Volunteer transportation services are provided. In part, the door-to-door services are provided under the auspices of the Samaritan Services, a non-profit organization supported by donations and staffed by Sun City Center volunteers. It is in doubt whether these services would continue if SB is relocated. There is a volunteer emergency squad using a few vehicles that responds to emergency calls within the Sun City Center area, with SB as the most frequent destination. Approval of SB's project will not necessarily enhance financial access to acute care services. The relocation of SB is more likely than not to create some access barriers for low- income residents of the service area. The relocation would also be farther away from communities such as Ruskin and Wimauma as there are no buses or other forms of public transportation available in Ruskin, Sun City Center, or Wimauma. However, it appears that the Sun City Center residents would travel not only to Riverview, but north of Riverview for hospital services following SB's relocation, notwithstanding the fact that Sun City Center residents are transportation- disadvantaged. The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners recently amended the Comprehensive Land-Use Plan and adopted the Greater Sun City Center Community Plan, which, in part, lists the retention of an acute care hospital in the Sun City Center area as the highest health care planning priority. For Sun City Center residents who may not want to drive to SB's new location, SB will provide a shuttle bus, which can convey both non-emergency patients and visitors. South Bay has made the provision of the shuttle bus a condition of its CON. As noted herein, the CON's other conditions are the establishment of the replacement hospital at the site in Riverview; combined Medicaid and charity care in the amount of 7.0% of gross revenues; and maintaining a freestanding ED at SB. SB Ex. 46, Schedule C. Section 408.035(3): The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care South Bay has a record of providing high quality of care at its existing hospital. It is accredited by JCAHO, and also accredited as a primary stroke center and chest pain center. In the first quarter of 2010, SB scored well on "core measures" used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as an indicator of the quality of patient safety. South Bay received recognition for its infection control programs and successfully implemented numerous other quality initiatives. Patient satisfaction is high at SB. AHCA's view of the need for a replacement hospital is not limited according to whether or not the existing hospital meets broad quality indicators, such as JCAHO accreditation. Rather, AHCA recognizes the degree to which quality would be improved by the proposed replacement hospital -– and largely on that basis has consistently approved CON applications for replacement hospitals since at least 1991. See FOF 64-66. South Bay would have a greater ability to provide quality of care in its proposed replacement hospital. Private patient rooms are superior in terms of infection control and the patient's general well-being. The conceptual design for the hospital, included in the CON application, is the same evidence- based design that HCA used for Methodist Stone Oak Hospital, an award-winning, state-of-the-art hospital in San Antonio, Texas. Some rooms at SB are small, but SB staff and physicians are able, for the most part, to function appropriately and provide high quality of care notwithstanding. (The ICU is the exception, although it was said that patients receive quality of care in the ICU. See FOF 77-82.) Most of the rooms in the ED "are good size." Some residents are willing to give up a private room in order to have better access of care and the convenience of care to family members at SB's existing facility. By comparison, the alternative suggested by St. Joseph's Hospital does not use evidence-based design and involves gutting and rearranging roughly one-third of SB's existing interior; depends upon erecting a new patient tower that would require parking and stormwater capacity that SB currently does not have; requires SB's administration to relocate off-site during an indeterminate construction period; and involves estimated project costs that its witnesses did not disclose the basis of, claiming that the information was proprietary. South Bay's physicians are likely to apply for privileges at St. Joseph's Hospital South. Moreover, if SB remains at its current site, it is reasonable to expect that some number of those physicians would do less business at SB or leave the medical staff. Many of SB's physicians have their primary medical offices in Brandon, or otherwise north of Sun City Center. Further, many of the specialists at SB are also on staff at Brandon. St. Joseph's Hospital South would be more convenient for those physicians, in addition to having the allure of a new, state-of-the-art hospital. South Bay is struggling with its nursing vacancy rate, which was 12.3% for 2010 at the time of the hearing and had increased from 9.9% in 2009. The jump in nursing vacancies in 2010 substantially returned the hospital to its 2008 rate, which was 12.4%. As with its physicians, SB's nurses generally do not reside in the Sun City Center area giving its age restrictions as a retirement community; instead, they live further north in south Hillsborough County. In October 2007 when the application was filed, SB had approximately 105 employees who lived in Riverview. It is reasonable to expect that SB's nurses will be attracted to St. Joseph's Hospital South, a new, state-of-the-art hospital closer to where they live. Thus, if it is denied the opportunity to replace and relocate its hospital, SB could also expect to lose nursing staff to St. Joseph's Hospital South, increasing its nursing vacancy rate. Section 408.035(4): The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation The parties stipulated that Schedule 2 of SB's CON application was complete and required no proof at hearing. South Bay will not have to recruit nursing or physician staff for its proposed replacement hospital. Its existing medical and nursing staff would not change, and would effectively "travel" with the hospital to its new location. Conversely, the replacement hospital should enhance SB's ability to recruit specialty physicians, which is currently a challenge for SB in its existing facility. The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of SB's proposed staffing for the replacement hospital as set out in Schedule 6A, but SJH and TG contend that the staffing schedule should also include full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) for the freestanding ED that SB proposes to maintain at its existing hospital. This contention is addressed in the Conclusions of Law, concerning application completeness under section 408.037, at COL 356-57. South Bay has sufficient funds for capital and operating expenditures for project accomplishment and operation. The project cost will be underwritten by HCA, which has adequate cash flow and credit opportunities. It is reasonable that SB's project will be adequately funded if the CON is approved. Section 408.035(5): The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district The specific area that SB primarily serves, and would continue to serve, is the service area in south Hillsborough County as identified in its application and exhibits. The discussion in section IV.B., supra, is applicable to this criterion and incorporated herein. With its proposed relocation to Riverview, SB will be situated in the most populous and fastest-growing part of south Hillsborough County; will be available to serve Sun City Center, Ruskin, and Wimauma; and will be between seven and eight minutes farther away from Sun City Center than it is at present. However, while the relocated facility will be available to the elderly residents of the Sun City Center area, access for these future patients will be reduced from current levels given the increase in transportation time, whether it be by emergency vehicle or otherwise. Section 408.035(6): The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal Immediate or "short-term" financial feasibility is the ability of the applicant to secure the funds necessary to capitalize and operate the proposed project. The project cost for SB's proposed replacement hospital is approximately $200 million. The costs associated with the establishment and operation of the freestanding ED and other services were not included in the application, but for the