The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether the following statement was made by Respondent, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION; whether the statement violates the provisions of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes; whether the statement constitutes a declaratory statement under Section 120.565, Florida Statutes; whether Petitioner, ALL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, INC., has standing to maintain this action; and whether Petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees and costs. The alleged agency statement which is at issue in this case is: The Agency for Health Care Administration takes the position that a shared service agreement may be modified, without prior approval of the Agency, as long as each party continues to contribute something to the program, and the shared service contract remains consistent with the provisions of Rule 59C-1.0085(4), Florida Administrative Code. In addition, the Agency takes the position that modifications to a shared service agreement do not require prior review and approval by the Agency.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, ALL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, INC. (hereinafter ALL CHILDREN'S), is a medical facility located in St. Petersburg, Florida, which provides pediatric hospital care. Respondent, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (AHCA), is the agency of the State of Florida vested with statutory authority to issue, revoke or deny certificates of need in accordance with the statewide and district health plans. Intervenor, BAYFRONT MEDICAL CENTER (BAYFRONT), is an acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg, Florida. ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT are located adjacent to each other and are connected by a thirty-yard tunnel. In 1969, ALL CHILDREN'S began operation of a pediatric cardiac catheterization program. ALL CHILDREN'S pediatric cardiac catheterization program existed prior to the statutory requirement for a certificate of need to provide such service. Neither AHCA, nor its predecessor agency, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, issued a certificate of need for ALL CHILDREN'S cardiac catheterization program. Since 1969, ALL CHILDREN'S has expended at least $500,000 on upgrading the cardiac catheterization program. Since 1970, ALL CHILDREN'S has operated a pediatric open heart surgery program. ALL CHILDREN'S open heart surgery program existed prior to the statutory requirement for issuance of a certificate of need to perform such service. Neither AHCA, nor its predecessor agency, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), issued a certificate of need for ALL CHILDREN'S open heart surgery program. By letter dated May 13, 1974, HRS specifically advised ALL CHILDREN'S that modifications to the ALL CHILDREN'S open heart surgery program were not subject to agency approval. In May of 1973, ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT entered into a shared service agreement to provide adult cardiac catheterization services. In accordance with the shared service agreement, the actual catheterizations are performed in the physical plant of ALL CHILDREN'S and with equipment located on the ALL CHILDREN'S campus. BAYFRONT contributed to the adult cardiac catheterization shared service program by providing, inter alia, patients, management, medical personnel, and pre- and postoperative care. Beginning in 1975, BAYFRONT has also provided adult open heart surgery services through a joint program with ALL CHILDREN'S with the actual surgeries being performed at the physical plant on ALL CHILDREN'S campus. BAYFRONT contributed to the adult open heart surgery shared service by providing, inter alia, patients, management, medical personnel, and pre- and postoperative care. The shared service agreement between ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT to provide adult cardiac catheterization and open heart surgical services was in existence prior to the statutory requirement for a certificate of need to perform such services. Neither AHCA, nor its predecessor agency, Florida Department of health and Rehabilitative Services, issued a certificate of need to provide such services. The cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery program operated by ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT was "grandfathered" in because the program existed prior to the certificate of need requirement. Because no certificate of need was issued to ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT for its shared adult cardiac service program, no conditions have been imposed by AHCA on the operation of the program. "Conditions" placed on certificates of need are important predicates to agency approval and typically regulate specific issues relating to the operation of the program and the provision of the service such as access, location, and provision of the service to Medicaid recipients. The ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT cardiac shared services program is the only "grandfathered in" shared service arrangement in Florida, and is the only shared service arrangement operating without a certificate of need in Florida. An open heart surgery program is shared by Marion Community Hospital and Munroe Regional Medical Center in Ocala, Florida. The Marion/Munroe program operates pursuant to a certificate of need issued by AHCA. On December 22, 1995, AHCA published a notice of its intent to approve a certificate of need for a shared pediatric cardiac catheterization program between Baptist Hospital and University Medical Center in Duval County, Florida. BAYFRONT has applied for, but has not yet been issued, a certificate of need to perform cardiac catheterization services independent of the shared services arrangement with ALL CHILDREN'S. The agency receives hundreds of inquiries each year requesting information and guidance from health care providers regarding the certificate of need application process and other requirements of the certificate of need program. On more than one occasion ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT have inquired either orally or in letters to the agency regarding whether certain changes in their adult cardiac shared services program would require agency approval through a certificate of need application. In response to a 1990 written inquiry from ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT regarding modifications to the shared services agreement, the agency (then HRS) by letter dated September 18, 1990, stated in pertinent part that "the alterations you propose still constitute shared services." The agency response went on to state that it is therefore "...determined that they (the proposed changes) have not altered the original intent." On January 31, 1991, Rule 59C-1.0085(4), Florida Administrative Code, governing shared service arrangements in project-specific certificate of need applications was promulgated. The rule provides: Shared service arrangement: Any application for a project involving a shared service arrangement is subject to a batched review where the health service being proposed is not currently provided by any of the applicants or an expedited review where the health service being proposed is currently provided by one of the applicants. The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services where none of the applicants are currently authorized to provide the service: Each applicant jointly applying for a new health service must be a party to a formal written legal agreement. Certificate of Need approval for the shared service will authorize the applicants to provide the new health service as specified in the original application. Certificate of Need approval for the shared service shall not be construed as entitling each applicant to independently offer the new health service. Authority for any party to offer the service exists only as long as the parties participate in the provision of the shared service. Any of the parties providing a shared service may seek to dissolve the arrangement. This action is subject to review as a termina- tion of service. If termination is approved by the agency, all parties to the original shared service give up their rights to provide the service. Parties seeking to provide the service independently in the future must submit applications in the next applicable review cycle and compete for the service with all other applicants. All applicable statutory and rule criteria are met. The following factors are considered when reviewing applications for shared services when one of the applicants has the service: A shared services contract occurs when two or more providers enter into a contractual arrangement to jointly offer an existing or approved health care service. A shared services contract must be written and legal in nature. These include legal partnerships, contractual agreements, recognition of the provision of a shared service by a governmental payor, or a similar documented arrangement. Each of the parties to the shared services contract must contribute something to the agreement including but not limited to facilities, equipment, patients, management or funding. For the duration of a shared services contract, none of the entities involved has the right or authority to offer the service in the absence of the contractual arrangement except the entity which originally was authorized to provide the service. A shared services contract is not transferable. New parties to the original agreement constitute a new contract and require a new Certificate of Need. A shared services contract may encom- pass any existing or approved health care service. The following items will be evaluated in reviewing shared services contracts: The demonstrated savings in capital equipment and related expenditures; The health system impact of sharing services, including effects on access and availability, continuity and quality of care; and, Other applicable statutory review criteria. Dissolution of a shared services contract is subject to review as a termination of service. If termination is approved, the entity(ies) authorized to provide the service prior to the contract retains the right to continue the service. All other parties to the contract who seek to provide the service in their own right must request the service as a new health service and are subject to full Certificate of Need review as a new health service. All statutory and rule criteria are met. By letter dated October 22, 1993, ALL CHILDREN'S and BAYFRONT inquired again of the agency regarding modifications of the adult inpatient cardiac shared service program. AHCA did not respond to the 1993 inquiry, and AHCA ultimately considered the inquiry withdrawn. By letter dated February 24, 1995, BAYFRONT made further inquiry of the agency, and requested agency confirmation of the following statement: The purpose of this letter is to confirm our understanding that the Agency for Health Care Administration ("Agency") takes the position that the shared services agreement between Bayfront and All Children's may be modified, without prior approval of the Agency, as long as each party continues to contribute something to the program, and that the shared services contract remains consistent with the provisions of Rule 59C-1.0085(4) F.A.C. By letter dated March 16, 1995, the agency made the following reply to BAYFRONT from which this proceeding arose: The purpose of this letter is to confirm your understanding of this agency's position with reference to the reviewability of a modifica- tion of the shared services agreement between Bayfront Medical Center and All Children's Hospital set forth in your February 24, 1995 letter.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a physician, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida (license number ME 0031217) who practiced in the specialty of orthopedic surgery. Respondent was not board certified. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had hospital privileges at Palm Springs General Hospital (Palm Springs) in Hialeah, Florida. On Saturday, February 26, 1994, T. P., a 29 year-old male, suffered a badly fractured leg while playing soccer. T. P. was taken to the emergency room at Palm Springs where the emergency room physician partially reduced the angulation of the fracture and placed the patient's leg in a splint cast. The patient was thereafter admitted to Palm Springs on February 26, 1994, under the care of Dr. Stephen Ticktin, an orthopedic surgeon. X-rays revealed that the patient had sustained a jagged fracture of both the tibia and the fibula. The fractures were similar to sharp-edged spears. There was a laceration and significant bruising at the fracture sight. Dr. Ticktin examined the patient's leg on February 26, 1994, but did not reduce the fracture (set the leg) on that date. Instead, Dr. Ticktin kept the leg in the splint cast to immobilize it, and planned to perform surgery on the following Monday morning. The patient and his girlfriend told Dr. Ticktin that they did not want to have surgery at Palm Springs. They wanted the patient transferred to a Broward County hospital so that he could be closer to his residence. On Monday, February 28, 1994, Dr. Ticktin did not perform surgery on T. P. On Monday, February 28, 1994, T. P. changed his mind and agreed to have surgery at Palm Springs. (Dr. Ticktin's notes reflect that the patient changed his mind after talking to a representative of his insurance company.) Surgery was planned for Wednesday, March 2, 1994. On that Wednesday, the patient ran a fever. Because of that fever, the anesthesiologist cancelled the surgery that had been scheduled for March 2, 1994. The patient terminated the services of Dr. Ticktin on March 2, 1994, and refused to be treated by him. Late in the day of Wednesday, March 2, 1994, the hospital administrator asked Respondent to assume the care of the patient. Respondent first saw the patient between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 2, 1994. At the time Respondent first saw him, T. P. had been immobile with the cast that Dr. Ticktin had placed on his leg on February 26, 1994. His fractured leg had not been set. The patient was very upset. On the evening of March 2, 1994, Respondent determined that the fracture would have to be reduced with the patient being under general anesthesia. Respondent observed that the leg did not appear to be excessively swollen and that the circulation in the leg was appropriate. Respondent noted that there was numbness in the foot, which indicated that a peritoneal nerve had been injured. Respondent had no reason to believe that that the patient was suffering from a compartment syndrome on March 2, 1994. Compartment syndrome is a relatively rare occurrence that results in restricted or total loss of blood flow due to swelling within a compartment, which is an enclosed facia. The tibia and fibula are encased in a compartment from the knee to the ankle. Swelling within that compartment produces pressure on the arteries and smaller blood vessels that can restrict or completely block the flow of blood below the area of the swelling. It typically takes several hours or days for a compartment syndrome to manifest itself. On the morning of March 3, 1994, Respondent aligned T. P.'s leg, thereby reducing the fractures, and stabilized it by inserting pins in the leg and applying an external fixater attached above and below the fracture sites. At approximately 10:00 a.m. on March 3, 1994, the patient was moved from the operating room to the recovery room. At the time the patient left the operating room, there were no signs that anything untoward had happened. The recovery room records reflect that at approximately 10:05 a.m., there was no pulse below the fracture site. Respondent observed in the recovery room that the leg below the fracture was ischemic (receiving little or no oxygen). Respondent testified, credibly, that he considered whether the patient was suffering a compartment syndrome, but that he concluded that he probably was not because of the rapid onset of the problem following the reduction and the placing of the fixater, and because the leg remained supple and had not changed from the earlier examination. Respondent immediately ordered an angiogram, the appropriate diagnostic examination, and contacted Dr. Marcos Zequeira, a vascular surgeon on the staff of Palm Springs. Both Respondent and Dr. Zequeira were of the opinion that the patient had suffered a vascular accident and neither one formed the opinion that they were dealing with a compartment syndrome. Dr. Zequeira and Respondent agreed that an angiogram should be performed to diagnose the cause of the loss of blood flow in the leg. Dr. Zequeira advised Respondent that there were no facilities to perform an angiogram at Palm Springs. 1 Dr. Zequeira and Respondent decided to transfer the patient to Dr. Felix Freshwater, a micro-surgeon at Deering Hospital, to perform an angiogram and perform the procedure that would be necessary to resolve the problem. As soon as could be done, Dr. Zequeira contacted Dr. Freshwater, who agreed to accept the patient. Respondent thereafter immediately made the arrangements for an ambulance, which transported the patient to Deering Hospital. Respondent followed the ambulance in his own car and remained with the patient until after Dr. Freshwater performed surgery on the patient. The patient arrived at Deering Hospital at 2:00 p.m. and the angiogram was completed at 3:40 p.m. Anesthesia was started on the patient at 4:37 p.m. and surgery began at 5:30 p.m. The angiogram performed at Deering Hospital revealed that the patient had suffered a type of a compartment syndrome. It was not a typical compartment syndrome and it could not have been accurately diagnosed without the angiogram. Dr. Freshwater testified that his and Dr. Zequeira's presumptive diagnosis prior to the angiogram was that of a direct arterial injury as opposed to a compartment syndrome. Appropriate surgical intervention required an angiogram. The surgical procedure performed by Dr. Freshwater (fibulectomy-fasciotomy) restored the circulation in the patient's leg. Loss of blood flow presents a serious threat to a patient's leg and can result of the loss of the limb. The longer the blood flow is cut off, the more damage to the leg occurs. Damage can begin to occur in as little as two hours after the flow is cut off. Damage to the leg is certain if blood flow is cut off for twelve hours or longer. Here, the patient's circulation in his leg had been significantly restricted or blocked from approximately 10:05 a.m. until the surgical intervention by Dr. Freshwater. Petitioner did not establish that the patient's subsequent problems with his leg were attributable to that fact.2 Petitioner's experts opined that when he first detected that the blood flow in the leg had been compromised, Respondent should have immediately removed the fixater from the patient and, if necessary, displaced the fracture, thereby restoring the flow of blood. These witnesses, both of whom are highly qualified in their fields of practice, testified that Respondent's failure to take prompt action to restore the flow of blood was below the acceptable standard of care. Dr. Freshwater and Dr. Shall were of the opinion that Respondent did not practice below the standard of care. All experts agree that it was appropriate for Respondent to consult with Dr. Zequeira, a vascular surgeon, and to order an angiogram. All experts agree that the restricted or blocked blood flow presented a danger to the patient's leg, and all agreed that the leg would suffer more damage the longer it took to restore appropriate blood flow. Dr. Freshwater and Dr. Shall were of the opinion that removing the fixater and displacing the fractures as suggested by Petitioner's experts without an angiogram would have presented an unwarranted risk to the patient because an appropriate diagnosis had not been made (and could not have been made without an angiogram) and because moving these spear-like fractures could easily have resulted in more damage to the leg, such as cutting or puncturing an artery. The more persuasive evidence established that it was appropriate for the Respondent to transfer the patient to the care of Dr. Freshwater because Dr. Freshwater was imminently qualified to perform the delicate surgery that was thought necessary to restore the blood flow and because Deering Hospital had the facilities to perform the requisite angiogram. All of the treating physicians were aware that time was of the essence and they moved as expeditiously as circumstances and prudence permitted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 11th day of February, 1999.
The Issue Whether there is a need for a new Pediatric Heart Transplant (PHT) program in Organ Transplant Service Area (OTSA) 3, and, if so, whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 10518, filed by Orlando Health, Inc., d/b/a Arnold Palmer Medical Center (APMC), to establish a PHT program, satisfies the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for award of a CON to establish a PHT program at the Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children (APH).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the credibility of the witnesses and evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Orlando Health, Inc., d/b/a Arnold Palmer Medical Center OH was originally formed by two community physicians 100 years ago as a 20-bed hospital in downtown Orlando. Today, OH is a large not-for-profit healthcare system with more than 3,300 beds serving Central Florida and beyond. Comprised of nine wholly-owned or affiliated hospitals and rehabilitation centers, OH serves as the region’s only Level One Trauma Center and Pediatric Trauma Center, and is a statutory teaching hospital system offering graduate medical education and clinical research in both specialty and community hospitals. OH has been actively involved in clinical research since the beginning of its graduate medical education and residency programs in the 1950s. OH’s primary service area includes approximately 2.2 million people, with a greater service area of Central Florida, which encompasses more than three million people today and is rapidly growing. OH experiences about 100,000 inpatient admissions and 1.5 million ambulatory visits each year. OH has 24,000 employees, including 2,000 physicians and 8,000 nurses. OH has long been recognized as the safety net provider for the Central Florida region. APMC is comprised of two hospitals, APH and Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women and Babies (WPH). APMC was founded on the premise that the close integration of specialty inpatient pediatrics and obstetrics services improves quality and outcomes. APMC is the single largest acute care facility in the nation dedicated to women and children. APH has achieved national ranking as a Top 50 Children’s Hospital by U.S. News and World Report, based on quality data metrics that focus on process, structure, and outcomes, for the past eight consecutive years for key programs, including pediatric cardiology. Since 2015, APH has been the only pediatric hospital in Florida to receive the Top Hospital award from Leapfrog, an achievement based on evaluation of numerous quality metrics, including outcomes data over time. APH has been a Magnet-designated facility since 2013. APH’s primary service area covers 25 counties. APH’s pediatric trauma center and dedicated pediatric emergency department receive approximately 55,000 visits per year. The Heart Center at APH (the Heart Center) is nationally ranked among the top pediatric cardiac programs in the country for its outcomes in complex congenital heart surgery. Dr. William DeCampli, APH’s chief of Pediatric Cardiac Surgery, and Dr. David Nykanen, APH’s chief of Cardiology, serve as the medical directors of the Heart Center. Dr. DeCampli and Dr. Nykanen will continue to serve as the medical directors of the Heart Center following implementation of APH’s proposed PHT program. The Heart Center is on the third floor of APH in the “corner pocket” of the hospital. It is intentionally designed so that the pediatric cardiovascular intensive care unit (CVICU), cardiovascular operating suite, and cardiac catheterization suite are in close proximity to each other, to promote the integration of care between the units and to ensure the safe transition of pediatric patients. APH’s 20-bed CVICU is more advanced than the intensive care units of most pediatric cardiac programs across the country. APH established a freestanding dedicated CVICU in January 2005, and was one of the first in the nation to do so. APH CVICU clinical staff are dedicated to the CVICU and specifically trained to care for the special needs of pediatric cardiac patients. Unlike many other pediatric cardiac programs in the country, APH’s CVICU has 24/7/365 attending physician in- house coverage which leads to better access for patients and better outcomes. APH’s commitment to this continuous on-site physician presence reflects a standard that all pediatric cardiac programs aspire to, but few have achieved. APH has three employed pediatric cardiac anesthesiologists providing 24/7/365 in-house coverage, rare among pediatric cardiac programs. The specialty of pediatric cardiac anesthesia is distinct from the specialty of general pediatric anesthesia. Pediatric cardiac anesthesiologists specialize in the complex defects and anatomy of the cardiovascular system in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) for whom anesthesia and sedation poses heightened risk. Pediatric cardiac anesthesiologists provide anesthesia for cardiac procedures as well as for any non-cardiac procedures the CHD patient may require. APH is the highest ranked program in Florida in outcomes for the most complex category of congenital heart surgery. In 2007, the Heart Center’s surgical team published more than three