reasons stated herein, were not required to be projected in SB's CON application. South Bay demonstrated the short-term financial feasibility of the proposal. The estimated project cost has declined since the filing of the application in 2007, meaning that SB will require less capital than originally forecast. While Mr. Miller stated that he does not have authority to bind HCA to a $200 million capital project, HCA has indicated that it will provide full financing for the project, and that it will go forward with the project if awarded the CON. Long-term financial feasibility refers to the ability of a proposed project to generate a profit in a reasonable period of time. AHCA has previously approved hospital proposals that showed a net profit in the third year of pro forma operation or later. See generally Cent. Fla. Reg. Hosp., Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Admin. & Oviedo HMA, Inc., Case No. 05-0296CON (Fla. DOAH Aug. 23, 2006; Fla. AHCA Jan. 1, 2007), aff'd, 973 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). To be conservative, SB's projections, updated for purposes of hearing, take into account the slower population growth in south Hillsborough County since the application was originally filed. South Bay also assumed that St. Joseph's Hospital South will be built and operational by 2015. The net effect, as accounted for in the updated projections, is that SB's replacement hospital will have 28,168 patient days in year 1 (2015); 28,569 patient days in year 2 (2016); and 29,582 patient days in year 3 (2017). That patient volume is reasonable and achievable. With the updated utilization forecast, SB projects a net profit for the replacement hospital of $711,610 in 2015; $960,693 in 2016; and $1,658,757 in 2017. The financial forecast was done, using revenue and expense projections appropriately based upon SB's own most recent (2009) financial data. Adjustments made were to the payor mix and the degree of outpatient services, each of which would change due to the relocation to Riverview. The revenue projections for the replacement hospital were tested for reasonableness against existing hospitals in SB's peer group, using actual financial data as reported to AHCA. St. Joseph's Hospital opposed SB's financial projections. St. Joseph's Hospital's expert did not take issue with SB's forecasted market growth. Rather, it was suggested that there was insufficient market growth to support the future patient utilization projections for St. Joseph's Hospital South and SB at its new location and, as a result, they would have a difficult time achieving their volume forecasts and/or they would need to draw patients from other hospitals, such as Brandon, in order to meet utilization projections. St. Joseph's Hospital's expert criticized the increase in SB's projected revenues in its proposed new location as compared to its revenues in its existing location. However, it appears that SB's payor mix is projected to change in the new location, with a greater percentage of commercial managed care, thus generating the greater revenue. South Bay's projected revenue in the commercial indemnity insurance classification was also criticized because SB's projected commercial indemnity revenues were materially overstated. That criticism was based upon the commercial indemnity insurance revenues of St. Joseph's Hospital and Tampa General, which were used as a basis to "adjust" SB's projected revenue downward. St. Joseph's Hospital and Tampa General's fiscal-year 2009 commercial indemnity net revenue was divided by their inpatient days, added an inflation factor, and then multiplied the result by SB's year 1 (2015) inpatient days to recast SB's projected commercial indemnity net revenue. The contention is effectively that SB's commercial indemnity net revenue would be the same as that of St. Joseph's Hospital and Tampa General. There is no similarity between the three hospitals in the commercial indemnity classification. The majority of SJH's and TG's commercial indemnity net revenue comes from inpatients rather than outpatient cases; whereas the majority of SB's commercial indemnity net revenue comes from outpatient cases rather than inpatients. This may explain why SB's total commercial indemnity net revenue is higher than SJH or TG, when divided by inpatient days. The application of the lower St. Joseph's Hospital-Tampa General per-patient-day number to project SB's experience does not appear justified. It is likely that SB's project will be financially feasible in the short and long-term. Section 408.035(7): The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness South Bay and Brandon are the dominant providers of health care services in SB's service area. This dominance is likely to be eroded once St. Joseph's Hospital South is operational in and around 2015 (on Big Bend Road) if SB's relocation project is not approved. The proposed relocation of SB's facility will not change the geography of SB's service area. However, it will change SB's draw of patients from within the zip codes in the service area. The relocation of SB is expected to increase SB's market share in the three northern Riverview zip codes. This increase can be expected to come at the expense of other providers in the market, including TG and SJH, and St. Joseph's Hospital South when operational. The potential impact to St. Joseph's Hospital may be approximately $1.6 million based on the projected redirection of patients from St. Joseph's Hospital Main to St. Joseph's Hospital South, population growth in the area, and the relocation of SB. Economic impacts to TG are of record. Tampa General estimates a material impact of $6.4 million if relocation is approved. Notwithstanding, addressing "provider-based competition," AHCA in its SAAR noted: Considering the current location is effectively built out at 112 beds (according to the applicant), this project will allow the applicant to increase its bed size as needed along with the growth in population (the applicant's schedules begin with 144 beds in year one of the project). This will shield the applicant from a loss in market share caused by capacity issues and allow the applicant and its affiliates the opportunity to maintain and/or increase its dominant market share. SB Ex. 12 at 55. AHCA's observation that replacement and relocation of SB "will shield the applicant from a loss in market share caused by capacity issues" has taken on a new dimension since the issuance of the SAAR. At that time, St. Joseph's Hospital did not have final approval of CON No. 9833 for the establishment of St. Joseph's Hospital South. It is likely that St. Joseph's Hospital South will be operational on Big Bend Road, and as a result, SB, at its existing location, will experience a diminished market share, especially from the Riverview zip codes. In 2015 (when St. Joseph's Hospital proposes to open St. Joseph's Hospital South), SB projects losing $2,669,335 if SB remains in Sun City Center with a 20% loss in market share. The losses are projected to increase to $3,434,113 in 2016 and $4,255,573 in 2017. It follows that the losses would be commensurately more severe at the 30% to 40% loss of market share that SB expects if it remains in Sun City Center. St. Joseph's Hospital criticized SB's projections for its existing hospital if it remains in Sun City Center with a 20% loss in market share; however, the criticism was not persuasively proven. It was assumed that SB's expenses would decrease commensurately with its projected fewer patient days, thus enabling it to turn a profit in calendar year 2015 despite substantially reduced patient service revenue. However, it was also stated that expenses such as hospital administration, pharmacy administration, and nursing administration, which the analysis assumed to be variable, in fact have a substantial "fixed" component that does not vary regardless of patient census. South Bay would not, therefore, pay roughly $5 million less in "Administration and Overhead" expenses in 2015 as calculated. To the contrary, its expenses for "Administration and Overhead" would most likely remain substantially the same, as calculated by Mr. Weiner, and would have to be paid, notwithstanding SB's reduced revenue. The only expenses that were recognized as fixed by SJH's expert, and held constant, were SB's calendar year 2009 depreciation ($3,410,001) and short-term interest ($762,738), shown in the exhibit as $4,172,739 both in 2009 and 2015. Other expenses in SJH's analysis are fixed, but were inappropriately assumed to be variable: for example, "Rent, Insurance, Other," which