times the number of investigational papers than the state’s leading academic pediatric cardiac surgery program. Nationally, APH has the highest neonate population with the lowest mortality rate. APH has a state-of-the-art echocardiography (echo) program with the entire infrastructure necessary for PHT. Echo is essential at every stage of diagnosing, treating, and evaluating the response to therapies and interventions in pediatric cardiac care, including PHT. Dr. Riddle, an echocardiologist at APH, has extensive experience in diagnosing and evaluating complex congenital heart anomalies, including patients requiring PHT. APH’s echo program is comprised of multiple components: the facility, the equipment, the physicians, the sonographers, the protocols, and the quality. APH’s echo lab is the “mission control center” for the program, with four large screens that enable clinicians to watch and discuss echos as they are being performed, and to review echos in meticulous detail, sometimes spending hours looking at complex echos. APH’s culture is the tremendous differentiator among pediatric cardiac programs. APH’s goal is to know every aspect of a patient’s care and anatomy, and APH clinicians, with the full support of administration, spend significant time doing that. All APH sonographers are certified and APH has weekly didactic sessions for sonographers, along with quality improvement and quality review sessions. All APH echo readers are dedicated echo physicians, with extensive training, who also are involved in constant didactic lectures and immersion in quality improvement measures. APH’s director of echo, Dr. Craig Fleishman, is nationally recognized and serves as the chair of the Scientific Sessions of the American Society of Echocardiography, the national governing and education body for echo. APH is the only pediatric heart program in Central Florida to achieve accreditation from the American Society of Echocardiography in transthoracic, transesophageal, and fetal echo. APH is highly skilled at diagnosing complex congenital heart anomalies, including those in fetuses when the patient’s heart may be no larger than a grape. APH’s echo surgical correlations, in which the echo gradients are compared to actual measurements during surgery, are “phenomenal.” Similar correlations occur in coordination with the APH cardiac catheterization lab. APH has used printed 3D heart modeling, but printed 3D modeling includes only data obtained from a computerized tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) , and does not show all of the finer complex structures of the heart and valves; thus, it has limited utility in evaluating treatment options for complex CHD. However, APH is implementing a virtual reality 3D modeling system that combines data from echo, CT, and MRI data, and even surgical images, to create a complete virtual 3D model of the heart that includes the fine details, including valve attachments. Unlike a printed 3D model, which once cut open, no longer represents the heart and cannot be put back together for further evaluation, virtual 3D modeling enables clinicians to evaluate multiple potential interventions and observe responses and to repeat as many times as may be necessary, using the same model. APMC has a large maternal fetal medicine program staffed by seven employed perinatologists specializing in high- risk pregnancies. The program is expected to have 10 employed perinatologists by the end of 2018. Agency for Health Care Administration AHCA is the state health-planning agency charged with administration of the CON program as set forth in sections 408.31-408.0455, Florida Statutes. Context of the Arnold Palmer Application Approximately one in 100 babies are born with CHD. The majority of these disorders can be treated, at least initially, with reconstructive surgery. The earlier a congenital heart defect can be repaired, the better the chances the patient has to not only survive but to grow normally in infancy and thrive. However, some children with CHD have a severity level such that current methods of reconstructive surgery are not adequate to produce what might be called a cure. Treatment of such cases is called “palliation.” As a result of medical and surgical advances in palliation, children are now surviving complex CHD in numbers that previously were not thought possible. However, in the most severe cases, the palliation is fairly short-term. Many children who receive palliative surgery ultimately will progress to end-stage heart failure despite having had multiple operations and extensive medical management, as their heart will eventually begin to have decreased function due to the underlying anomaly. Prior to the advances in palliative care, many children born with complex CHD simply did not survive long enough to receive a PHT. Today, the number of children who face heart failure later in life, rather than earlier, is increasing. Successful palliation has resulted in significantly more CHD patients requiring PHT at age 10, 15, or 20, rather than as infants or young children. Another category of children requiring PHT are those who do not have CHD, but who have an acquired problem known as cardiomyopathy. Children with cardiomyopathy may present in heart failure at any time and at any age, having gone from a state of completely normal function--exercising, growing, doing well in school--to within two or three days having end stage heart failure. About half of these children recover with medication and intensive care--which APH does extremely well on a regular basis. But those who do not recover will require a PHT. Patients with CHD tend to be more medically and surgically complex and higher risk than patients with cardiomyopathy with respect to PHT. On a percentage basis, and because of advancements in palliation, there are more CHD patients and fewer cardiomyopathies in the teenage cohort requiring PHT today than there were 10 years ago. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C- 1.044, AHCA requires applicants to obtain separate CONs for the establishment of each adult or pediatric organ transplantation program, including: heart, kidney, liver, bone marrow, lung, lung and heart, pancreas and islet cells, and intestine transplantations. “Transplantation” is “the surgical grafting or implanting in its entirety or in part one or more tissues or organs taken from another person.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A- 3.065. Heart transplantation is defined by rule 59C-1.002(41) as a “tertiary health service,” meaning “a health service which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost effectiveness of such service.” AHCA rules define a “pediatric patient” as “a patient under the age of 15 years.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C- 1.044(2)(c). AHCA rules divide Florida into four OTSAs, corresponding generally with the northern, western central, eastern central, and southern regions of the state. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.044(2)(f). If approved, the proposed program at issue in this proceeding would be located in OTSA 3, which is comprised of Brevard, Indian River, Lake, Martin, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia Counties. Currently, there are no providers of PHT in OSTA 3. However, that does not mean that OTSA 3 residents lack access to these transplant services. In fact, the unrefuted evidence demonstrated that pediatric residents of OTSA 3 have received transplants at Shands, by way of example. At hearing, APMC agreed that OTSA 3 residents are accessing these services at existing providers in Florida, with APH referring a few of these patients on average to Shands every year for these services. The incidence of PHT in Florida, as compared to other types of solid organ transplants, is relatively small. The chart below sets forth the number of pediatric (aged 0-14) heart transplant discharges by year for the four existing Florida PHT programs during the reporting period from June 30, 2013, to June 30, 2017: HOSPITAL HEART TRANSPLANT FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 UF Health Shands Hospital 13 4 17 12 9 John Hopkins All Children’s Hospital 6 13 10 9 7 Memorial Regional Hospital 5 3 4 11 4 Jackson Memorial Hospital 1 2 1 3 1 TOTAL 25 22 32 35 21 The above historic data demonstrates that the incidence of PHT statewide is relatively rare and does fluctuate from program to program and from year to year. As seen above, only 21 PHTs were performed statewide during the 12-month period July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017, for an average program volume of only 5.25 cases for the four existing programs. There are four existing and one CON-approved PHT programs in Florida. This is more than every state in the country except California, which also has five programs but more than double the pediatric population of Florida. And three of the California programs have a volume of five per year or less. Texas, another geographically large state with over 1.4 million more children than Florida, has only two centers. The number of PHTs is also impacted by a national shortage in donor hearts. Unfortunately, there are not enough donor hearts to meet the demand for pediatric heart patients in the United States. While the total number of PHTs in the United States increased between 2012 and 2015, it has more recently declined from 2015 to 2017. Based on population, the number of PHTs in Florida is higher than the national average. Thus, while fortunately its incidence is rare, Florida residents in need of PHT are currently able to access this life-saving procedure. Arnold Palmer’s “Readiness” to Implement a PHT Program APH has over 14 years of experience performing complex congenital heart surgery and has met the majority of the demand for complex pediatric cardiac surgery in Central Florida for the past 25 years. In that time, APH has performed thousands of heart operations and achieved extraordinary outcomes, which are most dramatically apparent in the highest acuity levels. APH is the largest pediatric cardiac surgical program in Central Florida. Because WPH and APH are regional centers of excellence for neonatal and pediatric cardiac care, APH has a large proportion of complex, single-ventricle patients in its existing pediatric cardiac program. In turn, approximately 70 percent of the patients who ultimately require PHT have complex, single-ventricle physiologies. In addition, APH is a regional referral center for patients presenting with cardiomyopathies that may require PHT services. APH voluntarily participates in the Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) National Congenital Heart Surgery Database (the “STS database”). The STS is the official organ for the collegial development of the field of thoracic and cardiac surgery, both adult and pediatric. There are over 75,000 physician and institutional members of the STS. The STS maintains the largest worldwide data collection of multiple variables and data points pertaining to every cardiac surgery performed by its members. The data is rigorously analyzed to measure the actual and risk-adjusted expected performance and quality of each member facility, and to support quality improvement projects, as well as original research in the field. The STS is a national organization, and its publishing arm, the Annals of Thoracic Surgery, is one of the top-ranked journals in the world. Once a year, the STS updates a running, four-year cumulative tally of outcomes for each participating institution in the country and publishes a one-page report summarizing the facility’s performance.1/ The STS stratifies cardiac surgical cases by “STAT” level, which is a measure of acuity, complexity and risk.2/ STAT 1 is the simplest kind of congenital heart defect that generally requires a straightforward surgical repair, while STAT 5 reflects complex, high-acuity, and high- risk conditions and surgeries. The STS public report contains four columns. The first lists the STAT levels. The second column lists the facility’s number of deaths divided by the number of patients operated on at that facility within the given STAT category. The third column, “Expected” reflects the STS’ expectation of mortality within the reporting institution’s program based on the relative acuity of the cases performed at that institution and if the reporting hospital performs consistent with the national average for that STAT level. The data in the third column reflects the very high acuity level of APH’s CHD patient population, i.e., the risk factors for the patient not surviving their congenital heart defect and surgery. The fourth column, “Observed/Expected” (the “O/E ratio”), divides the program’s actual mortality by its expected mortality. The O/E ratio is widely accepted as the standard metric for evaluating performance in pediatric cardiac programs because in contrast to reporting raw mortality, the STS O/E ratio is risk-adjusted using multivariable regression models which enable the STS to risk adjust each institution’s mortality and compare it against the national norm; i.e., to produce a model containing every case that every program did within the four-year time period measured. An O/E ratio of less than one means the facility is doing better than the overall STS database. For STAT 2 cases, APH’s O/E ratio is 0.58, meaning that APH has achieved close to one-half the mortality that STS expects APH to have for APH’s STAT 2 cases. Even more impressive, however, is APH’s STAT 5 O/E ratio of 0.24. The analysis conducted by the STS shows that, statistically speaking, a patient in the highest risk STAT 5 category has a four-fold less risk of dying after an operation at APH than at an average pediatric cardiac surgery program in the country. APH has consistently achieved outstanding outcomes in its pediatric cardiac program, on a national basis, for more than a decade. AHCA has recognized APH as first in the state for overall pediatric heart surgery mortality. Mechanical cardiopulmonary support or cardiac extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (referred to as “CPS” within the APH pediatric cardiac program) is a very short-term method of sustaining life when a patient has rapid onset end- stage heart failure.3/ To place a patient on CPS, the cardiac surgeon makes an incision in the base of the neck to expose the main artery to the brain and the main vein draining from the brain. The vessels are controlled by the surgeon and opened, and cannulas are inserted into the vessels and advanced into the heart, or if the chest is open, may be placed directly into the heart, then sutured into place and connected to a heart-lung machine. Often the procedure is done while a baby is sustaining a cardiac arrest. CPS is not the preferred intervention for patients in heart failure who require PHT. Complications from CPS develop exponentially with each 24 hours on the circuit. Thus, CPS can be a contraindication for PHT. Complications from CPS include bleeding from fresh suture lines in the heart, arteries, pericardium, or chest wall; bleeding in the brain, or at IV line locations; and clotting caused by the CPS lines, which can be devastating if the clot travels to the brain, kidneys, bowel, or heart. There also is significant risk in moving a patient on CPS. Particularly in neonates, the movement of a cannula by even a few millimeters can obstruct circulation, or cause thrombus or ventilator issues. CPS thus is not a sustainable method for bridging a patient to PHT, when the majority of patients face long periods on a waitlist. The proper method for bridging to PHT is the use of ventricular assist device (VAD) therapy, relatively recently approved for use in pediatric patients. A VAD is a device that does not mechanically process or oxygenate the blood, and does not require transfusion, and, thus, provides far more stable and longer-term maintenance of life while a patient waits for PHT. In contrast to CPS, which cannot safely be used more than a few days to, at most, two weeks, a heart failure patient may safely remain on a VAD for months in the hospital while they await a donor heart. The ability to implement VAD therapy enhances quality of care for patients and increases a patient’s eligibility for PHT. Currently, the standard of care is that hospitals that do not provide PHT should not provide VAD therapy. Consequently, patients at APH with rapid onset heart failure do not have access to VAD therapy and must be placed on CPS. There is no question that OH has built a mature, high quality pediatric cardiac program at APH over the past 14 years. The organization has the demonstrated experience and success in complex reconstructive heart surgery and medical management of patients with heart disease. With the additional staffing described below, APH would be able to successfully implement a PHT program, assuming need for such a program is demonstrated. The Arnold Palmer Application APMC is proposing to establish a PHT program in Orlando, which is located in OTSA 3. The application was conditioned on APMC promoting and fostering outreach activities for pediatric cardiology services, which will include the provision of pediatric general cardiology outpatient services at satellite locations within OTSA 3. This condition is not intended to include any outreach activities beyond establishing outpatient clinics in OTSA 3. There is currently no PHT provider in OTSA 3. There are, however, three providers of pediatric open-heart surgery and pediatric cardiac catheterization within the OTSA. APMC proposes that Dr. William DeCampli and Dr. David Nykanen, who currently staff its pediatric cardiac program, would also staff the proposed transplant program. However, neither has worked in a transplant program in over 14 years. APMC acknowledges its need to recruit additional nurses to staff the program. It also concedes that it might recruit nurses without transplant experience, who may need to obtain necessary training at a different facility. Additionally, APMC has not yet recruited a physician specializing in pediatric heart failure, which the applicant agrees is necessary to implement the program. At hearing, much of APMC’s case focused on its readiness and desire to offer a full spectrum of services to cardiac patients at its hospital. This is reflected in the testimony of Sharon Mawa, a nurse operations manager in APMC’s CVICU: And I feel Arnold Palmer is ready. We—it’s all encompassed. When you have a heart program, you—you want to do it all . . . . And the only piece that we are unable to provide, that we’re—that we haven’t been ready for, and I feel like we’re ready for now, is heart transplant. And I think to do a heart program well, you should be able to do all of it for that patient. However, as detailed further below, such arguments do not demonstrate community need for the proposed service, but instead represent an institutional desire to expand the facility’s service lines. A public hearing was held in Orlando on January 8, 2018, pertaining to APMC’s PHT application. APMC participated in support of the application at this hearing. About one year earlier, on January 10, 2017, a public hearing was held in Orlando pertaining to a CON application to establish a PHT program submitted by Nemours Children’s Hospital (Nemours), which is also located in Orlando. OH/APMC participated at that hearing in opposition to the Nemours application. OH/APMC submitted written opposition to the Nemours PHT program at that time, urging the Agency to deny Nemours’ proposal. OH/APMC’s 2017 opposition to the Nemours PHT application included argument related to access and need for the service in OTSA 3. OH/APMC’s written opposition to the proposed Nemours program included letters of opposition authored by Dr. DeCampli and Dr. Nykanen. In urging the denial of the Nemours’ PHT application, Dr. Nykanen told AHCA: For the past 14 years at Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children we have referred our patients requiring advanced heart failure management, including cardiac transplantation, predominantly to Shands Children’s Hospital. We have been the largest referral source of these patients in the region over the past decade. Many of our patients have had the opportunity to be evaluated as outpatients, which is always preferable. The management of this patient population is medically intense but surgery is rarely an emergency. The geographic proximity of Gainesville to our region is not a significant barrier with respect to transport from one facility to the other. The availability of organs for transplantation mandates the time from assessment to surgery which is measured in weeks to months. The Shands team has been readily accessible to us day or night and I am aware of no financial or programmatic barriers to providing this specialized care to our patients. We have been pleased with the outcomes achieved. (emphasis added). In December 2017, several months after opposing Nemours’ PHT proposal, APMC submitted its own PHT application to AHCA. UF Health Shands UF Health-Shands Hospital (Shands), as an existing provider of PHT in OTSA 1, participated extensively in this proceeding notwithstanding its acknowledged lack of standing to formally intervene.4/ Shands is located in Gainesville, Florida and is the sole provider of PHT in OTSA 1. OTSA 1 extends from Pensacola to Jacksonville, south to Gainesville and west to Hernando County. AHCA called numerous witnesses affiliated with Shands in its case-in-chief. The scope of the testimony presented by Shands-affiliated witnesses was circumscribed by Order dated June 18, 2018 (ruling on APMC’s motion in limine), that: At hearing, the Agency may present evidence that the needs of patients within OTSA 3 are being adequately served by providers located outside of OTSA 3, but may not present evidence regarding adverse impact on providers located outside of OTSA 3. Baycare of Se. Pasco, Inc. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., Case No. 07-3482CON (Fla. DOAH Oct. 28, 2008; Fla. AHCA Jan. 7, 2009). Shands is located in Gainesville, Florida. Shands Children’s Hospital (SCH) is an embedded hospital within a larger academic health center. SCH has 202 beds and is held out to the public as a children’s hospital. SCH occupies multiple floors of the building in which it is located, and the children’s services are separated from the adult services. SCH has its own separate entrance and emergency department. SCH is nationally recognized by the U.S. News and World Report as one of the nation’s best children’s hospitals. SCH has its own leadership, including Dr. Shelley Collins, an associate professor of Pediatrics and the associate chief medical officer of SCH who was called as a witness by the Agency. As a comprehensive teaching and research institution, SCH has between 140 to 150 pediatric specialists who are credentialed. It has every pediatric subspecialty that exists and is also a pediatric trauma center. In the area of academics and training, SCH has over 180 faculty members and approximately 50 residents, and 25 to 30 fellows in addition to medical students. SCH has 72 Level II and III Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) beds. It also has a dedicated 24-bed pediatric intensive care unit, as well as a dedicated 23-bed pediatric cardiac intensive care unit, both of which are staffed 24/7 by pediatric intensive care physicians, pediatric intensive care nurses, and respiratory therapists. As a tertiary teaching hospital located in Gainesville, Shands is accustomed to caring for the needs of patients and families that come from other parts of the state or beyond. Jean Osbrach, a social work manager at Shands, testified for the Agency. Ms. Osbrach oversees the transplant social workers that provide services to the families of patients at SCH. Ms. Osbrach described how the transplant social workers interact with the families facing transplant from the outset of their connection with Shands. They help the families adjust to the child’s illness and deal with the crisis; they provide concrete services; and help the families by serving as navigators through the system. These social workers are part of the multi-disciplinary team of care, and they stay involved with these families for years. Shands is adept at helping families with the issues associated with receiving care away from their home cities. Shands has relationships with organizations that can help families that need financial support for items such as lodging, transportation, and gas. Shands has 20 to 25 apartments in close proximity to the hospital that are specifically available for families of transplant patients. Shands also coordinates with the nearby Ronald McDonald House to secure lodging for the families of out-of-town patients. Ms. Osbrach’s ability to empathize with these families is further amplified because her own daughter was seriously ill when she was younger. As Ms. Osbrach testified, while she was living in Gainesville, she searched out the best option for her child and decided that that was actually in Orlando. She did not hesitate to make those trips in order to get the highest level of care and expertise her child needed at that time. SCH accepts all patients, including pediatric heart transplant patients, regardless of their financial status or ability to pay. At final hearing, both Ms. Osbrach and Dr. Pietra testified at length about the different funding sources and other resources and assistance that are available to families from lower social economic circumstances that have a child who may need a transplant. SCH is affiliated with the Children’s Hospital Association, the Children’s Miracle Network, the March of Dimes, and the Ronald McDonald House Charities. Both Shands and APMC witnesses agreed that the quality of care rendered by SCH is excellent. ShandsCair Shands operates ShandsCair, a comprehensive emergency transport system. ShandsCair operates nine ground ambulances of different sizes, five helicopters, and one fixed wing jet aircraft. It owns all of the helicopters and ambulances so it never has to wait on a third-party vendor. ShandsCair performs approximately 7,000 ground and air transports a year. ShandsCair selects the “best of the best” to serve on its flight teams. ShandsCair has been a leader in innovation, implementing a number of state-of-the-art therapies during transport, such as inhaled nitrous oxide and hypothermic for neonates that are at high risk for brain injury. ShandsCair is one of just three programs in the country that owns an EC-155 helicopter, which is the largest helicopter used as an air ambulance. This helicopter is quite large, fast, and has a range of approximately 530 miles one way. This makes it easier to transport patients that require a significant amount of equipment, including those on ECMO. The EC-155 has room for multiple patients and the ability to transport patients on ventricular assist devices, ventilators, and other larger medical equipment. The Orlando area is well within the operational range of both ShandsCair’s ground and air transport assets. Transporting Pediatric Patients on ECMO In its CON application, one of the reasons APMC contended that its application should be approved is that it is too dangerous to transport patients on ECMO. Timothy Bantle, a certified respiratory therapist and the manager of the ECMO program at Shands, was called as a witness by the Agency. The ECMO program at Shands was established in 1991, and Shands has supported over 500 patients on ECMO. When Mr. Bantle began working in the Shands ECMO program in 2008, all ECMO patients at Shands were supported by an ECMO machine that utilized a roller head pump. In addition to the machine’s bulky size and weight, there was an inherent risk of the occlusion pressure causing a rupture. In 2014, Shands began using a newer, much smaller CARDIOHELP ECMO machine. In addition to weighing at most 20 pounds, the CARDIOHELP ECMO machine utilizes a centrifugal pump, instead of a roller head pump, which eliminates the risk of circuit ruptures. The technology in the CARDIOHELP ECMO machines is outstanding, and it is much easier to manage patients on the newer machines than the older machines. Shands now has nine of the newer and far more compact CARDIOHELP ECMO machines. Shands uses the CARDIOHELP ECMO machine for both veno-arterial (VA) and veno-venous (VV) ECMO and for every patient population, including infants. In the current fiscal year, Shands has had 67 patients on the CARDIOHELP ECMO machine. Shands has safely transported both adult and pediatric patients on ECMO. When transporting a patient on ECMO, the transport team includes a physician, an ECMO primer, a nurse, and a respiratory therapist. In addition to being highly trained, the transport team discusses the specifics of each patient en route, including discussing the situation with the referring doctor so they arrive fully prepared. Mr. Bantle persuasively testified that a properly trained team, using the newer CARDIOHELP ECMO machine, can transport these patients safely. ShandsCair has safely transported numerous pediatric patients on VA- and VV-ECMO by both ground and air, including pediatric heart transplant candidates. The newer CARDIOHELP ECMO equipment makes transport of ECMO patients much easier. ShandsCair has flown simultaneous, same day ECMO transports to the Grand Cayman Islands and to Miami. Transporting ECMO patients on the CARDIOHELP ECMO machine has become so routine that Dr. Weiss does not go on those flights. ShandsCair has also safely transported small infants on VA-ECMO, including a three-kilogram infant who was recently transported from Nemours on VA-ECMO, and after arrival at Shands was transitioned to a VAD and is now awaiting a heart transplant. The testimony of Dr. Weiss and Mr. Bantle regarding Shands’ ability to safely transport pediatric patients on ECMO was substantiated by the testimony of Drs. Fricker, Pietra, and Collins. The overwhelming evidence established that ShandsCair can safely transfer pediatric patients, including infants, on ECMO by both ground and by air. Shands’ Pediatric Heart Program The congenital heart program at Shands includes two pediatric heart surgeons, and a number of pediatric cardiologists, including Dr. Jay Fricker and Dr. Bill Pietra, both of whom testified for the Agency. Dr. Fricker did much of his early work and training at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, and came to the University of Florida in 1995. He is a professor and chief of the Division of Cardiology in the Department of Pediatrics. He is also the Gerold L. Schiebler Eminent Scholar Chair in Pediatric Cardiology at UF. He has been involved in the care of pediatric heart transplant patients his entire career. Dr. Bill Pietra received his medical training in Cincinnati and then went to Denver, specifically to do transplant training under Dr. Mach Boucek, who was one of the pioneers in pediatric infant transplant. He came to the University of Florida and Shands in August 2014, and he is now the medical director for the UF Health Congenital Heart Center. Shands performed its first PHT in 1986. Shands provides transplants to pediatric patients with both complex congenital conditions and cardiomyopathy patients. Shands takes the most difficult PHT cases, including those that other transplant centers will not take. PHT patients are referred to Shands from throughout the state, with many patients coming from central and north Florida. Every patient that is referred for transplant evaluation is seen and evaluated by Shands. While transplantation is not an elective service, it also is very rarely done on an emergent basis. Some conditions are diagnosed well in advance of the need for a transplant. It is not uncommon for a patient to be seen by a Shands physician for a number of years before needing a transplant. Pediatric transplant patients now survive much longer, and frequently well into adulthood. Unlike APH, Shands has the ability to continue to care for those patients as they transition from childhood to becoming adults. The Congenital Heart Center at Shands has a good relationship with APH. Physicians at APH have not only referred patients to Shands for transplant evaluation, they have also specifically recommended Shands to parents of children in need of a heart transplant. Shands operates a transplant clinic at Wolfson Children’s Hospital in Jacksonville. Approximately once a month a Shands transplant physician, a transplant coordinator, and nurses will go to Wolfson to evaluate patients with PHT issues. Wolfson personnel, such as ECHO techs and nurses, are also involved. Before APH filed its CON application, Dr. Pietra twice asked Dr. Nykanen about the possibility of Shands establishing a similar joint clinic at APH. Dr. Nykanen replied by stating he would need to confer with his colleagues, but never otherwise responded to these inquiries. Dr. Pietra testified that he would not be opposed to a joint venture clinic with APMC. Managed care companies are now a significant driver of where patients go for transplantation services. Managed care companies identify “centers of excellence” as their preferred providers for services such as pediatric heart transplantation. Shands is recognized by a majority of the major managed care companies that identify pediatric transplant programs as a center of excellence. In addition, the congenital heart surgery program at Shands has a three-star rating, which is the highest rating possible, and one that only 10 percent of such programs achieve. The quality of care provided by the PHT program at Shands is superb. The most recent Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data for Shands, for pediatric transplants performed between February 1, 2014, and December 31, 2016, is excellent. There is no credible evidence of record that any pediatric patient in OTSA 3 was denied access or unable to access an existing transplant program. To the contrary, the evidence established that UF Health Shands and ShandsCair are currently serving the needs of OTSA 3 residents who need a PHT. The APMC CON application was not predicated on any argument that a new program is needed because of poor quality care at any of the existing pediatric transplant programs in Florida. Rather, Dr. Nykanen, the co-director of The Heart Center at APH, testified that Shands provides outstanding medical care, and that he has been “happy with the care” received by the patients he has referred to Shands for PHT. At hearing, APMC witnesses suggested that the Shands program is unduly conservative in accepting donor hearts from beyond 500 miles, and may have some “capacity” issues in its pediatric cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). These statements, made by persons with no first-hand knowledge of the operations of the Shands program, are not persuasive. APMC called Cassandra Smith-Fields as an expert witness. Ms. Smith-Fields is the administrative director for the transplant program and dialysis services at Phoenix Children’s Hospital. Phoenix Children’s Hospital is the only PHT center in Arizona. Notably, two states bordering Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico, do not have PHT centers. Ms. Smith- Fields noted that the volume of transplants at Shands had recently declined from 18 to 11. However, in 2016, by volume, Phoenix Children’s Hospital was the second largest pediatric heart transplant center in the country with 24 transplants, but in 2017, its volume had dropped to 14. Ms. Smith-Fields agreed that “you have to always be careful drawing inferences from numbers that are low in any matter.” Ms. Smith-Fields testified that based upon her review of Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data for Shands, Shands did not appear to be aggressive in terms of accepting donor hearts beyond 500 miles. However, that criticism was based upon a one-year period when Shands’ PHT volume was lower than normal, and during which Shands was able to obtain donor hearts from within a 500-mile radius. Stephan Moore, director of the solid organ transplant and VAD programs at Shands, prepared an exhibit, which showed the location (by state and distance) of Shands donor hearts and lungs recovered from March 2, 2014, through March 18, 2018. This exhibit showed numerous trips by Shands beyond 500 miles to retrieve a donor organ, including trips to Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, and Ohio. During this four-year period, 27.6 percent of the organs recovered by Shands came from within Florida, and the remaining 72.3 percent were obtained from out of state. This data not only refutes Ms. Smith-Fields’ testimony on this issue, it also again illustrates why, due to the variability of PHT heart program volumes and availability of donor hearts, one should be extremely cautious in drawing conclusions based upon a single year of data. In addition, Dr. Pietra testified about the complexity of these cases and how an organ that might be acceptable for one patient would not be acceptable for another, for a host of reasons. Consequently, being conservative and cautious in choosing the right heart for each patient are good and important traits for a pediatric heart transplant program, particularly for one that wants the organ to work well for the patient long- term. Dr. Elise Riddle, a cardiologist practicing at APMC, testified that she was aware of instances when there had been a delay in obtaining a bed at Shands for a patient being referred for transplant services. However, Dr. Pietra testified that Shands has never refused a patient because a bed was not available, and that any delay would have been at most a matter of hours. In addition, Dr. Collins, who regularly reviews the throughput numbers of Shands CICU, testified that there was no need to expand the size of the unit. APMC did not question Dr. Collins about the unit’s occupancy rate, nor did it make any attempt to otherwise obtain that information. Dr. Riddle also testified that she had not been informed when a former patient had returned to the Orlando area following a successful PHT at Shands. However, Dr. Pietra testified at length about how Shands coordinates care with the patient’s primary care doctor and referring cardiologist post discharge, and works to develop a team to assist with follow care. Dr. Pietra testified: But we try to, again, develop a team and the team has to include like a local physician and usually a family practice or a pediatrician as the captain. If the patient’s got that, you feel a lot better about having a patient leave the local area and return to their hometown, as you say, so that they can be seen kind of in conjunction or collaboration with us in their hometown. If they have a referring cardiologist, that makes it that much easier sometimes to have a more sophisticated follow up done if needed. But again, the patient belongs to the transplant program in the long run, and so you are going to continue to offer them follow-up care basically for life. Since coming to Shands in August 2014, Dr. Pietra has updated many of the program’s protocols, including the protocols for immunosuppression, frequency of follow-up visits, and what is included in follow-up visits. Dr. Pietra has also initiated more written contracts between a prospective patient’s parents and the program, which make it very clear what the expectations are for the family. Two parents, one of whom lives in Clermont (one hour and 40 minute drive from Gainesville) and one of whom lives in Cocoa Beach (two hours and 35 minute drive from Gainesville) testified that their child had received a PHT at Shands in Gainesville, and that there were no issues with follow-up care for their children post-transplant. Volume/Outcome Relationship in Pediatric Heart Transplantation At the final hearing, experts for both sides agreed that there is a positive relationship between PHT volume and outcomes. In complex, highly specialized areas involving patients with rare diseases or conditions, volume provides experience not only for the surgeons but for the entire team. This is particularly true for pediatric heart transplantation, where higher volume keeps the entire team and ancillary staff functioning at a very high level. Both Dr. Pietra and Ms. Smith-Fields agreed that a minimum of 10 or more PHTs annually is a good standard for maintaining the proficiency of the entire transplant team. In Calendar Year 2017, there were only 32 PHTs in Florida. Both Dr. Pietra and Dr. Fricker testified about how the statewide volume made it very difficult to justify approving a sixth program in the State, and that the proliferation of programs would result in most of the programs not able to achieve the 10 or more transplants per year goal. Indeed, during the 12-month period of July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017, none of Florida’s four existing PHT programs met the minimum volume standard of 10 PHTs. In addition, PHT programs are measured based on outcomes, and a single fatality in a small program can be devastating to that hospital’s quality metrics. As such, small programs are often less willing to take more complicated patients. Ironically, adding more programs that dilute volumes may decrease rather than increase access because of the fear a small program might have for taking more complex patients. Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital (JHACH) is located in St. Petersburg, OTSA 2, AHCA District 5. According to reported AHCA data, JHACH performed seven PHTs during the 12 months ending June 2017. Several APMC witnesses made references to possible issues with the PHT program at JHACH based upon newspaper articles they had read. Such articles are hearsay, were not specifically identified or discussed by any witness, and accordingly, cannot form the basis of any finding of fact. Only one of APMC’s witnesses, Dr. Riddle, had any personal knowledge about JHACH, and she has not worked there or been involved in the care of any patients there since February 2016. The only APMC witness who actually looked at any data for JHACH, Ms. Smith-Fields, testified that JHACH had no deaths on its waiting list, that it was aggressive in retrieving donor hearts beyond 500 miles, and that had transplanted two patients during the first four months of this calendar year. When the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) identifies a program as having deficient outcomes, it will send a peer review team to thoroughly assess the program. If necessary, CMS will enter a systems improvement agreement, which may include the appointment of a quality administrator to help the program improve its operations. There was no evidence presented that CMS had taken any such steps with JHACH. As discussed above, it was uncontroverted that there is a positive correlation between volumes and outcomes, and that a minimum of 10 transplants a year is an important volume threshold in order to maintain a high-quality program. With Florida already having five existing and approved programs, it is currently not possible for all five programs to achieve 10 transplants a year. Approving a new program in the State based upon rumors about the status of an existing program would in all likelihood only reduce the average volume even further below the 10 transplants per year standard, and lead to poorer outcomes. AHCA’s Preliminary Decision Following AHCA’s review of APMC’s application, as well as consideration of comments made at the public hearing held on January 8, 2018, and written statements in support of and in opposition to the proposals, AHCA determined to preliminarily deny CON application 10518. AHCA’s decision was memorialized in a SAAR dated February 16, 2018. Marisol Fitch, supervisor of AHCA’s CON and commercial-managed care unit, testified for AHCA. Ms. Fitch testified that AHCA does not publish a numeric need for transplant programs, as it does for other categories of services and facilities. Rather, the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate need for the program. In addition to need methodologies presented by an applicant, AHCA also looks at availability and accessibility of services in the area to determine whether there is an access problem. Additionally, an applicant may attempt to demonstrate that “not normal” circumstances exist in the proposed service area sufficient to justify approval. Statutory Review Criteria Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes, establishes the statutory review criteria applicable to CON Application No. 10518. The parties have stipulated that APMC’s CON application satisfies the criteria found in section 408.035(1)(f) and (h). The Agency believes that there is no need for the PHT program that APMC seeks to develop, because the needs of the children in the APMC service area are being met by other providers in the State, principally Shands and JHACH. Section 408.035(1)(a) and (b): The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed, and the availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the district of the applicant. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.044(6)(b)5/ The criteria for the evaluation of CON applications, including applications for organ transplantation programs, are set forth at section 408.035 and rule 59C-1.044. However, neither the applicable statutes nor rules have a numeric need methodology that predicts future need for PHT programs. Thus, it is up to the applicant to demonstrate need in accordance with section 408.035 and rule 59C-1.044. There are four OTSAs in Florida, numbered OTSA 1 through OTSA 4. APMC is located in OSTA 3, which includes the following counties: Seminole, Orange, Osceola, Brevard, Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Martin, Lake, and Volusia Counties. (See § 408.032(5), Fla. Stat; Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.044(2)(f)3.). OTSA 3 also generally corresponds with the pediatric cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery service areas defined by AHCA rule. (See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C- 1.032(2)(g) and 59C-1.033(2)(h)). Currently, there is no provider of PHT in OTSA 3, but there are three providers of pediatric cardiac catheterization and pediatric open-heart surgery: APH, Florida Hospital for Children, and Nemours. There are four existing providers and one approved provider of PHT services in Florida: Shands in OTSA 1; JHACH in OTSA 2; Jackson Memorial Hospital in OTSA 4; and Memorial Regional Hospital, d/b/a Joe DiMaggio’s Hospital in OTSA 4; and an approved program in OTSA 4, Nicklaus Children’s Hospital, which received final approval from AHCA in August 2017. APMC’s Need Methodology 1: Ratio of Pediatric Cardiac Surgery Volume to PHT Case Volume To quantify need for a new PHT program in AHCA District 7, OTSA 3, APMC presented two “need methodologies.” According to the applicant, there is an observed correlation between a PHT center’s volume of congenital heart surgery and its PHT case volume. It should be noted that consistent with the rest of the application--which was focused on APH’s capabilities rather than community need for the service--both methodologies were designed to support the assertion that APMC could potentially attain a volume of 12 transplants by year two of operation. While APMC’s ability to generate 12 transplant cases is pertinent under rule 59C-1.044(6)(b), it is not indicative of unmet community need for this service. For example, if APMC retains or diverts patients who would otherwise have had access to these services through an existing provider, then they may be improving convenience whilst failing to satisfy any unmet community need. The first numeric methodology advanced by APMC in support of its proposal relied on an assumed correlation or a ratio between open-heart surgery cases and PHTs performed by the four existing PHT programs in Florida for calendar year 2016. The applicant then assumed that it would perform the mean rate experienced by the existing programs, in its second year of operation. When applied to APMC’s forecasted cardiac surgeries during the second year of operation (167), it arrived at a projected PHT volume of 11.7 by year two of operation. There are several issues with this methodology. The 11.7 projection is still below the threshold 12 transplants required under rule 59C-1.044(6)(b). The methodology also relied on figures for the 0-17 age cohort. APMC did not apply either methodology considering only 0-14 age data.6/ Additionally, APMC failed to demonstrate that there is any statistically predictive link between the two variables. The data presented in APMC’s application suggests that the correlation is weak, at best. For example, Bates page 0053 of the application reports Shands as having performed 140 pediatric cardiac surgeries and 15 pediatric heart transplants in 2016, while Memorial Regional Hospital performed more surgeries at 170, but less than half the transplants at seven for the same year. While APMC attempts to control for this variability by utilizing averages, such variability itself calls the causal relationship into question. Indeed, APMC’s own cardiac surgeon did not believe cardiac surgery volume and PHT volume to be directly related. An additional problem with APMC’s first methodology is that many of the numbers relied upon to reach its calculated forecast of 11.7 appear to be inflated. The 7 percent average, which APMC applies to its own facility, is not an accurate reflection of the true average rate among the four existing centers for 2016. While the 2016 transplant volume used represented the statewide total, APMC considered only the cardiac surgery volume reported by these four centers. Stated differently, APMC calculated a ratio considering the entire universe of one variable but not the other. The actual total number of cardiac surgeries performed statewide for 2016 for aged 0-14 was 1,216, not 491, as utilized as the denominator in calculating the ratio. As Ms. Fitch testified, when one uses the 1,216 surgeries in the formula, the ratio would be roughly 2.8 percent, not the 6.9 percent used by APMC. Then, applying APMC’s proffered number of 167 cardiac surgeries as representing its facility, the forecast would be about five PHTs, not 11.7. APMC only considered the open-heart surgeries performed at the four PHT hospitals, but certainly, the PHT patients, if they had open-heart surgery at all, may have had such surgeries at other facilities. As a pediatric OHS provider, APH is itself a good example of this, having provided 99 pediatric open-heart surgeries in 2016 that were not considered in the denominator of the formula. APMC’s Need Methodology 2: Ratio of PHT Volume to Common Indicators for PHT. APMC’s second need methodology is based on the identification of the International Classification of Disease (ICD) ICD-10 codes that are the most common indicators for PHT, taking into account acuity and based on APH’s actual experience. Starting with an analysis of ICD-9 codes and updating to ICD-10 codes as the most currently available model, APMC attempted to correlate the ICD-10 codes with the incidence of PHT in Florida hospitals using data from the AHCA inpatient database. This analysis produced an average ratio of the “most frequent indicators” to PHT cases, of 0.187. APMC then identified the volume of patients within OTSA 3 discharged under the top “most frequent” ICD-10 code indicators for PHT. Applying a conversion rate of 0.100 to this potential pool of PHT patients results in a forecast of 8.2 potential PHT cases in year 1 of APH’s PHT program. Holding constant the baseline potential patient volume in OTSA 3 and applying a conversion rate of 0.180 to years two and three resulted in a forecast of 14.8 PHT cases in OTSA 3 in years two and three. As with the previous methodology, this methodology is rejected, both as being an unreasonable basis for forecasting 12 PHTs by year 2, and as not being indicative of community need in OTSA 3 for this service. APMC presented no evidence that a link between the identified diagnosis