is shown as $1,865,839 in 2009, appears to decrease to $1,462,059 in 2015. The justification offered at hearing, that such expenses can be re-negotiated by a hospital in the middle of a binding contract, is not reasonable. St. Joseph's Hospital's expert opined that SB's estimate of a 30 to 40% loss of market share (if SB remained in Sun City Center concurrent with the operation of St. Joseph's Hospital South) was "much higher than it should be," asserting that the loss would not be that great even if all of SB's Riverview discharges went to St. Joseph's Hospital South. (Mr. Richardson believes the "10 to 20 percent level is likely reasonable," although he opines that a 5 to 10% impact will likely occur.) However, this criticism assumes that a majority of the patients that currently choose SB would remain at SB at its existing location. The record reflects that Sun City Center area residents actively supported the establishment of St. Joseph's Hospital South, thus suggesting that they might use the new facility. Further, SB's physicians are likely to join the medical staff of St. Joseph's Hospital South to facilitate that utilization or to potentially lose their patients to physicians with admitting privileges at St. Joseph's Hospital South. Tampa General's expert also asserted that SB would remain profitable if it remained in its current location, notwithstanding the establishment of St. Joseph's Hospital South. It was contended that SB's net operating revenues per adjusted patient day increased at an annual rate of 5.3% from 2005 to 2009, whereas the average annual increase from 2009 to 2017 in SB's existing hospital projections amounts to 1.8%. On that basis, he opined that SB should be profitable in 2017 at its existing location, notwithstanding a loss in market share to St. Joseph's Hospital South. However, the 5.3% average annual increase from 2005 to 2009 is not necessarily predictive of SB's future performance, and the evidence indicated the opposite. Tampa General's expert did not examine SB's performance year-by-year from 2005 to 2009, but rather compared 2005 and 2009 data to calculate the 5.3% average annual increase over the five-year period. This analysis overlooks the hospital's uneven performance during that time, which included operating losses (and overall net losses) in 2005 and 2007. Further, the evidence showed that the biggest increase in SB's net revenue during that five-year period took place from 2008 to 2009, and was largely due to a significant decrease in bad debt in 2009. SB Ex. 16 at 64. (Bad debt is accounted for as a deduction from gross revenue: thus, the greater the amount of bad debt, the less net revenue all else being equal; the lesser the amount of bad debt, the greater the amount of net revenue all else being equal.) The evidence further showed that the 2009 reduction in bad debt and the hospital's profitability that year, is unlikely to be repeated. Overall, approval of the project is more likely to increase competition in the service area between the three health care providers/systems. Denial of the project is more likely to have a negative effect on competition in the service area, although it will continue to make general acute care services available and accessible to the Sun City Center area elderly (and family and volunteer support). Approval of the project is likely to improve the quality of care and cost-effectiveness of the services provided by SB, but will reduce access for the elderly residents of the Sun City Center area needing general acute care hospital services who will be required to be transported by emergency vehicle or otherwise to one of the two Big Bend Road hospitals, unless needed services, such as open heart surgery, are only available elsewhere. For example, if a patient presents to SB needing balloon angioplasty or open heart surgery, the patient is transferred to an appropriate facility such as Brandon. The presence of an ED on the current SB site may alleviate the reduction in access somewhat for some acute care services, although the precise nature and extent of the proposed services were not explained with precision. If its application is denied, SB expects to remain operational so long as it remains financially viable. Section 408.035(8): The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction The parties stipulated that the costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision, were reasonable. St. Joseph's Hospital and Tampa General did not stipulate concerning the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction, and take the position that SB should renovate and expand its existing facility rather than replace and relocate the facility. Whether section 408.035(8) requires consideration (weighing and balancing with other statutory criteria) of potential renovation costs as alternatives to relocation was hotly debated in this case. For the reasons stated herein, it is determined that this subsection, in conjunction with other statutory criteria, requires consideration of potential renovation versus replacement of an existing facility. St. Joseph's Hospital offered expert opinion that SB could expand and upgrade its existing facility for approximately $25 million. These projected costs include site work; site utilities; all construction, architectural, and engineering services; chiller; air handlers; interior design; retention basins; and required movable equipment. This cost is substantially less than the approximate $200 million cost of the proposed relocation. It was proven that there are alternatives to replacing SB. There is testimony that if SB were to undertake renovation and expansion as proposed by SJH, such upgrades would improve SB's competitive and financial position. But, the alternatives proposed by SJH and TG are disfavored by SB and are determined, on this record, not to be reasonable based on the institutional- specific needs of SB. Section 408.035(9): The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent Approval of SB's application will not significantly enhance access to Medicaid, charity, or underserved population groups. South Bay currently provides approximately 4% of its patient days to Medicaid beneficiaries and about 1% to charity care. South Bay's historic provision of services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent is reasonable in view of its location in Sun City Center, which results in a disproportionate share of Medicare in its current payor mix. South Bay also does not offer obstetrics, a service which accounts for a significant degree of Medicaid patient days. South Bay proposes to provide 7% of its "gross patient revenue" to Medicaid and charity patients as part of its relocation. South Bay's proposed service percentage is reasonable. Section 408.035(10): The applicant's designation as a Gold Seal Program nursing facility pursuant to s. 400.235, when the applicant is requesting additional nursing home beds at that facility The parties stipulated that this criterion is not applicable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying CON Application No. 9992. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 2011.
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether the application of Petitioner, University Medical Park, for a certificate of need to construct a 130-bed acute care hospital in northern Hillsborough County, Florida should be approved. The factual issues are whether a need exists for the proposed facility under the Department's need rule and, if not, are there any special circumstances which would demonstrate the reasonableness and appropriateness of the application notwithstanding lack of need. The petitioner, while not agreeing with the methodology, conceded that under the DHRS rule as applied there is no need because there is an excess of acute care beds projected for 1989, the applicable planning horizon. The only real factual issue is whether there are any special circumstances which warrant issuance of a CON. The parties filed post-hearing findings of fact and conclusions of law by March 18, 1985, which were read and considered. Many of those proposals are incorporated in the following findings. As indicated some were irrelevant, however, those not included on pertinent issues were rejected because the more credible evidence precluded the proposed finding. Having heard the testimony and carefully considered the Proposed Findings of Fact, there is no evidence which would demonstrate the reasonableness and appropriateness of the application. It is recommended that the application be denied.