codes and an eventual PHT exists or is predictive for any individual or group of individuals. Indeed, its health planner admitted that no statistical analysis was undertaken to test the validity of a causal relationship between these variables. Further, it is unconvincing that the average performance of the four existing long-established transplant programs over three recent calendar years is a reliable predictor of the prospective future performance of a new program by its second year of operation. This methodology, similar to the first, examined the age-range 0-17, even though rule 59C- 1.044 defines a pediatric patient as one aged 0-14. In considering the numbers of patients who presented at the four hospitals with one of the selected ICD-10 codes compared to the number of transplants, APMC acknowledged the variability in the ratios among the years and between the providers. This is evident from a review of the figures in the chart on Bates page 0055 of the APMC application. For example, according to the table, from 2014 to 2015, the number of inpatients with one of the ICD-10 codes decreased by one at Shands, but the number of PHTs performed over this same period doubled from 10 to 20. Such variability in the ratios suggests that there is no predictive link, and that it is instead other variables that affect PHT volume. Additionally, while this methodology considers diagnoses of patients actually treated in the four transplant hospitals to come up with a ratio, it then relies on average ICD volume of three Orlando hospitals instead of its own volume, without explanation. If APMC applied the ratio to its own ICD-10 volume of 138, as appears on Bates page 0056, without adding the other hospitals, its projected transplant volume would be 24.8 by year two, which is higher than any existing provider in the state. Or, if APMC applied only its own average ICD-10 volume over 2014-2016 of 46, it would result in a projected volume of 8.3 transplants at year two. While APMC’s approach is the one that gets it closest to a projected case volume of 12, it appears arbitrary and lacks credibility. Pediatric Population Growth in OTSA 3. In its application, and at hearing, APMC repeatedly referenced the growing pediatric population in central Florida as a factor supporting approval of its application. For example, APMC pointed out that OTSA 3 experienced the fastest growth rate for the 0-17 age cohort among all of the OTSAs for 2014, 2015, and 2016, and has a very robust projected annual growth rate of 2.7 percent through 2022. Moreover, each of the 10 counties in OTSA 3 is projected to experience rapid growth in the pediatric population, with the most dramatic growth rates in Orange, Osceola, and St. Lucie counties, at 10.3 percent, 12.4 percent, and 9.0 percent respectively. While the projected growth of the pediatric population in OTSA 3 is significant, such growth does not, in itself, demonstrate unmet demand or need for the project. Any increased demand for PHT due to population growth was not quantified by APMC in its application or at hearing, as APMC elected not to utilize a population and use rate analysis as a need methodology. No evidence of population demographics was presented to substantiate APMC’s transplant volume projections. On this issue, the following exchange from Dr. Nykanen’s deposition is informative: Q. When you referred to population information, is it your position that population demographics or population changes are in part a reason for the need for this project? A. As the population of Central Florida and as the population of this district increases the demand for cardiac services increases. So to the extent that you are serving more people, then I would agree, yes, that’s part of the – that’s part of the equation. Is it the tipping point? No. We don’t – we didn’t – nowhere in my discussions with Dr. DeCampli or administration was there the thought that, hey, the population is growing here so we need to provide this service. I think that the – it was more a question of, our program has grown to such a position that we need to provide this service in order to be able to be a quality program offering what we believe to be quality care for our patients. The fact that there are more people here is really not driving the need for it. That doesn’t drive the need, but it just – it does state that there may be more demand. That’s kind of the way that I feel about that. The above exchange, besides downplaying population growth as a significant argument for a PHT program, also reiterates the theme of APMC’s application and entire case, which is a focus on APMC and its institutional desire to expand the services it can provide to its patients. Another argument made by APMC in its application and at hearing is that approval of its program could reduce outmigration of PHT patients. By definition, because there is no existing PHT program in OTSA 3, all patients leave OTSA 3 for this service. However, that alone does not establish need for a new program. As discussed herein, APMC has not demonstrated a sufficient need or an access problem that justifies approval of its application. Outmigration of Donor Hearts There are four Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) in Florida, geographically distributed so that there is one OPO centrally located in each of the four OTSAs. The OPO in OTSA 3 has done well in procuring donor hearts notwithstanding the lack of a PHT program in its region. The establishment of a PHT program within an OPO region is known to positively correlate with an increase in the number of donor hearts that the OPO is able to procure. The number of hearts procured in Florida varies annually. In 2016, Florida OPOs procured 30 donor organs. Over 50 percent of the hearts procured in Florida leave the state. However, donor hearts also migrate into the state. With regard to the outmigration of organs from Florida, APMC has suggested that since Florida is a net exporter of organs, this is an additional reason for approval. However, organs harvested in one state are commonly used in another. There is nothing unusual or negative about that fact. There is a national allocation system through the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) and this sharing, as explained by Dr. Pietra, facilitates the best match for organs and patients. UNOS divides the country into regions for the purpose of allocation of donor organs, with Florida being one of six states in Region 3. The evidence of record did not establish that approval of the APMC application would result in the reduction of organs leaving Florida, or even that such would be a desirable result. APMC also argues that approving its application would increase the number of donor organs that are both procured and transplanted within Florida. Specifically, the applicant suggested that its proposed program would increase public awareness of the need for donor hearts; and, by doing so, increase the supply of donor hearts. However, no record evidence was produced in an effort to demonstrate that the proposed program would increase the supply of organs in Florida. In fact, an APH pediatric cardiologist testified that it is unlikely that adding the proposed PHT program would impact the availability or supply of organs. Rule 59C-1.044(6)(b) Volume Standards Rule 59C-1.044(6)(b) includes additional criteria that must be demonstrated by an applicant. Subsection (6)(b)4. provides that an application for PHT include documentation that the annual duplicated cardiac catheterization patient caseload was at or exceeded 200, and that the duplicated cardiac open heart surgery caseload was at or exceeded 125 for the calendar year preceding the CON application deadline. Cardiac programs in Florida report their open-heart surgery volumes quarterly to a local health council, and the Agency publishes the calendar year totals. In the applicable baseline calendar year of 2016, APH’s duplicated OHS case volume for patients aged 0-14 was 139 OHS cases, satisfying the minimum OHS volume requirement.7/8/ APH also met the catheterization volume threshold by performing 227 cardiac catheterizations for patients aged 0-14 in the baseline 2016 calendar year. Geographic Access There is no evidence of record that families living in Central Florida are currently being forced to travel unreasonable distances to obtain PHT services. Indeed, there are five existing or approved programs within the state, with at least two located very reasonably proximate to OTSA 3. There was agreement that patients that need a PHT are approaching the end-stage of cardiac function, and in the absence of a PHT will very likely die. Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that the parents of a child living in central Florida and needing a PHT will travel to St. Petersburg, Gainesville, or OTSA 4 for transplant services rather than let their child die because the travel distance is too far. To the contrary, the evidence in this record, as well as common sense, is that families will go as far as necessary to save their child. The notion that there is some pent-up demand for PHT services among central Florida residents (especially when there is no evidence of a single instance of an OTSA 3 patient being turned down or unable to access a PHT) is without support in this record. The parents of two pediatric patients that received PHT at Shands testified on behalf of the Agency at the final hearing.9/ Their testimony substantiated AHCA’s position that residents of the greater Orlando area have reasonable access to PHT services. One of the testifying parents lives in Brevard County, which is directly east of Orlando. Her daughter likely had a heart defect since birth, but it was not diagnosed until she was six years old. That patient was asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis but deteriorated over a period of years. When she was first seen at Shands, her condition was not emergent and the family had the time and researched other prominent institutions, including Texas Children’s Hospital, Boston Children’s Hospital, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Their goal was to find a program that did a good volume of transplants with above average survival rates. After doing this research, they chose Shands. Their daughter received her heart transplant at Shands, is doing well, and is now considering where to go to college. This family did not find the distance to be a problem. This parent also persuasively spoke of her concerns about further diluting the volumes of the existing programs that could result from approval of a sixth PHT program in Florida. This parent also observed that because of the shortage of donors, adding more transplant centers does not necessarily mean there will be more PHTs performed. The other lay witness is the parent of a very young boy who went from appearing to be perfectly healthy to almost dying, and being placed on life support within a 24-hour period. This family lives in Clermont, which is near Orlando. Shortly after her son’s two-month old check-up, the witness took her son to the local hospital thinking he had a urinary tract infection. The hospital sent him to APH for evaluation. As soon as he arrived there, he went into respiratory distress. An echocardiogram was done and showed he had a severely enlarged heart. APH recommended that he be transferred to Shands. Before being transferred, the mother spoke with her sister who coincidentally is a nurse in Chicago who works on the transplant floor. She also highly recommended Shands. Her son was safely transported to Shands by ShandsCair just over 24 hours after being first admitted to APH. When they arrived at Shands, both Dr. Bleiweiss and Dr. Fricker gave the parents their cell numbers and were always there to answer any questions. The infant was placed on a Berlin heart machine until an appropriate donor heart became available. This patient was able to undergo a transplant approximately three weeks after admission, and also had an excellent outcome. This mother testified that the distance to Shands was not a problem, that the social workers and nurses were always available to help, and that follow-up care at Shands has not been an issue. In fact, the patient is now able to have his labs done in Orlando. It is also notable that this patient’s transfer was uneventful and that the patient had no difficulties in being immediately admitted to Shands’ CICU. It is clear from the testimony of these parents that nothing about having a gravely ill child is “convenient.” But it was also clear that for both of these families, having an experienced provider care for their child was much more important to them than geographic proximity. The following exchange summarizes how the young boy’s mother felt about the inconvenience of having to travel from Clermont to Gainesville: Q If you want to hypothetically encounter a family who expressed to you a concern that their child needed a transplant, they resided in Orlando or the Orlando area, but they were concerned about having to travel to Gainesville to receive that service, what would you say to them? A That’s where they need to be and that everything will fall in place, but the most important thing is the care that your child needs. While transplantation is not an elective service, it is not done on an emergent basis. As noted, the number of families affected is, quite fortunately, very small. While having a child with these issues is never “convenient,” the travel issues that might exist do not outweigh the weight of the evidence that fails to demonstrate a need for approval of the APMC application. The Orlando area, being centrally located in Florida, is reasonably accessible to all of the existing providers. Most appear to go to Shands, which is simply not a substantial distance away. The credible evidence is that families facing these issues are able to deal with the travel issues. The testimony of the two parents supports the Agency’s position that obtaining the best possible outcome for the child is the parents’ primary motivation in choosing a PHT program. Financial Access APMC asserts that approval of its proposed program will enhance financial access to care. APMC currently serves patients without regard to ability to pay and will extend these same policies to PHT recipients. APMC’s application indicates that Medicaid/Medicaid HMO will account for 26.8 percent of total patient days in years one and two of the proposal. Self- pay is expected to account for 9.0 percent of patient days in years one and two. However, there was no competent evidence of record that access to PHT services was being denied by any of the existing transplant providers because of a patient’s inability to pay. Not Normal Circumstances APMC alleged the existence of “not normal circumstances” in support of its application. They are categorized as “‘not normal’ circumstances relating to access to PHT for residents of OTSA 3,” and can be summarized as follows: APMC has the one of the largest NICUs under one roof in the country, resulting in a disproportionate volume of newborns at [APH] with complex forms of congenital heart disease; There are patients at APMC who are placed on ECMO or other heart-assist devices after surgery who are too sick to be transferred from APMC to another facility to receive transplant; Forcing patients to accept the high and potentially fatal risks of transport on ECMO presents a major access issue; Post-transplant follow-up care for patients is life-long and can be time- critical, and the ability to provide 24/7 rapid access to specialized transplant urgent care is medically optimal. The first argument related to the size of APMC’s NICU, does not speak to community need. Regardless of how many newborns APH sees, if the needs of these newborns are currently being met by existing programs, then it is difficult to see how this circumstance bears upon need or accessibility to this service. Additionally, to the extent that APMC suggests that the size of its NICU will correlate with a similarly large number of PHT patients, the proposition is unsupported by the record evidence. In fact, APMC admits that its pediatric cardiac surgery program is at the border of the lowest tercile of STS programs by volume. If APH’s NICU yields only a modest to medium cardiac surgery volume, there is no reason to conclude that this NICU will, by virtue of its size alone, yield a high PHT volume. Next, APMC argued that it has had patients who could have potentially benefitted from transplant but who did not receive such services due to their being too sick or otherwise unable to transfer. It is noteworthy that APMC did not identify these patients or provide data in any fashion to bolster this claim. The application referenced 33 NICU patients on ECMO in four years, but APMC conceded that most of these are babies on respiratory or “VV ECMO,” who eventually wean off. The application also references 11 CVICU patients placed on bypass at APMC in the last four years, but no testimony was presented as to the actual number of patients alleged to be unable to transfer. APMC did not maintain at hearing that any of its pediatric patients have died as a result of being unable to transfer to a transplant facility. In fact, any incidence of children being too sick or acute to transfer outside the OH system to a transplant facility appears to be a product of APH clinical decision-making about appropriateness for transplant referral, rather than that such patients were refused at a transplant center or could not have been transferred at an earlier time. At his deposition, Dr. Nykanen discussed the issue: I think that I do agree that patients— pediatric patients in Central Florida can get a heart transplant. And I have sent patients—my patients to Gainesville for a transplant because I felt at least in the patient’s [sic] that they’ve transplanted I can support that I’m doing the right thing for my patient. In answering that question, there are patients that I do not refer for transplant because I just feel that they are not a candidate for traveling for a transplant, medically a candidate for traveling without— for a transplant. So the term reasonable is—is it reasonably accessible. It is accessible, indeed, for the majority of the patients that I feel need a heart transplant. They can travel and get a transplant. However, for some patients it’s not an option for them. Either due to their medical complexity, risks that I consider with transport, and rarely family situation. APMC emphasized the risks of moving pediatric cardiac patients while on ECMO. However, as noted earlier, the credible testimony of witnesses presented by the Agency was that while there are always risks inherent with the treatment of critically ill children, with modern advancements in technology, these transports are done routinely and safely. It is also significant that while APMC cited various risks associated with ECMO transports and underscored the danger to the patient, no APMC witness could point to a single example of a patient that died due to complications with ECMO during a transport. The Agency in its preliminary decision noted that the application lacked any data illustrating mortality or negative outcomes related to pediatric ECMO transports, and no such evidence was forthcoming at hearing. APMC presented no evidence demonstrating that children of OTSA 3 who are transplanted at an existing provider are denied or otherwise unable to access follow-up care. The two mothers that testified for the Agency both stated that they have not had issues accessing follow-up care at Shands. APMC relies instead in its application on theoretical claims about emergent complications that could arise and the challenges of accessing a center. However, these arguments are unconvincing. Both parties agreed that transplant centers can and do work with a patient’s local providers so that patients can receive urgent medical care closer to home and then return to their transplant center as necessary. Dr. Pietra testified that Shands works with primary physicians and providers post- transplant. Shands has developed a thorough protocol for all of its patients, which includes frequent follow-ups. Additionally, Ms. Smith-Fields agreed that at her facility in Arizona (the only PHT provider in that state) the program coordinates with providers local to patients to ensure rapid acute care is accessible, if needed. APMC’s cardiologist, Dr. Riddle, testified that APH does provide acute care and other necessary care to children post-PHT, and that it competently does so. APMC maintained at hearing that post-transplant care is life-long, and that in the event of an emergent situation, immediate access is critical. However, the evidence indicates that existing transplant centers plan for these events. There are more frequent follow-up visits to a transplant center during the period immediately following the transplant. Both Dr. DeCampli and Dr. Riddle testified that organ rejection is more likely to occur during the first year after transplant. Additionally, diagnostic testing can often detect signs of rejection in advance, to allow a transplant center to respond before an acute episode occurs. Indeed, one of the functions of echocardiograms is to scan the heart and detect abnormalities or episodes of rejection. The record reflects that transplant centers, such as Shands, are capable of properly and safely monitoring these patients and dealing with issues of rejection. The evidence in this record does not support the proposition that geographic distance to existing centers is a barrier to patients receiving necessary follow-up care. Orlando Health’s Prior Position APMC’s claim that there is an accessibility issue or a need for PHT services in OTSA 3 is further undermined by its own contrary position on these issues just a few months prior to the submission of its application. In January 2017, OH and APH presented written opposition to Nemours Children’s Hospital’s attempt to establish a PHT program in Orlando. APH also presented oral argument from Drs. Nykanen and DeCampli in opposition to the proposed Nemours PHT program being approved by the Agency. The written statement of opposition, identified on its face to be on behalf of OH and APH for Children, unequivocally advanced the position that PHT services are not needed in OTSA 3, and that they are reasonably available to residents of the service area: Nothing supports the theory in the [Nemours] applications that the proposed services are unique or not otherwise available, or that there is a need for them among the population. * * * Specifically, CON application no. 10471 [Nemours’ PHT application] does not provide any facts that would lead the Agency to conclude that existing pediatric heart transplant services are not reasonably available to residents of the service area. For example, the data shown in CON application no. 10471, Exhibit 15, p. 75, does not reflect time travel distances; existing providers are within the typical two hour drive time standard accepted by health planning experts and the Agency for tertiary services. The personal letter authored by Dr. Nykanen and included as part of the APH opposition was unequivocal and specific in its conclusion that access to these services for residents of OTSA 3 is not a problem. Dr. Nykanen stood by his statement in this proceeding, testifying in his deposition: So we would—we would do anything for our child. I’d travel around the world, you know, halfway around the world if I thought that something would benefit my child. So geographic proximity in that sense probably doesn’t matter. And it doesn’t matter. If I’m an outpatient and I can get in my car and I can go to Gainesville. * * * And I don’t think that it—I honestly don’t think that a two-hour drive is that much of a barrier. It’s a pain and it’s inconvenient. * * * So I think what I intended with that statement and believe it to be true today is that if my child needed a transplant and I could travel to Gainesville and I could get there, I’ll do it, as a family. Is that an inconvenience, yes. Is it a huge barrier, probably not. Because if it, in the balance of things, meant that my child would survive or not, then I would do it. I’d go to London, England if I had to. APMC attempted to justify its prior position as mere concern about the inexperience of the Nemours cardiac program. However, this is contradicted by the record evidence in this case. Dr. Nykanen testified that, at the time of the Nemours public hearing, his expressed position was that there was not a need for PHT services in central Florida. The unambiguous statements by APMC opposing a local competitor’s attempt to establish the same health service that it now claims the children of central Florida need, further undermines the credibility of APMC’s current position, and underscores APMC’s focus on its own interests. The prior position taken by APMC with respect to need and accessibility in OTSA 3 was made with the intent that it be received and considered by the Agency in its decision on the Nemours application. AHCA witness, Marisol Fitch, found this clinical and health planning testimony to be persuasive, and APMC’s prior position that need and accessibility do not support approval of a new PHT program are in line with the record evidence. The glaring inconsistency in APMC’s past and current assertions calls into serious question the credibility of the general, theoretical, and unsubstantiated access problems that are alleged in APMC’s application. Section 408.035(1)(c): The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant’s record of providing quality of care; Section 408.035(1)(d): The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation; and Rule 59C-1.044(3-4). Quality in the delivery of health care is APMC’s first and foremost strategic imperative. APMC defines “quality” as the simultaneous achievement of excellence in three areas: patient outcomes, patient experience, and patient access. APMC is very deliberate in its approach to metric- driven performance in quality and safety. APMC is the highest- rated system in all of Central Florida within the CMS rating system, which analyzes data for 66 quality improvement metrics. Similarly, APMC is the highest ranked Truven-rated health care system in Central Florida, and is ranked first among the over 30 hospitals analyzed and ranked by Vizient Southeast. The metrics analyzed by these rating organizations include, but are not limited to, mortality rates, readmission rates, cost containment, patient experience scores, emergency department wait times, and infection rates. Through deliberate focus and a compulsive commitment to quality, the APH Heart Center has performed at the highest levels with respect to quality of care and patient outcomes for well over a decade. For its part, the Agency does not dispute that the applicant is a quality provider. However, AHCA does maintain that approval of an unneeded sixth provider of PHT services in Florida could lead to or correlate with negative patient outcomes. Given the relatively low PHT volumes statewide, and agreement that volume is positively correlated with quality and outcome in transplantation, splitting state volume among six providers could negatively impact the quality of this service, as it concerns the residents of OTSA 3 and Florida more broadly. This service is defined by Florida law as a tertiary service of limited concentration. Indeed, APMC agrees that there should not be a PHT program in every hospital, particularly since organs are a limited resource. APMC failed to credibly demonstrate that it would achieve the PHT volumes it projected unless it diverts significant volumes from other Florida providers. Approval of a new program will not create transplant patients that do not exist or are not currently able to reasonably access services. The applicant has not demonstrated that it will achieve volume sufficient to reasonably assure quality care. Rule 59C-1.044(4) requires that applicants meet certain staffing requirements, including: “The program shall employ a transplant physician, and a transplant surgeon, if applicable, as defined by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) June 1994.” The applicant concedes that it still needs to hire a transplant surgeon and a cardiologist specializing in heart failure, to staff the proposed program. While APH has had difficulty recruiting and retaining a bone marrow transplant physician to implement the bone marrow program approved in 2014, given its outstanding reputation for quality it is likely that APMC would ultimately be successful in recruiting a PHT surgeon and an advanced heart failure cardiologist. Section 408.035(1)(e): The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district. Approval of APMC’s proposed program would likely improve physical access to PHT services for the very few residents of OTSA 3 that need them. Generally speaking, adding an access point for a service will make that service more convenient and geographically proximate for some. However, given the rarity of PHTs, approval of the APMC program would not result in enhanced access for a significant number of patients. Moreover, there was no credible evidence presented at hearing that any resident of OTSA 3 that needed PHT services was unable to access those services at one of the existing PHT programs in Florida. Based upon persuasive record evidence, there is also clearly a positive relationship between PHT volume and outcomes. As with any complex endeavor, practice makes perfect. In this instance, maintaining a minimum PHT case volume provides experience to the clinicians involved and helps maintain proficiency. According to the credible testimony of Dr. Pietra, maintaining a volume of no fewer than 10 PHTs per year is critical, “because your relative risk for the next patient that you do is at its lowest” if you stay above that volume. The clear intent of the minimum volume requirement of 12 heart transplants per year contained in rule 59C- 1.044(6)(b)2. is to ensure a sufficient case volume to maintain the proficiency of the transplant surgeons and other clinicians involved in the surgical and post-surgical care of PHT patients. In the 12 months ending in June 2016, there were only 35 PHT’s performed in Florida. By the end of June 2017, that number had dropped to 21, with none of the four operational PHT programs meeting the 10-case minimum volume. And when the approved PHT program at Nicklaus Children’s Hospital becomes operational, the per-program volume of PHTs is likely to drop even further. Given the lack of demonstrated need for a sixth program, and low volume of PHT’s statewide, the undersigned is unable to recommend approval of the APMC program knowing that it would further dilute the pool of PHT patients, potentially adversely affecting the quality of care available at the existing programs. Adequate case volume is also important for teaching facilities, such as Shands, to benefit residents of all the OTSAs by being able to train the next generation of transplant physicians. There was no persuasive evidence of record that approval of APMC’s application would meaningfully and significantly enhance geographic access to transplant services in OTSA 3. The modest improvement in geographic access for the few patients that are to be served by the program is not significant enough to justify approval in the absence of demonstrated need. There is no evidence that approval of the APMC application will enhance financial access, or that patients are not currently able to access PHT services because of payor status. Section 408.035(1)(g): The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost- effectiveness. It is clear that establishing and maintaining a transplant program is expensive and entails a significant investment of resources. Given the limited pool of patients, the added expense of yet a sixth Florida program is not a cost- effective use of resources. Section 408.035(1)(i): The applicant’s past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. OH is the designated safety net provider for the Central Florida region. In 2016, OH provided approximately $437 million in unreimbursed charity care. OH’s commitment to provide health care services to its entire community without regard to ability to pay continues today. Fifty-five percent of the patients served by APH are Medicaid beneficiaries, and 5-7 percent are self-pay or uninsured. If approved, OH’s mission and role as a safety net provider would extend to its proposed PHT program.
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. 10518 filed by Orlando Health, Inc., d/b/a Arnold Palmer Medical Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of December, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 26th day of December, 2018.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's applications for certificates of need to institute cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth F. Hoffman Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones and Gay Post Office Box 1872 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert M. Eisenberg District IV Legal Counsel Post Office Box 2417-F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Charles Collette Art Forehand, Administrator Assistant General Counsel Office of Community Medical Department of HRS Facilities 1317 Winewood Boulevard Department of HRS Tallahassee, Florida 32301 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether any of the applications of Oak Hill Hospital, Citrus Memorial Hospital, or Brooksville Regional Hospital for adult open heart surgery programs should be granted?
Findings Of Fact District 3 Extended across the northern half of the state with a reach from central Florida to the Georgia line, District 3 is the largest in land area of the eleven health service planning districts created by the Florida Legislature. See Section 408.032(5), Florida Statutes. Sites of the three hospitals whose futures are at issue in this proceeding are in two of the sixteen District 3 counties: Citrus County and at the southern tip of the district, Hernando County. The three hospitals aspire to join the ranks of District 3's six existing providers of adult open heart surgery programs. Three of the existing providers are in Alachua County, all within the incorporated municipality of Gainesville: Shands at Alachua General Hospital, Shands at the University of Florida, and North Florida Regional Medical Center. Two of the existing providers are in Marion County: Munroe Regional Medical Center and Ocala Regional Medical Center. The sixth provider, opened in November of 1998 as the most recently approved by AHCA in the district, is in Lake County: the Leesburg Regional Medical Center. The CON status of the two Ocala providers is somewhat unusual. Located across the street from each other in downtown Ocala, they share virtually the same medical staff. Pursuant to a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement with the State of Florida, the two have offered adult open heart surgery services since 1987 under a single certificate of need issued for a joint program that reflects their proximity and identity of medical staff. The Agency's view of the arrangement has evolved over the years. It now holds the position that Munroe Regional and Ocala Regional operate independent programs. Accordingly, AHCA lists each as separate programs on its inventory of adult open heart services in District 3. Nonetheless, the two operate as a joint program pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and under state sanction reflected in the agreement, that is, they derive their authority to offer adult open heart surgery services from a single certificate of need. Other than a change of attitude by the Agency, there is nothing to detract from the status they have enjoyed since the agreement reached with the state in 1987: two hospitals operating a joint program under a single certificate of need. The three Gainesville providers all operated at an annual volume of less than 350 procedures during the reporting period that was most current at the time of the filing of the applications by the three competitors in this case. Those competitors are: Citrus Memorial, Oak Hill, and Brooksville Regional. Citrus Memorial, Oak Hill, Brooksville Regional Citrus Memorial Health Foundation, Inc., is a 171-bed, not-for-profit community hospital located in Inverness, Florida. HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Oak Hill Hospital is a 204-bed hospital located in Oak Hill, Florida. Hernando HMA, Inc., d/b/a Brooksville Regional is a 91- bed hospital located in Brooksville, Florida. Hernando HMA, Inc. (the applicant for the program to be sited at Brooksville Regional) also operates a second campus under a single hospital license with Brooksville Regional. The 75-bed campus is in southern Hernando County in Spring Hill. Citrus and Hernando Counties Citrus Memorial is in Citrus County to the south of the cities of Gainesville and Ocala, the sites of five of the existing providers of adult open heart surgery in the district. Further south, Oak Hill and Brooksville Regional are in Hernando County. Although adjacent to each other along a boundary running east-west, the county line is a natural divide, north and south, with regard to service areas for open heart surgery. Substantially all Citrus County residents, including Citrus Memorial patients, receive open heart surgery and angioplasty services at one of the two Ocala providers to the north. In contrast, almost all Hernando County residents (94 percent) receive open heart services at Bayonet Point, a provider in Health Planning District 5 to the south of Hernando County. The neatness of this divide would be disrupted by the approval of the application of Brooksville Regional. Brooksville's application includes part of south Citrus County in its designated primary service area, an appropriate choice because of Brooksville Regional's location on Route 41 with good access to Citrus County. At present, however, the divide between north and south along the Citrus/Hernando boundary remains a Mason-Dixon line of open heart surgery service areas. During the year ended September 1999, for example, 408 Citrus County residents received open heart surgery in Florida. Of these, 85 percent received them in Ocala at one of the two providers there. During the same period, 618 Citrus County residents underwent angioplasty, with 89.7 percent of them going to the two Ocala providers. During the year ended March 1999, 698 Hernando County residents underwent open heart surgery at Florida Hospitals. Of the 663 residents of Oak Hill's primary service area, 94.3 percent received services at Bayonet Point in District 5. Similarly, of the 779 Oak Hill primary service area residents receiving angioplasty, 93.8 percent went south to Bayonet Point. Brooksville Regional projects that 10 percent of its OHS/angioplasty volume will be from Citrus County. Still, 90 percent of the volume is projected to be from Hernando County. Thus, even with the threat posed by Brooksville's application to the divide at the Citrus/Hernando boundary, the overwhelming percentage of Brooksville's patients will be from south of the Citrus-Hernando boundary. In sum, there is de minimis competition between would- be-provider Citrus Memorial and the providers to the north vis- a-vis would-be-providers Oak Hill and Brooksville Regional and the providers to the south in the arena of open heart surgery services needed by residents of the district. Bayonet Point Under the umbrella of HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc., Bayonet Point is a provider of open heart surgery services in Pasco County. Only thirty minutes by road from its sister HCA facility Oak Hill and 45 minutes from Brooksville Regional, Bayonet Point captures approximately 94 percent of the open heart surgery patients produced among the residents of Hernando County. Although its location is in a county that is only one county to the south of the two Hernando County hospitals, Bayonet Point is in a different health planning district. It is in District 5 on its northern edge. The residents of Hernando County who receive open heart surgery services at Bayonet Point, a premier provider of adult open heart surgery services in the state of Florida, are well served. Operating at far from capacity, the quality of its open heart program is excellent to the point of being outstanding. Position of the Parties re: "not normal" circumstances The Agency's Open Heart Surgery Rule, Rule 59C-1.033, Florida Administrative Code (the "Rule") establishes a need methodology and criteria applicable to review of certificate of need applications for the establishment of adult open heart surgery programs. The Rule also governs a hospital's ability to offer therapeutic cardiac catheterization interventional services (i.e., coronary angioplasty). Pursuant to Rule 50C- 1.032, Florida Administrative Code, a cardiac catheterization program that includes the provision of coronary angioplasty must be located within a hospital that provides open heart services. Applying the methodology of Rule 50C-1.033 (the "Rule"), AHCA determined that a "fixed need pool" of zero existed in District 3 for the July 2002 planning horizon. Calculation under the formula in the Rule produced a fixed need pool of one. Several District 3 programs, however, did not have an annual case volume of 350 or more procedures. The Rule's methodology requires that calculated numeric need be zeroed out whenever there are existing programs in a district with a sub- 350 annual volume. (See Section (7)(a)2., of the Rule.) As required, therefore, the Agency published a numeric need of zero for the applicable planning horizon. The determination of zero numeric need was not challenged and so became final. Their aspirations confronted with a numeric need of zero, Citrus Memorial, Oak Hill and Brooksville Regional, nonetheless, each filed applications seeking the establishment of adult open heart surgery programs. As evidenced by the Agency's initial decision to grant Citrus Memorial's application and by its change of position with regard to Oak Hill's application, the Agency is in agreement that "not normal" circumstances exist to justify granting the applications of both Citrus Memorial and Oak Hill. Thus, while the parties may differ as to the precise identification of those circumstances, all agree that there are circumstances that support the approval of at least one application (and perhaps two) for an adult open heart surgery in District 3 for the July 2002 planning horizon. It is undisputed that a new OHS program in Hernando County would have no effect on the three existing programs located in Gainesville that perform less than 350 procedures annually. This circumstance is a "not normal" circumstance, as previously found by the Agency. It allows an application's approval in the face of the Rule's dictate that the Agency will not normally approve an application when an existing provider falls below the 350 watermark. It is not, however, a circumstance that compels the award of a CON to any of the parties as in the case of "not normal" circumstances typically recognized by the Agency. (An example of such a circumstance would be an access problem for a specific population.) Rather, it is a circumstance that allows the Agency to overcome the zeroing-out effect of the Rule that demanded a fixed-need pool of zero. It is a circumstance that allows AHCA to award an adult open heart surgery CON to one of the Hernando County hospitals provided there is a demonstration of need. There are no typical "not normal" circumstances that support any of the applications. There are no geographic, economic or clinical access problems for the residents of the any of the primary service areas of the three applicants that rise to the level of "not normal" circumstances. Nor would granting the applications of any of the three support cost efficiencies. In the case of Oak Hill, moreover, granting its application would both reduce the operating efficiencies at Bayonet Point and increase the average operating cost per case at Bayonet Point. Approval of an application is not compelled by the "not normal" circumstance that exists in this case. The "not normal" circumstance simply clears the way for approval provided there is a demonstration of need. Stipulated Matters The parties stipulated that all applicants have a good record of providing quality of care and that all sections of the respective applications addressing that issue be admitted into evidence without further proof so as to establish record of quality of care. Accordingly, the parties stipulated that each application satisfies Section 408.035(1)(c) as to "the applicant's record in providing quality of care." The parties stipulated that, subject to proving their ability to generate the open heart surgery and angioplasty volumes projected in their respective applications, each applicant has the ability to provide adequate and reasonable quality of care for those proposed services. Accordingly, subject to the proof involving service volume levels, each application satisfies Section 408.035(1)(c) as the "ability of the applicant to provide quality of care . . .". The parties stipulated that all applicants have available and adequate resources, including health manpower, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures in order to implement and operate their proposed projects. Furthermore, they stipulated that all sections of their respective applications relating to those proposed projects and all sections of their respective applications relating to those issues were to be admitted into evidence without proof. Accordingly, all applications satisfy that portion of Section 408.035(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1999) related to the availability of resources. The parties stipulated that all applications satisfy, and no further proof is required to demonstrate, immediate financial feasibility as referenced in Section 408.035(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1999). The parties stipulated that the costs and methods of proposed construction, including schematic design, for each proposed project were not in dispute and were reasonable, and that all sections of each application related to those issues were to be admitted into evidence without further proof. (Stip., p.3.) Accordingly, each application satisfies Section 408.035(l)(m), Florida Statutes (1999). The parties stipulated that each application contained all documentation necessary to be deemed complete pursuant to the requirements of Section 408.037, except that Section 408.037(b)3. is still at issue regarding operational financial projections (including a detailed evaluation of the impact of the proposed project on the cost of other services provided by the applicant). The parties stipulated that each applicant satisfied all of the operational criteria set forth in the Rule (those operational criteria being encompassed in subsections 3, 4, and 5). Accordingly, it is undisputed that each applicant will have the support services, operational hours, open heart surgery team mobilization, accreditation, availability of health personnel necessary for the conduct of open heart surgery, and post- surgical follow-up care required by the Rule in order to operate an adult open heart surgery program. The Hernando County Hospitals Oak Hill Oak Hill is located on Highway 50, in the southern part of Hernando County, between the cities of Brooksville and Springhill. Oak Hill's licensed bed compliment includes 123 medical/surgical beds, 24 ICU beds, 50 telemetry beds, and 7 beds for obstetrics. Oak Hill provides an array of medical services and specialties, including: cardiology, internal medicine, critical care medicine, family practice, nephrology, pulmonary medicine, oncology/hematology, infectious disease treatment, neurology, pathology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, radiation oncology, and anesthesiology. Board certification is required to maintain privileges on the medical staff of Oak Hill. Oak Hill's six-story facility is situated on a large campus, and has been renovated over time so that the hospital's physical plant permits the provision of efficient care for patients. Oak Hills's surgery department has five operating rooms, plus a cystoscopy room. The department performs approximately 7,800 surgeries annually, a figure that demonstrates functional efficiency. Oak Hill is JCAHO accredited, with commendation. Recently named one of the nation's top 100 hospitals for stroke care by one organization, it has also received recognition for the excellence of its four intensive care units. Oak Hill's cancer program is the only one to have received full accreditation from the American College of Surgeons within a six-county contiguous area. Oak Hill recently expanded its emergency department and implemented a fast track program called Quick Care. The program is designed to treat lower acuity patients more rapidly. Gallup Organization surveys reflect a 98 percent patient satisfaction rate with the emergency department, the eighth best rate among the approximately 200 HCA-affiliated hospitals. During 1999, the emergency department treated 24,678 patients. During the same period, 376 patients presented to Oak Hill's emergency department with an acute myocardial infarction, and there were 258 such patients during the first eight months of 2000. Oak Hill operates a mature cardiology program with ten Board-certified cardiologists on staff. Eight of the ten perform diagnostic cardiac catheterizations in the hospital's cath laboratory. Oak Hill's program is active with regard to both invasive and non-invasive cardiology. The non-invasive cardiology laboratory offers a variety of services, including echocardiography, holter monitoring, stress testing, electrocardiography, and venous, arterial and carotid artery testing. The invasive cardiology laboratory has been providing inpatient and outpatient cardiac catheterization services since 1991. During calendar year 1999, Oak Hill saw 1,671 diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures and transferred 619 cardiac patients to Bayonet Point, 258 for open heart surgery, 311 for angioplasty, and 50 patients for cardiac catheterization. The volume of catheterization procedures at Oak Hill has led to the construction of a second "cardiac cath" laboratory suite, scheduled for completion in May of 2001. The cath lab's medical director (Dr. Mowaffek Atfeh, the first interventional cardiologist in Hernando County) has served in that capacity since inception of the lab in 1991. The cath lab equipment is state-of-the-art. Oak Hill's cath lab provides excellent quality of care through its Board-certified cardiologists and the dedication and experience of its well- trained nursing and technical staff. Brooksville Regional Originally a 166-bed facility operated by Hernando County, 75 of the beds at Brooksville Regional were moved in 1991 to create a second facility at Spring Hill. A few years later, the facilities went into bankruptcy. The bankruptcy proceeding concluded in 1998, with operational control of both facilities being acquired by Hernando HMA, Inc. ("Hernando HMA"). The CON applicant for the adult open heart surgery program to be sited at Brooksville Regional, Hernando HMA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Health Management and Associates, Inc. ("HMA"), a corporation located in Naples, Florida, and whose shares are traded publicly. Under the arrangement produced by the bankruptcy proceeding, Hernando County retained ownership of the buildings and the land. Hernando HMA, in turn, operates the facilities per a long-term lease with the County. Hernando HMA operates the Brooksville Regional and Spring Hill Campuses under a single hospital license issued by AHCA. The two campuses therefore share key administrative staff, including their chief executive officer. They share a single