Findings Of Fact General Petitioner is a limited partnership composed almost entirely of physicians, including obstetricians/gynecologists (OB/GYN) and specialists providing ancillary care, who practice in the metropolitan Tampa area. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 103-104). Petitioner's managing general partner is Dr. Robert Withers, a doctor specializing in OB/GYN who has practiced in Hillsborough County for over thirty years. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 24- 26, 28-29.) Dr. Withers was a prime moving force in the founding, planning and development of University Community Hospital and Women's Hospital. (Tr. Vo1. 1, pp. 26-28, 73; Vol. 4, pp. 547-548.) Petitioner seeks to construct in DHRS District VI a specialty "women's" hospital providing obstetrical and gynecological services at the corner of 30th Street and Fletcher Avenue in northern Hillsborough County and having 130 acute care beds. 1/ (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 34, 74-75, Vol. 5, pp. 678-679, Northside Ex.-1, pp. 1-2, Ex.-4A.) The proposed hospital is to have 60 obstetrical, 66 gynecological and 4 intensive care beds. (Tr. Vol. 8, P. 1297, Northside Ex.-1 Table 17, Ex.-B.) DHRS District VI is composed of Hardy, Highlands, Hillsborough, Manatee and Polk counties. Each county is designated a subdistrict by the Local Health Council of District VI. Pasco County, immediately north of Hillsborough, is located in DHRS District V and is divided into two subdistricts, east Pasco and west Pasco. If built, Northside would be located in the immediate vicinity of University Community Hospital (UCH) in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Less than 5 percent of the total surgical procedures at UCH are gynecologically related, and little or no nonsurgical gynecological procedures arc performed there. (Tr. Vol. 4, p. 550.) There is no obstetrical practice at UCH, although it has the capacity to handle obstetric emergencies. The primary existing providers of obstetrical services to the metropolitan Tampa area are Tampa General Hospital (TGH) and Women's Hospital (Women's). (Tr. Vol. 1, p. 79, Northside Ex.-4, Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1074-1075.) TGH is a large public hospital located on Davis Islands near downtown Tampa. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 47-48, Vol. 8, pp. 1356, 1358.) TGH currently has a 35 bed obstetrical unit, but is currently expanding to 70 beds as part of a major renovation and expansion program scheduled for completion in late 1985. (Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1049, 1095, Vol. 8, pp. 1367-1368, Vol. 10, P. 1674, Northside Ex.- 2, P. 3.) In recent years, the overwhelming majority of Tampa General's admissions in obstetrics at TGH have been indigent patients. (Tr. Vol. 1, P. 61, Vol. 8, pp. 1375- 1379; Vol. 9, P. 1451; TGH Ex.-3.) Tampa General's internal records reflect that it had approximately 2,100 patient days of gynecological care compared with over 38,000 patient days in combined obstetrical care during a recent eleven month period. (TGH Ex.-3..) Women's is a 192 bed "specialty" hospital located in the west central portion of the City of Tampa near Tampa Stadium. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 63-64, 66-67; Vol. 10 P. 1564; Northside Ex.-4.) Women's Hospital serves primarily private-pay female patients. (Vol. 1, pp. 79, 88-89; Vol. 6, pp. 892-893.) Humana Brandon Hospital, which has a 16 bed obstetrics unit, and South Florida Baptist Hospital in Plant City, which has 12 obstetric beds, served eastern Hillsborough County. (Tr. Vol. 7, P. 1075; Northside Ex.-2, P. 3; Northside Ex.-4 and Tr. Vol. 1, P. 79; Northside Ex.-4.) There are two hospitals in eastern Pasco County, which is in DHRS District V. Humana Hospital, Pasco and East Pasco Medical Center, each of which has a six bed obstetric unit. Both hospitals are currently located in Dade City, but the East Pasco Medical Center will soon move to Zephyrhills and expand its obstetrics unit to nine beds. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 108- 109; Tr. Vol. 7, P. 1075; Vol. 8, pp. 1278-1281; Northside Ex.-4.) There are no hospitals in central Pasco County, DHRS District V. Residents of that area currently travel south to greater Tampa, or, to a lesser extent, go to Dade City for their medical services. (Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 266-267, 271-272; Vol. 7, p. 1038.) Bed Need There are currently 6,564 existing and CON approved acute care beds in DHRS District VI, compared with an overall bed need of 5,718 acute care beds. An excess of 846 beds exist in District VI in 1989, the year which is the planning horizon use by DHRS in determining bed need applicable to this application. (Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1046-1047, 1163, 1165-66; DHRS Ex.-1.) There is a net need for five acute care beds in DHRS District V according to the Department's methodology. (Tr. Yolk. 7, pp. 1066, 1165; DHRS Ex.-1.) The figures for District VI include Carrollwood Community Hospital which is an osteopathic facility which does not provide obstetrical services. (Tr. Vol. 1, P. 158; Vol. 7, p. 1138; Vol. 8, P. 1291.) However, these osteopathic beds are considered as meeting the total bed need when computing a11 opathic bed need. DHRS has not formally adopted the subdistrict designations of allocations as part of its rules. (Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1017-1017, 1019; Vol. 8, pp. 1176, 1187.) Consideration of the adoption of subdistricts by the Local Health Council is irrelevant to this application. 2/ Areas of Consideration in Addition to Bed Need Availability Availability is deemed the number of beds available. As set forth above, there is an excess of beds. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1192.) Tampa General Hospital and Humana Women's Hospital offer all of the OB related services which UMP proposes to offer in its application. These and a number of other hospitals to include UCH, offer all of the GYN related services proposed by Northside. University Community Hospital is located 300 yards away from the proposed site of Northside. UCH is fully equipped to perform virtually any kind of GYN/OB procedure. Humana and UCH take indigent patients only on an emergency basis, as would the proposed facility. GYN/OB services are accessible to all residents of Hillsborough County regardless of their ability to pay for such services at TGH. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1469; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1596; Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 582; Hyatt, TGH Exhibit 19, P. 21.) Utilization Utilization is impacted by the number of available beds and the number of days patients stay in the hospital. According to the most recent Local Health Council hospital utilization statistics, the acute care occupancy rate for 14 acute care hospitals in Hillsborough County for the most recent six months was 65 percent. This occupancy rate is based on licensed beds and does not include CON approved beds which are not yet on line. This occupancy rate is substantially below the optimal occupancies determined by DHRS in the Rule. (DHRS Exhibit 4; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1069.) Utilization of obstetric beds is higher than general acute care beds; however, the rules do not differentiate between general and obstetric beds. 3/ Five Hillsborough County hospitals, Humana Women's, St. Joseph's, Tampa General, Humana Brandon, and South Florida Baptist, offer obstetric services. The most recent Local Health Council utilization reports indicate that overall OB occupancy for these facilities was 82 percent for the past 6 months. However, these computations do not include the 35 C0N-approved beds which will soon be available at Tampa General Hospital. (DHRS Exhibit 4). There will be a substantial excess of acute care beds to include OB beds in Hillsborough County for the foreseeable future. (Baehr, Tr.w Vol. X, pp. 1568, 1594, 1597.) The substantial excess of beds projected will result in lower utilization. In addition to excess beds, utilization is lowered by shorter hospital stays by patients. The nationwide average length of stay has been reduced by almost two days for Medicare patients and one day for all other patients due to a variety of contributing circumstances. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1192; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1102; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, pp. 1583-84; etc.) This dramatic decline in length of hospital stay is the result of many influences, the most prominent among which are: (1) a change in Medicare reimbursement to a system which rewards prompt discharges of patients and penalizes overutilization ("DGRs"), (2) the adaptation by private payers (insurance companies, etc.) of Medicare type reimbursement, (3) the growing availability and acceptance of alternatives to hospitalization such as ambulatory surgical centers, labor/delivery/recovery suites, etc. and (4) the growing popularity of health care insurance/delivery mechanisms such as health maintenance organizations ("HMOs"), preferred provider organizations ("PPOs"), and similar entities which offer direct or indirect financial incentives for avoiding or reducing hospital utilization. The trend toward declining hospital utilization will continue. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1192-98; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, pp. 1584-86; etc.) There has been a significant and progressive decrease in hospital stays for obstetrics over the last five years. During this time, a typical average length of stay has been reduced from three days to two and, in some instances, one day. In addition, there is a growing trend towards facilities (such as LDRs) which provide obstetrics on virtually an outpatient basis. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1456; Hyatt, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 644.) The average length of stay for GYN procedures is also decreasing. In addition, high percentage of GYN procedures are now being performed on an outpatient, as opposed to inpatient, basis. (Hyatt, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 644, etc.) The reduction in hospital stays and excess of acute care beds will lower utilization of acute care hospitals, including their OB components, enough to offset the projected population growth in Hillsborough County. The hospitals in District VI will not achieve the optimal occupancy rates for acute care beds or OB beds in particular by 1989. The 130 additional beds proposed by UMP would lower utilization further. (Paragraphs 7, 14, and 18 above; DHRS Exhibit 1, Humana Exhibit 1.) Geographic Accessibility Ninety percent of the population of Hillsborough County is within 30 minutes of an acute care hospital offering, at least, OB emergency services. TGH 20, overlay 6, shows that essentially all persons living in Hillsborough County are within 30 minutes normal driving time not only to an existing, acute care hospital, but a hospital offering OB services. Petitioner's service area is alleged to include central Pasco County. Although Pasco County is in District V, to the extent the proposed facility might serve central Pasco County, from a planning standpoint it is preferable to have that population in central Paso served by expansion of facilities closer to them. Hospitals in Tampa will become increasingly less accessible with increases in traffic volume over the years. The proposed location of the UMP hospital is across the street from an existing acute care hospital, University Community Hospital ("UCH"). (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 542.) Geographic accessibility is the same to the proposed UMP hospital and UCH. (Smith, Tr. Vol. III, P. 350; Wentzel, Tr. Vol. IV, p. 486; Peters, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1532.) UCH provides gynecological services but does not provide obstetrical services. However, UCH is capable of delivering babies in emergencies. (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, p. 563.) The gynecological services and OB capabilities at UCH are located at essentially the same location as Northside's proposed site. Geographic accessibility of OB/GYN services is not enhanced by UMP's proposed 66 medical-surgical beds. The accessibility of acute care beds, which under the rule are all that is considered, is essentially the same for UCH as for the proposed facility. As to geographic accessibility, the residents of Hillsborough and Pasco Counties now have reasonable access to acute care services, including OB services. The UMP project would not increase accessibility to these services by any significant decrease. C. Economic Accessibility Petitioner offered no competent, credible evidence that it would expand services to underserved portions of the community. Demographer Smith did not study income levels or socioeconomic data for the UMP service area. (Smith, TR. Vol. III, pp. 388, 389.) However, Mr. Margolis testified that 24 percent of Tampa General's OB patients, at least 90 percent of who are indigents, came from the UMP service area. (Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1695.) The patients proposed to be served at the Northside Hospital are not different than those already served in the community. (Withers, Tr. Vol. II, P. 344.) As a result, Northside Hospital would not increase the number of underserved patients. Availability of Health Care Alternative An increasing number of GYN procedures are being performed by hospitals on an outpatient basis and in freestanding ambulatory-surgical centers. An ambulatory-surgical center is already in operation at a location which is near the proposed UMP site. In fact, Dr. Hyatt, a UMP general partner, currently performs GYN procedures at that surgical center. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 150; Hyatt, Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 644, 646. Ambulatory surgical centers, birthing centers and similar alternative delivery systems offer alternatives to the proposed facility. Existing hospitals are moving to supply such alternatives which, with the excess beds and lower utilization, arc more than adequate to preclude the need for the UMP proposal. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1204, 1205, 1206; Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1453, 1469; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1154; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1151, 1154.) Need for Special Equipment & Services DHRS does not consider obstetrics or gynecology to be "special services" for purposes of Section 381.494(6)(c)6, Florida Statutes. In addition, the services proposed by UMP are already available in Hillsborough and Pasco Counties. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1162, 1210.) Need for Research & Educational Facilities USF currently uses Tampa General as a training facility for its OB residents. TCH offered evidence that the new OB facilities being constructed at Tampa General were designed with assistance from USF and were funded by the Florida Legislature, in part, as an educational facility. (Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1391; Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1453-1455.) The educational objectives of USF for OB residents at Tampa General are undermined by a disproportionately high indigent load. Residents need a cross section of patients. The UMP project will further detract from a well rounded OB residency program at Tampa General by causing Tampa General's OB Patient mix to remain unbalanced. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1458; Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1695.) UMP offered no evidence of arrangements to further medical research or educational needs in the community. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1213. UMP's proposed facility will not contribute to research and education in District VI. Availability of Resources Management UMP will not manage its hospital. It has not secured a management contract nor entered into any type of arrangement to insure that its proposed facility will be managed by knowledgeable and competent personnel. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, p. 142.) However, there is no alleged or demonstrated shortage of management personnel available. Availability of Funds For Capital and Operating Expenditures The matter of capital funding was a "de novo issue," i.e., evidence was presented which was in addition to different from its application. In its application, Northside stated that its project will be funded through 100 percent debt. Its principal general partner, Dr. Withers, states that this "figure is not correct." However, neither Dr. Withers nor any other Northside witness ever identified the percentage of the project, if any, which is to be funded through equity contributions except the property upon which it would be located. (UMP Exhibit 1, p. 26; Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 134.) The UMP application contained a letter from Landmark Bank of Tampa which indicates an interest on the part of that institution in providing funding to Northside in the event that its application is approved. This one and one half year year old letter falls short of a binding commitment on the part of Landmark Bank to lend UMP the necessary funds to complete and operate its project and is stale. Dr. Withers admitted that Northside had no firm commitment as of the date of the hearing to finance its facility, or any commitment to provide 1196 financing as stated in its application. (UMP Exhibit I/Exhibit Dr. Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 138.) Contribution to Education No evidence was introduced to support the assertion in the application of teaching research interaction between UMP and USF. USF presented evidence that no such interaction would occur. (Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1329.) The duplication of services and competition for patients and staff created by UMP's facility would adversely impact the health professional training programs of USF, the state's primary representative of health professional training programs in District VI. (Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1314-19; 1322-24; 1331-1336.) Financial Feasibility The pro forma statement of income and expenses for the first two years of operation (1987 and 1988) contained in the UMP application projects a small operating loss during the first year and a substantial profit by the end of the second year. These pro formas are predicated on the assumption that the facility will achieve a utilization rate of 61 percent in Year 1 and 78 percent in its second year. To achieve these projected utilization levels, Northside would have to capture a market share of 75-80 percent of all OB patient days and over 75% of all GYN patient days generated by females in its service area. (UMP, Exhibit 1; Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 145, Dacus; Tr. Vol. V, P. 750-755.) These projected market shares and resulting utilization levels are very optimistic. It is unlikely that Northside could achieve these market shares simply by making its services available to the public. More reasonable utilization assumptions for purposes of projecting financial feasibility would be 40-50 percent during the first year and 65 percent in the second year. (Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1700; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, pp. 1578, 1579, 1601.) UMP omitted the cost of the land on which its facility is to be constructed from its total project cost and thus understates the income necessary to sustain its project. Dr. Withers stated the purchase price of this land was approximately $1.5 million and it has a current market value in excess of $5 million. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, pp. 139, 140.) Dr. Withers admitted that the purchase price of the land would be included in formulating patient charges. As a matter of DHRS interpretation, the cost of land should be included as part of the capital cost of the project even if donated or leased and, as such, should be added into the pro formas. UMP's financial expert, Barbara Turner, testified that she would normally include land costs in determining financial feasibility of a project, otherwise total project costs would be understated (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 141; Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1215, 1216; Turner, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1714.) In addition, the pro formas failed to include any amount for management expenses associated with the new facility. Dr. Withers admitted UMP does not intend to manage Northside and he anticipates that the management fee would be considerably higher than the $75,000 in administrator salaries included in the application. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, pp. 143, 144.) Barbara Turner, UMP's financial expert, conceded that the reasonableness of the percent UMP pro formas is predicated on the reasonableness of its projected market share and concomitant utilization assumptions. These projections are rejected as being inconsistent with evidence presented by more credible witnesses. The UMP project, as stated in its application or as presented at hearing, is not financially feasible on the assumption Petitioner projected. VIII. Impact on Existing Facilities Approval of the UMP application would result in a harmful impact on the costs of providing OB/GYN services at existing facilities. The new facility would be utilized by patients who would otherwise utilize existing facilities, hospitals would be serving fewer patients than they are now. This would necessarily increase capital and operating costs on a per patient basis which, in turn, would necessitate increases in patient charges. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1217-1219; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1587.) Existing facilities are operating below optimal occupancy levels. See DHRS Exhibit 4. The Northside project would have an adverse financial impact on Humana, Tampa General Hospital, and other facilities regardless of whether Northside actually makes a profit. See next subheading below. The Northside project would draw away a substantial number of potential private-pay patients from TGH. Residents of the proposed Northside service area constitute approximately 24 percent of the total number of OB patients served by TGH. The Northside project poses a threat to TGH's plans to increase its non- indigent OB patient mix which is the key to its plans to provide a quality, competitive OB service to the residents of Hillsborough County. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VIII, P. 1225; Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1695.) Impact Upon Costs and Competition Competition via a new entrant in a health care market can be good or bad in terms of both the costs and the quality of care rendered, depending on the existing availability of competition in that market at the time. Competition has a positive effect when the market is not being adequately or efficiently served. In a situation where adequate and efficient service exists, competition can have an adverse impact on costs and on quality because a new facility is simply adding expense to the system without a concomitant benefit. (Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, p. 1650.) Competition among hospitals in Hillsborough County is now "intense and accelerating." (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, p. 558.) Tampa General is at a competitive disadvantage because of its indigent case load and its inability to offer equity interests to physicians in its hospital. (Blair, Tr. Vol. VI, pp. 945, 947-948); Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1405.) Tampa General Hospital is intensifying its marketing effort, a physician office building under construction now at Tampa General is an illustration of Tampa General's effort to compete for private physicians and patients. (Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1405-1406.) The whole thrust of Tampa General's construction program is to increase its ability to compete for physicians. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1224; Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, p. 1442.) The Tampa General construction will create new competition for physicians and patients. (Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, p. 1099.) Patients go to hospitals where their doctors practice, therefore, hospitals generally compete for physicians. (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 563; Blair, Tr. Vol. VI, pp. 898, 928.) Because many of the UMP partners are obstetricians who plan to use Northside exclusively, approval of the Northside project would lessen competition. (Popp, TGH Exhibit 18, P. 11.) It is feasible for Tampa General to attract more private pay OB patients. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1460- 1461.) At its recently opened rehabilitation center, Tampa General has attracted more private pay patients. (Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1393-1396.) USF OB residents at Tampa General are planning to practice at Tampa General. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1460-1461.) The state-of-the-art labor, delivery, recovery room to be used at Tampa General will be an attractive alternative to OB patients. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1460- 1461); Popp, TGH Exhibit 18, p.26) IX. Capital Expenditure Proposals The proposed Northside hospital will not offer any service not now available in Tampa. (Hyatt, TGH Exhibit 19, p. 21).