Medicare provider number and they have a common medical staff. HMA (Hernando HMA's parent) operates 38 hospitals throughout the country, many in the State of Florida. Among the 38 is Charlotte Regional Medical Center in Charlotte County, an existing provider of adult open heart surgery and recently recognized as one of the top 100 OHS programs in the country. Charlotte Regional will be able to assist Brooksville Regional with staff training and project implementation if its application is approved. An active participant in managed care contracting, Hernando HMA is committed to serving all payer groups, including Medicaid and indigent patients. It recently qualified as a Medicaid disproportionate share provider. It also serves patients without ability to pay. In fiscal year 2000, it provided $5 million of indigent care. Under the lease agreement Hernando HMA has with Hernando County, it must continue the same charity care policies as when the facilities were operated by the County. Hernando HMA must report annually to the County to show compliance with this charity care obligation. Also under the lease, Hernando HMA is obliged to invest $25 million in renovations and improvements to the two facilities over a 5-year period. About $10 million has already been invested. If the adult open heart surgery program is granted this would nearly satisfy the $25 million obligation. The County reserves to itself certain powers under the lease. For example, the County reserves the authority to pre- approve the discontinuation of any services currently offered at these facilities. Also, if Hernando HMA seeks to relocate either of the two, the County retains the authority whether to approve the relocation. The Spring Hill facility is located in the southwest portion of Hernando County, very near the Pasco County line. It is a general acute care facility, offering a full range of cardiology and other acute care services. Spring Hill was recently approved to add the tertiary service of Level II Neonatal Intensive Care. The Brooksville facility is located in the geographic center of Hernando County. Its service area is all of Hernando County and southern Citrus County. Brooksville is a full- service, general acute care facility. It offers services in cardiology, orthopedics, general surgery, pediatrics, ICU, telemetry, gynecology, and other acute services. Brooksville Regional has 91 acute care beds. Normally, the beds are used as 12 ICU beds, 24 telemetry beds, and 55 medical/surgical beds. During its peak annual period of occupancy, Brooksville has the capability to use up to 40 beds for telemetry purposes. The hospital has ample unused space and facilities associated with its 91 beds that resulted from the move of the 75 beds to create the Spring Hill campus. Brooksville Regional offers full scope cardiology services and technologies, including diagnostic cardiac catheterization. Just as in the case of Oak Hill, the cardiac cath lab is state-of-the-art. The only cardiac services not offered at the hospital are open heart surgery and angioplasty. The quality of cardiology and related services at Brooksville Regional are excellent. The equipment, the nursing staff, the allied health professional staff, and the technology support services are very good. The medical staff is broad- based and highly qualified. Brooksville Regional offers substantial educational and training programs for its nursing staff and other personnel on staff. Brooksville Regional routinely treats patients in need of OHS or angioplasty services. Nearly 400 patients per year receive a diagnostic cardiac cath at Brooksville Regional and are then transferred for open heart surgery or angioplasty. The vast majority of these patients are transferred to Bayonet Point, about 45 minutes away. In addition to transfers of patients following diagnostic catheterization, Brooksville Regional transfers about 120 patients per year to Bayonet Point who have not had such services. These patients fall into two categories: (1) high- risk patients, and (2) persons presenting at Brooksville's emergency room in need of angioplasty or open heart surgery. The Proposals Citrus Memorial By its application, Citrus Memorial proposes to establish a program that will provide adult open heart surgery and angioplasty services. There is no dispute that Citrus Memorial has the ability to provide adequate and reasonable quality of care for the proposed project (just as per the stipulation of the parties, there is no dispute that all of the applicants have such ability.) There is also no dispute that each applicant, including Citrus Memorial, will have all of the staff, equipment and other resources necessary to implement and support adult open heart surgery and angioplasty services. The ability to provide high quality care stems, in part, from Citrus Memorial's contract with the Ocala Heart Institute. Under the contract the Institute will provide supervision of the implementation and ongoing operations of the Citrus Memorial program. This supervision will be provided under the leadership of the president of the Institute, cardiovascular surgeon Michael J. Carmichael, M.D. The contract between Citrus Memorial and the Ocala Heart Institute is exclusive. Citrus Memorial will not extend medical staff privileges to any cardiovascular surgeon not affiliated with the Ocala Heart Institute unless approved by the Institute. The Ocala Heart Institute (whose physician members include not only cardiovascular surgeons, but also cardiovascular anesthesiologists and invasive cardiologists) has similar exclusive contracts for the operation of adult open heart surgery programs at Monroe Regional Medical Center and at Ocala Regional Medical Center and at Leesburg Regional Medical Center. At these three hospitals, the Institute's physicians have consistently produced excellent outcomes. The Ocala Heart Institute produces these results not just through the skills of its physicians but also through the use of the same clinical protocols at each hospital governing the provision of open heart surgery. Citrus Memorial proposes to follow identical protocols at its facility. Excellent open heart surgery outcomes for the Institute's physicians are also the product of standardized facility design, equipment and supplies. The standardization of design, equipment, supplies, and protocols has the added benefit of clinical efficiencies that reduce costs and shorten lengths of stay. Beyond supervision of the initial implementation of the program, the Ocala Heart Institute will provide the medical directorship for Citrus Memorial's program. In cooperation with Munroe Regional, the directorship's 24-hour-a-day, 7-days-a-week coverage of the program will include scheduled case, emergency case, and backup coverage by cardiovascular surgeons, cardiovascular anesthesiologists, perfusionists, and interventional cardiologists. The Ocala Heart Institute will provide education and training to Citrus Memorial's medical staff and other hospital personnel as appropriate. The Institute's obligations will include continually working to improve the quality of, and maintain a reasonable cost associated with, the medical care furnished to Citrus Memorial's open heart surgery and angioplasty patients, consistent with recognized standards of medical practice in the field of cardiovascular surgery. The contract with the Ocala Heart Institute ensures to the extent possible that Citrus Memorial will have a high- quality adult open heart surgery program. Oak Hill Through approval of its application to establish an adult open heart surgery program at its facility, Oak Hill hopes Hernando County residents who now must travel outside the county to receive open heart and angioplasty services will be better served. In particular, Oak Hill hopes to provide these services to the residents of the six zip code area that comprise its primary service area ("PSA"). Containing 75 percent of the county's population, Oak Hill's PSA also encompasses the county's concentration of recent growth. Oak Hill's administration is committed to the proposal contained in its application. It has the support of the hospital's Board of Trustees and medical staff. Not surprisingly, the proposal enjoys a measure of popularity in the county. A petition in support of a program at Oak Hill drew 7,628 signatures from residents of Hernando County. This popularity is based in the fact that residents now must leave District 3 (albeit Bayonet Point in District 5 is close to Oak Hill and closer for many residents of south Hernando County) to receive open heart and angioplasty services. The number of affected residents is substantial. In 1999, for example, over 600 cardiac patients were transferred by ambulance from Oak Hill to Bayonet Point. A greater number of patients traveled on a scheduled basis to Bayonet Point for cardiac care. The vast majority of Hernando County residents and Oak Hill primary service area residents in need of OHS services receive them at Regional Medical Center-Bayonet Point. HCA Health Services of Florida, a subsidiary of HCA-The Healthcare Company ("HCA") holds the Bayonet Point license. It also is the licensee of Oak Hill and other hospitals in Florida including North Florida Regional and Ocala Regional. Bayonet Point (Regional Medical Center-Bayonet Point) is an acute care hospital in Hudson. Hudson is in Pasco County, the county immediately to the south of Hernando County. Although in a separate health planning district (District 5), Bayonet Point is relatively close to Oak Hill, 17 miles to the south. Bayonet Point's open heart surgery program experiences the fourth highest case volume in the state. The program is recognized as one of the top two programs in the state. It enjoys a national reputation. For example in July of 1999, it was ranked 50th in the nation in cardiology and heart surgery in U.S. News and World Report's list of "America's Best Hospitals." Oak Hill, as a sister hospital of Bayonet Point under the aegis of HCA, plans to develop its program in cooperation with Bayonet Point and its cardiovascular surgeons so as to bring the high quality program at Bayonet Point to Oak Hill's community and patients. A prospective operational plan for the adult open heart surgery program has been initiated by Oak Hill with assistance from Bayonet Point. Oak Hill, unlike Citrus Memorial, did not present evidence concerning the specific duties to be imposed on each physician group under contract. Nor did Oak Hill present evidence as to whether and how those groups would create and implement the type of standardization of protocols, facility design, equipment, and supplies that Citrus Memorial's program will rely upon for high quality and reduced costs. Nonetheless, it can be expected that the cooperation of Oak Hill and Bayonet Point, as sister HCA hospitals, will continue through the development and implementation of appropriate staff training, policies, procedures and protocols in the establishment of a high quality program at Oak Hill. Oak Hill's achieved volume in its open heart surgery program, if approved, will be at the direct expense of Bayonet Point. Its approval will increase the operating costs per case at Bayonet Point. Patients transferred from Oak Hill to Bayonet Point for OHS and angioplasty receive excellent outcomes. Patients are transferred to Bayonet Point for OHS and angioplasty smoothly and without delay particularly because Bayonet Point operates a private ambulance system for the transport of cardiac patients to its hospital. Two groups of cardiovascular surgeons are the exclusive cardiovascular/thoracic surgeons at Bayonet Point. Although, at present, there are no capacity constraints at Bayonet Point, both groups support a program at Oak Hill and are committed to participate in an open heart surgery program at Oak Hill. If approved, Oak Hill will enter similar exclusive contracts with the two groups. Raymond Waters, M.D., a cardiovascular surgeon, heads one of the groups. He has performed open heart surgery at Bayonet Point since its inception and is largely responsible for the development of the surgery protocols used there. Dr. Waters has consulting privileges at Oak Hill. In addition to consulting there, Dr. Waters presents medical education programs at Oak Hill. Forty to 50 percent of Dr. Waters' patients come from Hernando County and Oak Hill Hospital. Dr. Waters and his group strongly support initiation of an open heart surgery ("OHS") program at Oak Hill. Their support is based, in part, on the excellence of the institution, including its physical structure, cath labs, intensive care units, nursing staff, medical staff, and the state of its cardiology program. Dr. Waters and his group are prepared to assist in the development of an open heart surgery program at Oak Hill, and to assure appropriate surgery coverage. Oak Hill will create a Heart Center at the hospital to house its OHS program. All diagnostic and invasive cardiac services will be located in one area of the hospital to ensure efficient patient flow and access to support services. The center will occupy existing space to be renovated and newly constructed space on the first floor of the facility. Two new cardiovascular surgery suites, with all support spaces necessary, will be constructed, along with an eight-bed cardiovascular intensive care unit. The hospital's two state- of-the-art cardiac catheterization laboratory suites are available for diagnostic procedures and angioplasty procedures. A large waiting area and cardiac education/therapy room will also be constructed. Open heart surgery patients will progress from the OR to the new CVICU for the first 24-28 hours after surgery. From the CVICU, the patient will be admitted to a thirty-bed telemetry monitored progressive care unit, located on the second floor. Currently a 38-bed medical/surgical unit, thirty of the beds will remain as PCU beds. Eight beds will be relocated to create the CVICU. The PCU will provide continued care, education and discharge planning for post open heart surgery and angioplasty patients. Oak Hill will also implement a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation program for both inpatients and outpatients. Brooksville Regional Like Oak Hill, part of the purpose of the Brooksville Regional proposal is to provide more convenient OHS and angioplasty services to Hernando County residents in need of them, 94 percent of whom now travel to Bayonet Point in Pasco County for such services. In addition to proposing improvements in patient convenience and access, Brooksville Regional sees its application as increasing patient choice and competition in the delivery of the services. Indeed, patient choice and competition for the benefit of patients, physicians and payers of hospital services are the cornerstone of Brooksville Regional's application. There is support for the proposed program from the community and from physicians. For example, Dr. Jose Augustine, a cardiologist and Chief of the Medical Staff at Oak Hill since 1997, wrote a letter of support for an open heart program at Brooksville Regional. Although he believes Hernando County would be better served by a program at Oak Hill, he wrote the letter for Brooksville Regional because, "if Oak Hill didn't get it, [he] wanted the program to be here in Hernando County." (Oak Hill No. 12, p. 43.) Consistent with his position, Dr. Augustine finds Brooksville Regional to be an appropriate facility in which to locate an open heart program and he would do all he could to support such a program including providing support from his cardiology group and encouraging support other physicians. But Brooksville Regional offered no evidence regarding the identity of its cardiovascular surgeons. Hernando HMA proposes to construct a state-of-the-art building of 19,500 square feet at Brooksville Regional to house its OHS program. Two OHS operating rooms will be built. Eight CVICU beds will be used for the program, to be converted from other licensed beds. A second cath lab will be added. The total project cost is nearly $12 million. Brooksville Regional proposes to serve all of Hernando County. In addition, 10 percent of its volume is expected to come from Citrus County. Brooksville Regional commits to serving all payer groups with the vast majority projected to be Medicare, Medicare HMO/PPO and non-Medicare managed care. Brooksville lists two specific CON conditions in its application. First, it commits to over 2 percent for charity care and 1.6 percent for Medicaid. Second, it commits to establishing the OHS program at Brooksville's existing facility, located at 55 Ponce de Leon Boulevard in the City of Brooksville. The second of these two was reaffirmed unequivocally at hearing when Brooksville introduced testimony that if Brooksville's CON application is approved, its OHS program will be located at Brooksville's existing facility. Need In Common One "not normal" circumstance exist that supports all three applications: the lack of effect any approval will have on the sub-350 performers in the district. Which, if any, of the three applicants should be awarded an adult open heart surgery program, therefore, is determined on the basis of need and that determination is to be made in the context of comparative review. Benefits of Increased Blood Flow Lack of blood flow to the heart caused by narrowed arteries or blood clots during a heart attack, results in a loss heart of muscle. The longer the blood flow is disrupted or diminished, the more heart muscle is lost. The more heart muscle lost, the more likely the patient will either die or, should the patient survive, suffer a severe reduction in the quality of life. The key to prevent the loss of heart muscle in a heart attack is to restore blood flow to the heart through a process of revascularization as quickly as possible. Cardiovascular surgeons and cardiologists make reference to this phenomenon through the maxim, "time is muscle." The faster revascularization is accomplished the better the outcome for the patient. Those who treat heart attack patients seek to restore blood flow within a half hour of the onset of the attack. Revascularization within such a time frame maximizes the chance of reducing permanent damage to the heart muscle from which the patient cannot recover. Achievement of revascularization between 30 minutes and 90 minutes of the attack results in some damage. Beyond 90 minutes, significant permanent damage resulting in death or severe reduction in quality of life is likely. The three primary treatment modalities available to a patient suffering from a heart attack are: 1) thrombolytics; 2) angioplasty and 3) open heart surgery. Thrombolytic therapy is the standard of care for the initial attempt to treat a heart attack. Thrombolytic therapy is the administration of medication, typically tissue plasminogen ("TPA") to dissolve blood clots. Administered intravenously, the thrombolytic begins working within minutes in an attempt to dissolve the clot causing the heart attack and, therefore, to prevent or halt damage to the heart muscle. Thrombolytic therapies are successful in restoring blood flow to the affected heart muscle about 60 to 75 percent of the time. In the event it is not successful or the patient is not appropriate for the therapy, the patient is usually referred for primary angioplasty, a therapeutic cardiac catheterization procedure. Cardiac catheterization is a medical procedure requiring the passage of a catheter into one or more cardiac chambers with or without coronary arteriograms, for the purpose of diagnosing congenital or acquired cardiovascular diseases, and includes the injection of contrast medium into the coronary arteries to find vessel blockage. See Rule 59C-1.032(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Primary angioplasty is defined as a therapeutic cardiac catheterization procedure in which a balloon-tipped catheter inflated at the point of obstruction is used to dilate narrowed segments of coronary arteries in order to restore blood flow to the heart muscle. Rule 59C-1.032(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. More often now, in the wake of cardiac care advances, a "stent" is also placed in the re-opened artery. A stent is a wire cylinder or a metal mesh-sleeve wrapped around the balloon during an angioplasty procedure. The stent attaches itself to the walls of the blocked artery when the balloon is inflated, acting much like a reinforced conduit through which blood flow is restored. Its advantage over stentless angioplasty is improved blood flow to the heart and a reduction in the likelihood that the artery will collapse in the future. In other words, a stent may prevent substantial re-occlusion. The development of stent technology has led to dramatically increased angioplasty procedure volumes in recent years and the trend is continuing. Based on mortality rates, studies suggest that immediate angioplasty, rather than thrombolytic treatment, is the preferred treatment for revascularization. When thrombolytic therapy is inappropriate or fails and a patient is determined to be not a candidate for angioplasty, the patient is referred for open heart surgery. Under the Open Heart Surgery Rule, Rule 59C-1.032, Florida Administrative Code, a cardiac catheterization program that includes the provision of angioplasty must be located within a hospital that also provides open heart surgery services. Open heart surgery is a necessary backup in the event of complications during the angioplasty. The residents of Citrus Memorial's primary service area (and those of Oak Hill's and Brooksville Regional's), therefore, do not have immediate access (that is access to a hospital in their county of residence) to not just open heart surgery services but to angioplasty services as well. In addition to increased benefits to the residents of the proposed service areas, much of the need in this case is based on a demonstration of geographic access problems. For example, population concentration and historical utilization of open heart surgery services in the district demonstrate that the open heart surgery programs in the district are maldistributed. At the same time, the Bayonet Point program's service by virtue of both superior quality and proximity to Hernando County ameliorates the effect of the maldistribution of the programs intra-district particularly with regard to the residents of Hernando County. The four southernmost of the 16 counties in the district (Citrus, Hernando, Sumter and Lake) account for approximately 41 percent of the total adult population and 53.5 percent of the population aged 65 and over within District 3 as a whole. The super majority of aged 65 and over population in these counties is of great significance since that population is the primary base of those in need of adult open heart surgery and angioplasty. This same base accounts for 57 percent of the total annual open heart surgeries performed on district residents. For District 3 as a whole, 27 percent of the adult population is aged 65 and older. In comparison, 38.2 percent of Citrus County residents fall within that age cohort, 37.2 percent of Hernando County residents and 33.3 percent of residents in Lake and Sumter Counties combined fall within that age cohort. In contrast, in the northern part of the district, the counties closest to the three Gainesville open heart surgery programs (Columbia, Hamilton, Suwanee, Alachua, Bradford, Dixie, Gilchrist, Lafayette, Levy, and Union) contain a combined basis of 32.4 percent and Putnam County contains 24.7 percent of the District 3 population aged 65 and over. The overall District 3 open heart surgery use rate (number of surgeries per 1,000 population age 15 and over) is 3.47. Yet, the combined use rate for Columbia, Hamilton, and Suwanee Counties is 1.96, the combined use rate for Alachua, Bradford, Dixie, Gilchrist, Lafayette, Levy, and Union Counties is 1.55, and the Putnam County use rate is 2.05. More specifically, the northern county use rates are significantly below the use rates for the remainder of District 3 counties. Marion County is 4.12. Citrus County is at 4.26. Hernando County is at 6.41. Lake and Sumter Counties are at 4.31. Transfers Drive time is but one component of the total time necessary to effectuate a patient transfer. Additional time is consumed in making transfer and admission arrangements with the receiving hospital, awaiting arrival of an ambulance to begin transport, and preparing and transferring the patient into and out of the ambulance. Time delays that necessarily accompany hospital-to-hospital transfers can be critical, clinically. The fact that a facility-to-facility transfer is required means that the patient is at relatively high risk. Otherwise, the patient would be sent home and electively scheduled later. The need to travel outside the community carries other adverse consequences for patients and their families. Continuity of care is disrupted when patients cannot receive hospital visits from their regular and trusted physicians. Separation from these physicians increases stress and anxiety for many patients, and patients heal better with lower levels of stress and anxiety. Further, most OHS patients are elderly, and travel by their spouses to another community to visit is stressful and difficult at best, sometimes impossible. The elderly loved ones of the patient also tend to have health problems and, even when able, the drive to the hospital is stressful. District 3 Out-migration A high volume of OHS patients leave District 3 for OHS services. During the year ended March 1999, there were a total of 3,520 District 3 residents discharged from Florida hospitals following OHS. Only 2,428 of those OHS cases were reported by hospitals located within District 3. An outmigration rate of 31 percent, on its face, is indicative of a district geographic access problem. The problem is mitigated, however, by an understanding that most of the outmigration is of Hernando County residents who are able to travel or are transferred to