Recommendation Petitioner having failed to prove the need for additional acute care beds to include OB beds or some special circumstance which would warrant approval of the proposed project, it is recommended that its application for a CON be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1985.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration has a policy regarding the determination of the need for long term care beds which constitutes a rule and, if so, whether rulemaking is feasible and practicable.
Findings Of Fact Vencor Hospitals South, Inc. (Vencor), applied for a certificate of need (CON No. 8614) to establish a 60-bed long term care hospital in Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) District 8, for Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. AHCA is the state agency authorized to administer the CON program for health care services and facilities in Florida. AHCA reviewed and preliminarily denied Vencor's application for CON No. 8614. The reasons for AHCA's actions on this or any other CON application are memorialized in documents called State Agency Action Reports (SAARs). Vencor alleges that the following statement generally describes AHCA's policy in regard to the review of CON applications for long term care hospitals: Long term care is not a separate category of health service, but is instead merely an allowable form of reimbursement pursuant to Medicare regulations. The care provided in acute care hospitals, hospital based skilled nursing beds, "subacute" care in nursing homes, and care at rehabilitation facilities, are all equivalent to the care provided at long term care hospitals. Therefore, in evaluating the need for long term care hospital beds, AHCA will assess the availability of other categories of beds and services to meet the need for the services proposed by the applicant for long term care hospital beds. Need for long term care beds is determined on a regional basis. Prior to 1994, long term care hospitals were not regulated separately and were considered comparable to general acute care hospitals. In 1994, AHCA amended the CON rules to establish long term care beds and hospitals as separate categories of health care providers. In 1994, AHCA defined and continues to the present to define long term care hospital as follows: "Long term care hospital" means a hospital licensed under Chapter 395, Part I, F.S., which meets the requirements of Part 412, subpart B, paragraph 412.23(e), [C]ode of Federal Regulations (1994), and seeks exclusion from the Medicare prospective payment system for inpatient hospital services. Rule 59C-1.002(29), Florida Administrative Code. In the federal regulations referenced by the AHCA rule, long term care hospital is more specifically defined as a hospital with an independent governing structure, an average length of stay greater than 25 days, referral of at least 75 percent of total patients from separate hospitals, and which meets the requirements for Medicare participation. 42 CFR Ch. IV, Subch. B, Pt. 412, Subpt. B, s. 412.23. AHCA also distinguishes long term care in its rules governing the conversions from one type of health care provider to another. The applicable conversion rules provide: "Conversion from one type of health care facility to another" means the reclassification of one licensed facility type to another licensed facility type, including reclassification from a general acute care hospital to a long term care hospital or specialty hospital or from a long term care hospital or specialty hospital to a general acute care hospital. Rule 59C-1.002(14), Florida Administrative Code (emphasis added); and "Conversion of beds" means the reclassification of licensed beds from one category to another including, for facilities licensed under Chapter 395, F.S., conversion to or from acute care beds, neonatal intensive care beds, hospital inpatient psychiatric beds, comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds, hospital inpatient substance abuse beds, distinct part skilled nursing facility beds, or beds in a long term care hospital; and, for facilities licensed under Chapter 400, Part I, F.S., conversion to or from skilled beds and intermediate care beds in a facility that is not certified for both skilled and intermediate nursing care if such conversion effects a change in the level of care of 10 beds or 10 percent of the total bed capacity of the facility within a 2-year period, or conversion to or from sheltered beds and community beds. Rule 59C-1.002 (15), Florida Administrative Code (emphasis added). AHCA also defined "substantial change in health services" to include: The conversion of a general acute care or specialty hospital licensed under Chapter 395, Part I, F.S., to a long term care hospital. Rule 59C-1.002(41)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Taken together AHCA's rules recognize long term care hospitals or beds as a separate and distinct category. Elfie Stamm was responsible for the development of the rules and is currently the chief of the CON and Budget Review Office at AHCA. Ms. Stamm testified in a 1994 rule challenge case, when AHCA was drafting a rule with a numeric need methodology for long term care beds, that: long term care hospitals serve patients who cannot be cost effectively treated in an acute care hospital, who do not have the same needs for the same types of service; it would not be fair for an applicant for the new construction of a long term care hospital to be compared to an acute care hospital; comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR) services are different than services in a long term care hospital; a long term care hospital with an average length of stay of 25 days or more is different from an acute care hospital that generally has a length of stay of 5 to 6 days but provides a full range of services; the patient populations in long term care hospitals are different from those in an acute care hospital in terms of overall patient characteristics, including older than average age, higher percentage of patients with particular diagnoses, such as ventilator dependency, higher overall mortality rates than acute care hospitals, and a much higher percentage of admissions by referrals from acute care hospitals. [T. 262-283]. See also Tarpon Springs Hospital Foundation, etc. v. AHCA, et al., DOAH Case No. 94-0958RU (R.O. 8/2/94). On behalf of AHCA, Ms. Stamm testified in this proceeding that: AHCA has changed its mind on whether or not it is appropriate to leave a patient in an acute care setting rather than transfer to long term care, specifically with regard to cost-effectiveness. [T. 373]. AHCA has not changed its mind and still says acute care hospitals and long term care hospitals should be reviewed separately, because if they would be reviewed comparatively, . . . there would be no chance for any [long term] beds ever because we don't show any need for acute care beds anywhere in the state. [T. 376]. But in evaluating Vencor's application for long term care hospitals in District 8 that would be located in Lee County, the Agency viewed hospital-based skilled nursing units, community nursing home subacute beds and comprehensive medical rehab beds throughout the entire district as existing and like potential alternatives to the proposed project. [T. 389]. AHCA does not necessarily agree that CMR services are different from long term care hospital services. [T. 265]. AHCA does not have a clearly identified population group for whom long term care would be more cost-effective, or to determine a numeric need methodology. [TR. 324]. Although there is a population that does need services that exceed 25 days or prolonged ventilator service, AHCA is not sure what is the most appropriate setting for their care because of inadequate data on comparative costs and outcomes. [TR. 327-8]. AHCA attributes its change in position to the publication titled Subacute Care: Policy Synthesis And Market Area Analysis, submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, on November 1, 1995, by Lewin-VHI, Inc. The document is commonly referred to as the Lewin Report. The Lewin Report concludes that long term care hospitals serve patients who are also served in other subacute settings, including CMR beds and hospitals, acute care hospital skilled nursing units, and skilled nursing units in freestanding nursing homes. As a result of the conclusions in the Lewin Report, AHCA maintains that it is unable to develop a numeric need methodology without an identifiable patient population. AHCA has not, however, repealed the rules establishing long term care as a separate type of health care service. Rather, the agency intends to wait for additional studies, including one being conducted for Vencor. The Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for acute care hospitals created the market for subacute and long term care. Under the PPS, acute care hospitals receive a fixed payment based on the patient's diagnosis or diagnostic related group (DRG). Upon discharge to a subacute or long term setting, the patient's care is no longer reimbursed on a fixed basis, but at actual, reasonable costs. AHCA maintains that financial pressures created the current system, but without cost/benefit or outcomes analyses to demonstrate the appropriateness of using long term care hospitals. Therefore, AHCA considered the occupancy levels of acute care hospitals and available nursing home beds in determining the need for Vencor's project. AHCA has no rule defining subacute care, no inventory of subacute care units in nursing homes, and no reporting requirements from which it can determine the level of care or services provided in hospital based skilled nursing units. AHCA has no reports on specific levels or types of services provided in CMR beds. AHCA, nevertheless, presumed that the services are like those provided in long term care beds based on the Lewin Report. In rejecting Vencor's attempts to distinguish itself from other types of health care providers, AHCA relied, in part, on its finding that 1995 District 8 acute care hospital occupancy averaged 47.69 percent and peaked at 60.26 percent. By not adopting rules for determining the numeric need for long term care, AHCA also failed to establish the appropriate service area for determining need. AHCA considers the need for long term care services on a regional basis. In support of AHCA's decision to deny a long term care hospital application in District 9, Ms. Stamm's predecessor, Elizabeth Dudek, testified that long term care is a regional service. As further evidence of AHCA's position, the SAARs issued by AHCA on long term care hospital applications, have examined available services beyond the limits of the district. AHCA contends that long term care is regional, but determines its need by comparison to available hospital based skilled nursing units and subacute beds in community nursing homes, which are evaluated on a subdistrict basis, and CMR services which are tertiary but evaluated on a district-wide basis. See Finding of Fact 22. Since November 1995, AHCA has preliminarily denied all CON applications for long term care hospitals. Its policy of comparing the need for long term care to available beds in nursing homes and other types of hospitals is consistently repeated in the portions of the SAARs which address need. In analyzing the need for long term care hospitals in AHCA District 1, the SAAR dated January 10, 1997, includes the following statements: Vencor Hospitals South, Inc. defines its patient population as those currently being treated in ICUs and belonging to roughly 10 DRGs (which account for approximately 83% of Vencor patients. . . .) However these DRGs could also [be] appropriate for acute care, hospital based freestanding skilled nursing care, skilled nursing facility care and comprehensive medical rehabilitation care and the applicant does not demonstrate that these services are not available to residents of District 1. and The applicant [Baptist Health Affiliates Inc.] also discusses the differences between its proposed patient population and that of an acute care hospital, nursing home and those treated at home. However, there is no documentation provided which demonstrates the applicant's potential patients could not receive appropriate care in the District's existing rehabilitation facility, hospital based or nursing home skilled subacute nursing units. . . . Vencor Exhibit 12, pages 3-4 and 8. AHCA reviewed a CON application filed by Columbia of Pinellas County, Inc., to convert acute care beds to a long term care hospital in District 5, and concluded: The patient population represented by the DRGs listed above (by the applicant) are typical of freestanding nursing home with subacute units and hospital based SNUs in the state. There appear to be strong similarities between the subacute patient population of nursing homes/units and those of a long term care hospital. Vencor Exhibit 13, page 8. The SAAR issued on the Columbia of Pinellas County CON application continued with an extensive discussion of the Lewin Report. The SAAR reported AHCA's finding that CMR hospitals are alternatives since they admit patients who do not fit federal guidelines for CMR admissions (being able to tolerate three hours of therapy a day), and who might otherwise be in long term care hospitals. In the SAAR issued after the review of long term care applications for District 7, the same statement appears: The patient population represented by the DRGs listed above [by Orlando Regional Hospital] are typical of freestanding nursing home with subacute units and hospital based SNUs in the state. There appear to be strong similarities between the subacute patient population of nursing homes/units and those of a long term care hospital. Vencor Exhibit 14, page 11. Finally, in reviewing applications from Palm Beach County in District 9, AHCA concluded again: The applicant states that generally speaking the long term care hospital patients have respiratory complications, . . . tracheostomies, . . . chronic diseases, an infectious process requiring antibiotic therapy, . . . skin complications . . . need a combination of rehabilitation and complex medical treatment or are technology dependent individuals requiring high levels of nursing care. However, these patients could also [be] appropriate for acute care, hospital based skilled nursing care, skilled nursing facility care and comprehensive medical rehabilitation care and the applicant does not demonstrate that these services are not available to the residents of District IX. Vencor Exhibit 15, page 4. AHCA relies on the statutory review criteria in Subsection 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as authority for its consideration of all beds and facilities which may serve the same patients. That provision requires consideration of: (b) The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant. The expert witness for AHCA, however, distinguished between "like and existing" services for purposes of determining numeric need and the statutory criteria. She noted that once numeric need is established and published for nursing beds or CMR beds, for example, that same category of beds outside the appropriate health service planning subdistrict or district is not considered "like and existing." Similarly, within the district or subdistrict, there is a factual issue in each case but no presumption that beds of a different category are "like and existing." AHCA contends that it has no policy related to long term care and any comparable services. Since 1995, long term care CON applicants, according to AHCA, have failed to meet the requirements of Rule 59C-1.008(e), which provides in pertinent part: If no agency policy exists, the applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. (Emphasis added). AHCA's argument ignores the fact that its expert witness provided competent, substantial evidence that it has redefined and expanded the meaning of "like services" for purposes of demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology. It also ignores the fact that AHCA has expanded the comparison of need beyond the geographical limits of the district. AHCA's argument that it is waiting for additional data before adopting a need methodology, including data from a Vencor study, is to no avail since AHCA has already changed its policy. After reviewing a total of eighteen CON applications for long term care hospitals, AHCA has issued two CONs, one as part of a settlement agreement and the other approving an application filed by St. Petersburg Health Care Management, Inc. (St. Petersburg), for CON 8213. The St. Petersburg application demonstrated need using an identical methodology prepared by the same health planner as Vencor in this case. Referring to CON 8213, AHCA's expert witness candidly admitted . . . "I want to make clear that particular application was actually submitted and approved prior to the Lewin study." (T. 393). Subsequent to the Lewin study, AHCA has consistently denied applications for long term care beds or hospitals.