Bayonet Point, a provider within 30 to 45 minutes driving time from the two Hernando County applicants in this proceeding. Citrus Memorial Volume Projections and Financial Feasibility Citrus Memorial reasonably projects an open heart surgery case volume of 266 for the first year of operation, 313 for the second year, and 361 for the third year. Citrus Memorial reasonably projects an angioplasty case volume of 409 for the first year of operation, 481 for the second year, and 554 for the third year. The Citrus Memorial program is financially feasible in the long term. It will generate approximately $1 million in not-for-profit income by the end of the second year of operation ($327,609 from open heart surgery cases, and $651,323 from angioplasty cases). Increased Access in Citrus County The two Ocala hospitals are approximately 30 miles from Citrus Memorial. With traffic, the normal driving time from Citrus Memorial to the hospitals is 60 minutes. The driving time from Oak Hill to Bayonet Point is normally 29 minutes or about half the time it takes to get from Citrus Memorial to one of the Ocala providers. The drive time from Brooksville Regional to Bayonet Point is approximately 45 minutes, 25 percent faster than the driving time from Citrus Memorial to the Ocala hospitals. Myocardial infarction patients for whom thrombolytic therapy is inappropriate or ineffective who present to the emergency room at Citrus Memorial, on average, therefore, are exposed to greater risk of significant heart muscle damage than those who present to the emergency rooms at either Oak Hill or Brooksville Regional. The delay in transfer for a Citrus Memorial patient in need of angioplasty or open heart surgery can be compounded by the ambulance system in Citrus County. There are only 7 ambulances in the system. If one is out of the county, the provider of ambulance services will not allow another to leave the county until the first has returned. Citrus Memorial presented medical records of 17 cases in which transfers took more than an hour and in some cases more than 3 hours from when arrangements for transfers were first made. There was no testimony to explain the meaning of the records. Despite the status of the records as admissible under exceptions to the hearsay rule and therefore the ability to rely on them for the truth of the matters asserted therein, the lack of expert testimony diminishes the value of the records. For example in the first case, the patient presented at the emergency room on June 14, 1999. Treatment reduced the patient's chest pain. In other words, thrombolytics appeared to be beneficial. The patient was admitted to the coronary care unit after a diagnosis of unstable angina, and cardiac catheterization was ordered. On June 15, the next day, at about 11:40 a.m., "just prior to going down to Cath Lab, patient developed severe chest pain." (Citrus Memorial Ex. 16, p. 1017.) Following additional treatment, the chest pains were observed half an hour later to be "better." (Id.) Several hours later, at 1:45 p.m., that day, transfer to Ocala Regional was ordered. (Id., p. 1043). The patient's progress notes show that the transfer took place at 3:45 p.m., two hours after the order for transfer was entered. Whether rapid transfer was required or not is questionable since the patient appears to have been stabilized and had responded to thrombolytics and other therapy. In contrast, the second of the 17 cases is of a patient whose "risk of mortality [was] . . . close to 100%." The physician's notes indicate that at 1:10 p.m. on August 8, 1999, "emergency cardiac cath [was] indicated [with] a view toward revascularization." (Citrus Memorial Ex. 16, p. 1093). The same notes indicate after discussion between the physician and the patient and his spouse "that transfer itself is risky, but that risk of mortality [if he remained at Citrus Memorial] . . . is close to 100 percent." Although these same notes show that at 1:10 p.m., the patient's transfer had been accepted by the provider of open heart surgery, it was not until 3:30 p.m., that the "Ocala team" (id., at 1113) was shown to be present at Citrus Memorial and not until 3:45 p.m., that the patient was "transferred to Ocala." (Id.) Given the maxim that "time is muscle," it may be assumed that the 2-hour and 45- minute delay in transfer from the moment the patient was accepted for transfer until it occurred and the ensuing time thereafter for the drive to Ocala contributed to significant negative health consequences to the patient. Whatever the value of the 17 sets of medical records, they demonstrate that transfers from Citrus Memorial on occasion take up time that is outside the 30-minute and 90-minute timeframes for avoiding significant damage to heart muscle or minimizing such damage to heart attack patients for whom angioplasty or open heart surgery procedures is indicated. Citrus Memorial also presented twenty sets of records from which the "emergent" nature of the need for angioplasty or open heart intervention was more apparent from the face of the records than in the 17 cases. (Compare Citrus Memorial Ex. No. 16 to No. 17). These records reveal transport delays in some cases, lack of immediate bed ability at the Ocala hospitals in others, and in some cases both transport delays and lack of bed availability. In 16 of the cases, it took over 90 minutes for the patient to reach the receiving hospital and in 13 of the cases, it took 2 hours or more. It would be of significant benefit to some of those who present to Citrus Memorial's emergency room with myocardial infarctions to have access to open heart surgery services on site should thrombolytic therapy be inappropriate or prove ineffective. Other Access Factors Besides time considerations, there are other factors that provide comparisons related to access by Citrus Memorial service area residents on the one hand and Hernando County residents to be served by either Oak Hill or Brooksville Regional on the other. Among the other factors relied on by Citrus Memorial to advance its application is a comparison of use rate. The use rate per 1,000 population aged 15 and over for Hernando County is 6.08, compared to 4.13 for Citrus County. "[B]y definition" (tr. 458), the use rates show need in Hernando County greater than in Citrus County. But the use rates could indicate an access problem financially or geographically. In the end, there are a lot of components that make up the use rate. One is obviously the age of the population and underlying heart disease, two, . . . is the physician practice patterns in the county. [S]tudies . . . show that [in] two equivalent populations, . . . one with a very conservative medical community that . . . hospitalizes more frequently . . . [versus] another . . . where the physicians hospitalize less frequently for the same situation or who use a medical approach versus a surgical approach. (Id.) While there may be one possible explanation for the lower use rate in Citrus County than in Hernando County that favors Citrus Memorial, a comparison of use rates on the state of this record is not in Citrus Memorial's favor. Other factors favor Citrus Memorial. In support of its open heart surgery and angioplasty volumes, for example, Citrus Memorial reasonably projects an 80 percent market share for such services from its primary service areas. In contrast, Oak Hill projected a much lower market share from its primary service area: 58 percent. The lower market share projection by Oak Hill is due to the proximity of the Bayonet Point program to Hernando County. The difference in the two projections reveals greater demand for improved access in Citrus County than in Hernando County. This same point is revealed by projected county outmigration. Statewide data reveals that the introduction of open heart surgery services within a county causes a county resident generally to stay in the county for those services. Yet with a new program in Hernando County, Bayonet Point is still projected reasonably to capture one-half of the open heart surgeries and angioplasties performed on Hernando County residents, further support for the notion that Hernando County residents have adequate access to open heart surgery services through Bayonet Point's program. As to angioplasty demand, Oak Hill projected an angioplasty/open heart surgery ratio of 1.3. Citrus Memorial's ratio is 1.5. Geographic access limitations also adversely affect continuity of care. To have open heart surgery performed at another hospital, the patient will have to travel for pre- operative, operative, and post-operative follow-up services and duplication of tests. This lack of continuity of care often results in the patient's primary and specialty care physicians not following the patient and not being involved with all phases of care. In assessing travel time and access issues for open heart surgery and angioplasty services, travel time and distance present not only potential hardship to the patient, but also to the patient's family and friends who accompany and visit the patient. These issues are of particular significance to elderly persons (be they the patient, family member or friend) who do not drive and must rely on others for transport. Financial Access - Indigent Care Consistent with its mission as a community not-for- profit hospital, Citrus Memorial will accept any patient who comes to the hospital regardless of ability to pay. In 1999, Citrus Memorial provided approximately $4.9 million in charity care, representing 3.6 percent of its gross revenues. Citrus County provided Citrus Memorial with $1.2 million dollars in subsidization, part of which was allotted to capital construction and maintenance, part of which was allotted to charity care. Subtracting all $1.2 million, as if all had been earmarked for charity care, from the charity care, the dollar amount of Citrus Memorial's out-of-pocket charity care substantially exceeds the dollars for the same period provided by Oak Hill ($1.3 million) and by Brooksville Regional ($935,000). The percentage of gross revenue devoted to charity care is also highest for Citrus Memorial; Brooksville Regional's is 1.1 percent and tellingly, Oak Hill's, at 0.6 percent is less than one-quarter of Citrus Memorial's percentage of out-of- pocket charity care. "[C]learly Citrus has a much stronger charity care credential than does either Oak Hill or Brooksville Regional." (Tr. 241). But this credential does not carry over into the open heart surgery arena. As a condition to its CON, Citrus Memorial committed to a minimum 2.0 percent of total open heart surgery patient days to Medicaid/charity patients. The difference between Citrus Memorial's commitment and that of Oak Hill's and Brooksville Regional's, both standing at 1.5 percent, is not nearly as dramatic as past performance in charity care for all services. The difference in the comparison of Citrus Memorial to the other applicants between past overall charity care and commitment to future open heart services for Medicaid and charity care is explained by the population that receives open heart and angioplasty services. That population is dominated by those over 65 who are covered by Medicare. Competition Citrus Memorial's current charges for cardiology services are significantly lower than comparable charges at Oak Hill or Brooksville Regional. A comparison of the eight cardiology-related DRGs that typically have high volume utilization reveals that Oak Hill's gross charges are 62 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's gross charges. A comparison of gross charges is not of great value, however, even though there are some payers that pay billed charges such as "self-pay" and indemnity insurance. When managed care payments are a function of gross charges then such a comparison is of more value. On a net revenue per case basis for those DRGs, Oak Hill's net revenues are 10 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's. A 10 percent difference in net revenues, a much narrower difference than the difference in gross charges, is significant. Furthermore, it is not surprising to see such a narrowing since most of the utilization is covered by Medicare which makes a fixed payment to the provider. A comparison of projections in the applications reveals that Oak Hill's gross revenue per open heart surgery cases will be 164 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's gross revenue per such case. Oak Hill's net revenue per open heart surgery case will be 32 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's net revenue per such case. A comparison of projections in the applications also reveals that Oak Hill's gross revenue per angioplasty case will be 74 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's and that Oak Hill's net revenues per angioplasty case will be 13 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's. If a program is established at Oak Hill, there will be a hospital within District 3 with a new open heart surgery program. But what Oak Hill, under the umbrellas of HCA, proposes to do in reality is to take a quarter of the volume from [Bayonet Point, a] premier facility to set up in a sense a satellite operation at a facility . . . 16 miles away . . . [when] those patients already have an established practice of going to the premier tertiary facility . . . [ and when the two enjoy] a very strong positive relationship. (Tr. 1434). Such an arrangement will do little to nothing to enhance competition. Comparing Citrus Memorial and Brooksville Regional gross revenues on the basis of the same cardiology-related DRGs reveals that Brooksville's gross charges are 83 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's charges. A comparison of projections in the applications reveals that Brooksville Regional's gross revenue per open heart surgery case will be 147 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's and the Brooksville's net revenue per open heart surgery case will be 45 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's. A comparison of projections in the applications reveals that Brooksville's gross revenue per angioplasty case will be 36 percent greater than Citrus Memorial's and that Brooksville's net revenue per angioplasty case will be 7 percent lower than Citrus Memorial's. Impact of a Citrus Memorial Program on Existing Providers Citrus Memorial reasonably projected that by the third year of operation, a Citrus Memorial program will take away 100 cases from Ocala Regional. In 1999 Ocala Regional had an open heart surgery volume of 401 cases. In 2000, its annual volume was 18 cases more, 419. This is a decline from both the immediately prior two-year period, 1997 to 1998 and the two-year period before that of 1995 to 1996. The volume decline for the two-year period 1999 to 2000 compared to the previous two-year period, 1997 to 1998 is not at all surprising because of "two big factors." (Tr. 97). First, in 1997 and 1998, Ocala Regional was used as a training site for the development of Leesburg Regional's open heart surgery program that opened in December of 1998. In essence, Ocala Regional enjoyed an increase in the volume of cases in 1997 and 1998 when compared to previous years and a spike in volume when compared to both previous and subsequent two-year periods because of the 1997-98 short-term "windfall.) (Id.) Second, Ocala Regional was a Columbia-owned facility. In 1999 and thereafter, "Columbia developed a lot of bad publicity because of some federal investigations that were going on of the Columbia system." (Id.) The publicity negatively affected the hospital's open heart surgery volume in 1999 and 2000. The second factor also helps to explain why Ocala Regional's volume in 1999 and 2000 was lower than in 1995 and 1996. There are other factors, as well, that help explain the lower volume in 1999 and 2000 than in 1995 and 1996. In any event if impact to Ocala Regional, alone, were to be considered for purposes of the prohibition in Rule 59C- 1.033(7)(c), that a new program will not normally be approved if approval would reduce 12-month volume at an existing program below 350, then the impact might result in veto by rule of approval of a program at Citrus Memorial. But Ocala Regional is but one hospital under a single certificate of need shared with another hospital across the street from its facility: Munroe Regional. Annualization for 1999 of discharge data for the 12 months ending September 30, 1999 shows that Munroe Regional enjoyed a volume of 770 cases. There is no danger that the program carried out by Ocala Regional and Munroe Regional jointly under a single certificate of need will fall below 350 procedures annually should Citrus Memorial be approved. Oak Hill Need for Rapid Interventional Therapies and Transfers A high number of residents of Oak Hill's proposed service area present to its emergency room with myocardial infarctions. Many of them would benefit from prompt interventional therapies currently made available to them at Bayonet Point. Over 600 patients annually, almost two patients every day, must be transferred by ambulance from Oak Hill to Bayonet Point for cardiac care. A significant number of them would benefit from interventional therapy more rapidly available. The travel time from Oak Hill to Bayonet Point is the least amount of time, however, of the travel time from any of the three applicants in this proceeding to the nearest existing open heart provider; Brooksville Regional to Bayonet Point or Citrus Memorial to one of the Ocala providers. The extent of the benefit, therefore, is difficult to quantify and is, most likely, minimal. As with the other two applicants, thrombolytic therapy is the only method of revascularization currently available to Oak Hill's patients because Oak Hill is precluded by Agency rule and clinical standards from offering angioplasty without on-site open heart surgery backup. The percentage of MI patients who are ineligible for thrombolytic therapy, coupled with the percentages of patients for whom thrombolytic therapy is ineffective, are extremely significant given the high number of MI patients presenting to Oak Hill's emergency room. During 1998, 418 patients presented to Oak Hill's ER with an MI, and 376 MI patients presented in 1999. During the first eight months of 2000, 255 MI patients presented to Oak Hill's ER, an annualized rate of 384. Conservatively, thrombolytic therapy is not effective for at least 10 percent of patients suffering from an acute MI, either because patients are ineligible to receive the treatment or the treatment fails to clear the blockage. Accordingly, it may be conservatively projected that at least 104 patients who presented to Oak Hill's ER between 1998 and August 2000 (10 percent of 1049) suffering an MI were in need of angioplasty intervention for which open heart surgery backup is required. Most patients are diagnosed as in need of OHS or angioplasty as a result of undergoing a diagnostic cardiac catheterization. Oak Hill performs an extremely high volume of cardiac cath procedures for a hospital that lacks an OHS program. In 1999, for example, it performed 1,641 cardiac catheterizations. This is a higher volume than experienced by any of six hospitals during the year prior to which they recently implemented new OHS programs. If Oak Hill had an OHS program, most of the patients at Oak Hill determined to be in need of angioplasty or OHS could receive those procedures at Oak Hill. Such an arrangement would avoid the inevitable delay and stress occasioned by a transfer to Bayonet Point or elsewhere. Furthermore, if Oak Hill had an OHS program then those patients in need of diagnostic cardiac catheterization and angioplasty sequentially would have immediate access to the interventional procedure. The need is underscored for those patients presenting to Oak Hill's ER with myocardical infarctions who do not respond to thrombolytics because, as stated earlier in this order, access to angioplasty within 30 minutes of onset is ideal. Oak Hill transfers an extremely high number of cardiac patients for angioplasty and open heart surgery. In 1999, Oak Hill transferred 258 patients to Bayonet Point for open heart surgery, and 311 for angioplasty/stent procedures. Of course, most OHS patients are scheduled on an elective basis for surgery, rather than being transferred between hospitals, as is evident from the fact that during the 12-month period ending March 1999, 698 Hernando County residents underwent OHS. For now, Oak Hill patients determined to be in need of urgent angioplasty or open heart surgery must be transferred by ambulance to an OHS provider which for the vast majority of patients is Bayonet Point. Approximately 17 miles south, the average drive time to Bayonet Point from Oak Hill is 30 minutes but it can take longer when on occasion there is traffic congestion. Once the transfer is achieved and patient receives the required procedure, the drive can be difficult for the patient's family and loved ones. Community members often express to physicians and hospital staff their support and desire for an OHS program at Oak Hill. Many believe travel outside Hernando County for those services is cumbersome for loved ones who are important to the patient's healing process. The community support and demand for these services is evidenced by the 7,628 resident signatures on petitions in support of Oak Hill's efforts to obtain approval for an OHS program. While a program at Oak Hill would be more convenient, Oak Hill did not demonstrate a transfer problem that would rise to the level of "not normal" circumstances. Because of Oak Hill's relationship with Bayonet Point, Bayonet Point's proximity and excess capacity, coupled with the high quality of the program at Bayonet Point, Oak Hill's case is more in the nature of seeking a satellite. As one expert put it at hearing, [Oak Hill] is, in fact, a satellite. And my question is, [']What's the wisdom of doing that if you don't have the problems that normally are being addressed when you grant approval of a program?['] In other words, if you don't have transfer issues [that rise to the level of "not normal" circumstances], if you don't have access issues, if you're not achieving any price competition, if it's not particularly cost effective, why would you [approve Oak Hill]? (Tr. 1537-38). Oak Hill's Projected Utilization Oak Hill projected a range of 316 to 348 OHS cases during its first year, and by its third year a range of between 333 and 366 cases. Those volumes are sufficient to ensure excellent quality of care from the beginning of the program, particularly with the involvement of the Bayonet Point surgeons. Oak Hill defined its primary service area (PSA) for OHS based on historic MDC-5 cardiology related diagnosis discharges from its hospital. For the 12-month period ended March 1999, over 90 percent of Oak Hill's MDC-5 discharges were residents of six zip codes, all in the vicinity of Oak Hill Hospital and within Hernando County. Accordingly, that area was chosen as the PSA for projecting OHS utilization. Out-of-PSA residents accounted for only 8.9 percent of Oak Hill's MDC-5 discharges, and of these, 1.5 percent were out-of-state patients, and 4.9 percent were residents from other parts of District 3. For the year ending ("YE") March 1999, Oak Hill had an MDC-5 market share of 40.9 percent within its PSA, without excluding angioplasty, stent, and OHS cases. If angioplasty, stent, and OHS cases are excluded, Oak Hill's PSA market share was 52.7 percent. In order to project OHS service demand, Oak Hill examined the population projections for 1999 and 2004 for District 3, and for Oak Hill's PSA. The analysis was based on age-specific resident populations and use rates, to serve as a contrast to the Agency's projections. The numeric need formula in the OHS Rule utilizes a facility based use rate derived by totaling all of the reported OHS cases performed by hospitals within a District during a given time period, and then dividing those cases by the adult population aged 15 and over. While a facility-based use rate measures utilization in those District hospitals, however, it does not measure out-migration. Nor does it reflect the residence of the patients receiving those services. On the other hand, a resident-based use rate identifies where patients needing OHS actually come from, and permits development of age specific use rates. For example, the resident-based use rates reflects that the southern portion of District 3 has a much higher concentration of elderly persons than does the northern portion of the District, and reveals extremely high migration out of the District for OHS services. Oak Hill's PSA is more elderly than the District 3 population as a whole. In 1999, 32.8 percent of the Oak Hill PSA population was aged 65 or over, as opposed to only 21.5 percent for District 3 as a whole, with similar results projected for the population in 2004, the projected third year of operation of Oak Hill's program. Based on the district-wide use rate resulting from the OHS Rule need methodology, Hernando County would be expected to generate 276 OHS cases in the planning horizon of July 2002 (use rate of 2.3 per 1000 adult population). Application of this OHS Rule use rate to Hernando County clearly understates need if resources to meet the need are considered within the isolation of the boundaries of District 3. For example, the OHS Rule based projection of 276 OHS cases in 2002, is far below the actual 664 Hernando County resident OHS discharges during YE March 1998, and the 698 OHS cases during YE March 1999. While the facility-based district-wide use rate was 2.3, the Hernando County resident-based use rate was 6.45 per 1000 population. The fact of increasing use rates with age is demonstrated by the Hernando County resident use rate of 6.95 for ages 55-64, increasing to 12.01 for ages 65-74, and increasing again to 14.95 for age 75 and over. But focusing on Hernando County use rates within District 3 ignores the reality of the proximity of an excellent program at Bayonet Point. Oak Hill reasonably projected OHS demand in its PSA by examining the age-specific use rates of residents in the southern portion of District 3, which experienced an overall use rate of 4.55 for the year ending March 1999. Those age-specific use rates were then applied to the age-specific population forecast for each of the three horizon years of 2002 through 2004, resulting in an expected PSA demand for OHS of 547 cases in 2002, 561 cases in 2003, and 575 cases in 2004. Those projections are conservative given that 663 actual open heart surgeries were reported among PSA residents during the YE March 1999. The same methodology was used to project angioplasty service demand in the PSA, resulting in an expected demand ranging from 721 cases in 2002 to 758 cases in 2004. Oak Hill then projected its expected OHS case volume by assuming that its first year OHS market share within its PSA would be the same as its MDC-5 market share, being 52.7 percent. Oak Hill next assumed that by the third-year operation its market share would increase to equal its current cardiac cath PSA market share of 57.9 percent. It further assumed that it would have a non-PSA draw of 8.9 percent, which is equal to its current non-PSA MDC-5 market share. Oak Hill reasonably expects that 91.1 percent of its OHS cases would come from within its six zip code PSA, with the remaining 8.9 percent expected to come from outside that area. Oak Hill then projected an expected range of OHS discharges during its first three years of operation by using both a low estimate and a high estimate. The resulting utilization projections reflect a low range of 316 OHS cases in 2002, 324 cases in 2003, and 333 cases in 2004. The high range estimate for the same years respectively would be: 348, 357, and 366 cases. The same methodology was used to project angioplasty cases, resulting in the following low range: 417 cases in 2002; 428 in 2003; and 438 in 2004. The expected high range for the same respective years would be: 458, 470, and 482. Oak Hill's OHS and angioplasty utilization projections are reasonable. Long-term Financial Feasibility Long-term financial feasibility is defined as a demonstration that the project will achieve and maintain financial self-sufficiency over time. Oak Hill's projected gross charges were based on Bayonet Point's charge structure. The projected payer mix was based on Oak Hill's cardiac cath experience. Projected net reimbursement by payor source was based on Oak Hill's experience for Medicare, Medicaid, and contractual adjustment history. Oak Hill's expenses were projected on a DRG specific basis using information generated by the cost accounting system at Bayonet Point. The use of Bayonet Point's expense experience is a reasonable proxy for a number of reasons. Its patient base is comprised of patients who are reasonably expected to be the base of Oak Hill's patients. Management there is similar to what it will be at an Oak Hill program. And, as stated so often, the two facilities are relatively close in location. To account for differences between Bayonet Point's expenses and Oak Hill's project costs, interest and depreciation, adjustments were made by Oak Hill as reflected in its application. As a means of compensating for fixed costs differentials between the two hospitals, Oak Hill added its salary costs projected in Schedule 6 to the salary expenses already included in Bayonet Point's costs. (Schedule 6 nursing, administration, housekeeping, and ancillary labor costs exceeded $3 million in the first year of operations.) This counting of two sets of salary expenses offsets any economies of scale cost differential that may exist between the OHS programs at Bayonet Point and Oak Hill. A reasonable 3 percent annual inflation factor was applied to both projected charges and costs. The reasonableness of Oak Hill's overall approach is supported by Citrus Memorial's use of a substantially similar pro forma methodology in modeling its proposed program on Munroe Regional Medical Center. Oak Hill reasonably projects a profit of $1.38 million in the first year of operation, and that profitability will increase as the case volumes grow thereafter. An Oak Hill program will cost Bayonet Point (a sister HCA hospital) patients and may diminish the corporate profits of the two hospital's parent corporation, HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc. It is clear from the parent's most recent audited financial statements, however, that it has ability to absorb a lower level of profit from Bayonet Point without jeopardizing the financial viability of Oak Hill. Brooksville Regional argues that the financial impact to Bayonet Point of an Oak Hill program demonstrates that the Oak Hill application is nothing more than a preemptive move to stifle competition. Oak Hill, in turn, characterizes its proposal as a sound business judgement to compete with non-HCA hospitals in District 3. Whatever characterization is applied to the Oak Hill proposal, it is clear that it is financially feasible in the long term. Other Statistics The AHCA population estimates for January 1, 1999, show a Hernando County population of 108,687 and a Citrus County population of 98,912. The same data sources show the "age 65 and over" population (the "elderly") in Hernando to be 40,440 and in Citrus to be 37,822. During the year 2000, there were 2,545 more people aged 65 and over in Hernando County than in Citrus County. By the year 2005, the difference is expected to be 3.005. The total change in the elderly population between 2000 and 2005 is projected to be 4,109 in Citrus County and 4,614 in Hernando County. Generally, the older the population, the older the OHS use rate. Comparatively, then, Hernando County has the larger population to be served both now, and in all probability, in the foreseeable future. Oak Hill has the largest cardiology program among the applicants. For the 12-month period ending September 1999, MDC- 5 discharges were 1,130 at Brooksville Regional, 2,077 at Citrus Memorial and 2,812 at Oak Hill. The combined Brooksville and Spring Hill Regional Hospital MDC-5 case volume of 2,238 is below Oak Hill's MDC case volume for the same period. Oak Hill is the largest cardiac cath provider among the applicants. For the 12-month period ending September 2000, Citrus Memorial reported 646 cardiac catheterization procedures and Brooksville Regional reported 812. Oak Hill reported 1,404 such procedures, only sixty shy of a volume double the combined volume at the other two applicants. The level of ischemic heart disease in an area is indicative of the level of open heart surgery needed by residents of the area. The number of ischemic heart disease cases by county during the 12-month period ending September 1999 were: 1,038 for Alachua; 1,978 for Citrus; 2,816 for Marion; and, Hernando, 3,336. During the 12-month period ending September 1999, 657 Hernando County residents underwent OHS at Florida hospitals, while only 408 residents of Citrus County did so. Similarly, 948 Hernando County residents had angioplasty, while only 617 Citrus County residents underwent angioplasty. For the year ending June 30, 1999, the Citrus County OHS use rate was 4.26 per 1,000 population, substantially lower than the Hernando County use rate of 6.41. A comparison of the use rates for the year ending September 30, 1999, again shows Hernando County's use rate to be higher: 4.13 for Citrus, 6.08 for Hernando. Hernando County also experiences a higher cardiovascular mortality rate than does Citrus County. During 1998, the age-adjusted cardiovascular mortality rate per 100,000 population for Citrus was 330.88 and 347.40 for Hernando. During 1999, those mortality rates were 304.64 in Citrus and 313.35 in Hernando (consistent with the decline between 1998 and 1999 for the state as a whole). The Hernando mortality rates greater than Citrus County's indicate a greater prevalence of heart disease in Hernando County than in Citrus County. Most importantly, during 1999, Oak Hill transferred 619 patients to Bayonet Point for cardiac intervention - 258 for open heart surgery, 311 for angioplasty/stent, and 50 for cardiac cath. Brooksville Regional transferred a combined 383 patients after diagnostic cardiac catheterization to other hospitals for either angioplasty or OHS. Brooksville Regional has 91 licensed beds, Citrus Memorial has 171 beds and Oak Hill has 204 beds. Although with Spring Hill one could view Brooksville Regional as "two hospital systems with 166 beds under common ownership and control" (Tr. 1544), at 91 beds, Brooksville would become the smallest OHS program in the state in terms of licensed bed capacity, Hospitals of less than 100 beds are not typically of a size to accommodate an OHS program. There might be dedicated cardiovascular hospitals of 100 beds or less with capability to support an open heart surgery program, but "open heart surgical services in [a general, surgical-medical hospital of less than beds] would overwhelm the hospital as far as the utilization of services." (Tr. 126). Oak Hill's physical plant, hospital size, number of beds, medical staff size, number of cardiologists, cath lab capacity, number of cath procedures, number of admissions, and facility accessibility to the largest local population are all factors in its favor vis-à-vis Brooksville Regional. In sum, Oak Hill is a hospital more ready and appropriate for an adult open heart surgery program than Brooksville. Alternatives As an alternative to its CON application, Oak Hill considered the possibility of seeking approval of a program to be shared with Bayonet Point. Learning that the Agency looks with disfavor on inter-district shared adult open heart surgery programs, Oak Hill decided to seek approval of a program independent of Bayonet Point but one that would rely on Bayonet Point's experience and expertise for development, implementation and operation. Bed Capacity Brooksville contends that Oak Hill lacks sufficient bed capacity to accommodate the implementation of an OHS program in conjunction with its projected-related increased admissions. Brooksville relied on an Oak Hill daily census document, focusing on the single month of January, arguing that the document reflected that Oak Hill exceeded its licensed bed capacity on 5 days that month. The licensed bed capacity, however, was not exceeded. Observation patients, who are not inpatients, and not properly included in the inpatient count, were included in the counts provided by Brooksville. Seasonal peaks in census during the winter months, particularly January, are common to all area hospitals. Similarly, all hospitals experience a higher census from Monday through Thursday, than on other days. Oak Hill has adequate capacity and flexibility to accommodate those rare occasional days during the year when the number of patients approaches its number of beds. Patients are sometimes hospitalized for "observation," and when so classified are expected to stay less than 24 hours. Typically, Oak Hill places such patients in a regular "licensed" bed, so long as such beds are available. There are other areas in the hospital suitable for observation patients, including: 12 currently unused and unlicensed beds adjacent to the cardiac cath recovery area; six beds in the ER holding area; eight beds in the ER Quick Care Unit; and additional beds in the same day surgery recovery area. Observation patients can be cared for appropriately in these other areas, a routine hospital practice. Peak season census is "a fact of life" for hospitals, including Oak Hill and Brooksville. Oak Hill has never been unable to treat patients due to peak season demands. January is the only month during the year when bed capacity presents a challenge at Oak Hill. If necessary, Oak Hill could coordinate patient admissions with Bayonet Point to ensure that all patients are appropriately accommodated. Oak Hill can successfully implement a quality OHS program with its current bed capacity. In fact, all parties have stipulated to Oak Hill's ability to do so. Moreover, should it actually come to pass in future years that Oak Hill's annual average occupancy exceeds 80 percent, it may add up to 20 licensed beds on a CON exempt basis. Brooksville Regional Factors favoring Brooksville over Oak Hill Bayonet Point is the dominant provider of OHS/angioplast to residents of Hernando County. As a non-HCA hospital, a Brooksville program (in contrast to one at Oak Hill) would enhance patient choice in Hernando County for hospitals and physicians, and would create an environment for price and managed care competition. Other health planning factors that support Brooksville Regional over Oak Hill are the locations of the two Hernando County hospitals and the ability of the two to transfer patients to Bayonet Point. Patient Choice and Competition Of the OHS/angioplasty services provided to Hernando County residents, Bayonet Point provides 94 percent, the highest county market share of any hospital that provides OHS services to residents of District 3. Indeed, it is the highest market share provided by any OHS provider in any one county in the state. The importance of patient choice and managed care competition has been acknowledged by all the parties to this proceeding. If Brooksville Regional's program were approved, Hernando County residents would have choice of access to a non- HCA hospital for open heart and angioplasty services and to physicians and surgeons other than those who practice at Bayonet Point. This would not be the case if Oak Hill's program was approved instead of Brooksville's. Price Competition Although Brooksville is not a "low-charge provider for cardiovascular services" (tr. 1347), approving Brooksville creates an environment and potential for price competition. A dominant provider in a marketplace has substantial power to control prices. Adding a new provider creates the motivation, if not the necessity, for that dominant provider to begin pricing competitively. A dominant provider controls prices more than hospitals in a competitive market. Bayonet Point's OHS charges illustrate this. Approving Brooksville's application creates an environment for potential price competition with Bayonet Point, whereas approving Oak Hill's application, whose charges are expected to be the same as Bayonet Point's, does not. Managed Care Contracting Just as competitive effects on pricing are reduced in an environment in which there is a dominant provider, so managed care contracting is also affected. Managed care competition depends not just on competition between managed care companies but also on payer alternative within a market. If a managed care company is forced to deal with one health care provider or hospital in a marketplace, its competitive options are reduced to the benefit of the hospital that enjoys dominance among hospitals. "[T]he power equation moves much more strongly in that type of environment towards the provider [the dominant hospital] and away from the managed care companies." (Tr. 1471). Managed care companies who insure Hernando County residents have no alternative when it comes to open heart surgery and angioplasty services but to deal with Bayonet Point. With a 94 percent share of the Hernando County residents in need of open heart and angioplasty services, there is virtually no competition for Bayonet Point in Hernando County. The managed care contracting for both Bayonet Pont and Oak Hill is done at HCA's West Florida Division office, not at the individual hospital level. Approving Oak Hill will not promote or provide competition for managed care. Approving Brooksville, on the other hand, will provide managed care competition over open heart and angioplasty services in Hernando County. Ability to Transfer Patients While transfers of Hernando County patients always produce some stress for the patient and are cumbersome as discussed above for the patient's loved ones, there is no evidence of transfer problems for Oak Hill that would rise to the level of "not normal" circumstances. Outcomes for patients transferred from Oak Hill to Bayonet Point on the basis of morbidity statistics, mortality statistics, length of stay, patient satisfaction, and family satisfaction are excellent. It is not surprising that sister hospitals situated as are Oak Hill and Bayonet Point would enjoy minimal transfer delays and access problems encountered when patients are transferred. Transfers between unaffiliated hospitals are not normally as smooth or efficient as between those that have some affiliation. Unlike Oak Hill's patients, Brooksville patients, for example, are never transported for OHS/angioplasy by Bayonet Point's private ambulance. Other than in emergency cases, Bayonet Point decides the date and manner when the patient will be transferred. But just as in the case of Oak Hill, there is no evidence of transfer problems between Brooksville Regional and Bayonet Point that would amount to an access problem at the level of "not normal" circumstances. Outmigration As detailed earlier, there is extensive outmigration of Hernando County residents to District 5 for open heart and angioplasty procedures. The outmigration pattern on its face is in favor of both applications of Oak Hill and Brooksville. The outmigration from Hernando County, however, is of minimal weight in this proceeding since Bayonet Point is so close to both Oak Hill and Brooksville. The patients at the two Hernando hospitals have good access to Bayonet Point, a facility that provides a high level of care to Hernando County residents in need of open heart surgery and angioplasty services. The relationship is inter-district so that it is true that there is outmigration from District 3. Outmigration statistics showing high outmigration from a district have provided weight to applications in other proceedings. They are of little value in this case. Location of the Two Hernando Hospitals Brooksville is located in the "dead center" (Tr. 1290) of Hernando County. With good access to Citrus County via Route 41, it is convenient to both Hernando County residents and some residents of Citrus County. It reasonably projects, therefore, that 90 percent of its open heart/angioplasty volume will be from Hernando County with the remaining 10 percent from Citrus. Oak Hill is located in southwest Hernando County, closer to Bayonet Point than Brooksville. Oak Hill's primary service area is substantially the same as that part of Bayonet Point's that is in Hernando County. Oak Hill does not propose to serve Citrus County. Brooksville, then, is more centrally located in Hernando County than Oak Hill and proposes to serve a larger area than Oak Hill. Financial Feasibility (long-term) Brooksville has operated profitably since its bankruptcy. In its 1999 fiscal year, the first year out of bankruptcy, Hernando HMA earned a profit of $3 million. In fiscal year 200, Brooksville's profit was $6 million. OHS programs are generally very profitable. There is no OHS program in Florida not generating a profit. Brooksville's projected expenses and revenues associated with the program are reasonable. Schedule 5 in the Brooksville application contains projected volumes for OHS/angioplasty. The payer mix and length of stay were based on 1998 actual data, the most recent data for a full year available. The projected volumes are reasonable. The projected volumes are converted to projected revenues on Schedule 7. These projections were based on actual 1998 charges generated for both Hernando and Citrus County residents since Brooksville proposes to serve both. These averages were then reasonably projected forward. Schedule 7 and the projected revenues are reasonable. These projected volumes and revenues account for all OHS procedures performed in Hernando and Citrus Counties in 1998 even though effective October 1, 1998, the DRG procedure codes for OHS procedures were materially redefined. Thus, when Brooksville's schedules were prepared using 1998 data, only 3 months of data were available using the new DRG codes. Brooksville opted to use the full year of data since using a full year's worth of data is preferable to only 3 months. Similarly, the DRGs for angioplasty both as to balloon and with stent were re-classified. Again, Brooksville opted to use the full year's worth of data. Brooksville's expert explained the decision to use the full year's worth of data and the effect of the DRG reclassification on Brooksville's approach, "We've captured all the revenues and expenses associated with these open heart procedures and just because the actual DRGs have changed, doesn't . . . impair the results because both revenues and expenses are captured in these projections." (Tr. 1651). Schedule 8 includes the projected expenses. It included the health manpower expenses from Schedule 6 and the project costs from Schedule 1. The remaining operating expenses were based upon the actual costs experienced by all District 3 OHS providers generated from a publicly-available data source, and then projected forward. As to these remaining operating costs, consideration of an average among many providers is far preferable to relying on just one provider. Schedule 8 was reasonably prepared. It accounts for all expense to be incurred for all types of OHS and angioplasty procedures. It is based on the best information available when these projections were prepared and are based on 12 months of actual data. Even if the projections of the schedules are not precise because of the re-classification of DRGs, they contain ample margins of error. Brooksville's financial break-even point is reached if it performs 199 OHS and 100 angioplasty procedures. This low break-even point provides additional confidence that the project is financially feasible. Brooksville demonstrated that its proposed program will be financially feasible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order that grants the application of Citrus Memorial (CON 9295) and denies the applications of Oak Hill (CON 9296 )and Brooksville Regional (CON 9298). DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 4th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. East College Avenue Post Office Box 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1838 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell and Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 James C. Hauser, Esquire Metz, Hauser & Husband, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505 Post Office Box 10909 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John F. Gilroy, III, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Whether the proposed amendments to Florida Administrative Code Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f), the "open heart rule", constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. On January 18, 1991, HRS published proposed rule changes (the "Proposed Amendments") to Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 17, No. 3 at page 163. These consolidated cases were brought pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, to challenge these Proposed Amendments to the administrative rules for the Certificate of Need program. As a preliminary matter, it is important to understand the background of the rule and the Proposed Amendments. Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), regulates the provision of open heart surgery throughout the eleven HRS service districts in Florida. HRS' stated purpose in promulgating the Proposed Amendments was to "clarify" certain provisions of the existing rule. The original version of the open heart surgery rule was drafted in 1982, and was modeled after the National Guidelines for Health Planning, (hereinafter the "National Guidelines"). At the time the existing rule was adopted, the Florida Certificate of Need Program closely tracked the National Guidelines. Prior to adopting the existing rule, HRS reviewed the relevant literature regarding open heart surgery programs. In addition, a task force was convened to review numerous issues, including certain criticisms received from the health care industry that the National Guidelines were too restrictive. In 1985, the open heart rule was amended in response to evidence demonstrating that the incidence rate of adult open heart surgery had increased. The rule was amended to project need based upon the actual use rate experienced. The amended rule provided that the use rate would be adjusted for every batch of applications based on the most recent twelve month data available. In 1987, the open heart surgery rule was challenged by St. Mary's pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The primary issue in that rule challenge was whether the 350 minimum volume operations standard in the rule was too high. Following a three day hearing which included the presentation of extensive expert testimony, the rule was declared to be a valid exercise of delegated authority. See, St. Mary's Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 87-2729R, 9 F.A.L.R. 6159. (This subject matter is discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 91-92 below.) In 1989, HRS published what it considered to be proposed technical amendments to the open heart surgery rule to resolve certain issues regarding the publication of the fixed need pool and to clarify some other aspects of the rule. No work group was convened for these proposals because HRS did not consider the proposed changes to be substantive. However, a number of challenges were filed to the proposed rule amendments. In April of 1990, HRS decided to withdraw the amendments and seek further input from the health care industry and other affected persons regarding possible changes to the rule. A work group (the "Work Group") was convened on June 18, 1990 to discuss the issues raised in the various challenges to the 1989 proposed rule amendments and to consider other matters raised by the various industry representatives and other concerned parties. Representatives from numerous Florida hospitals, as well as representatives from the Association of Voluntary Hospitals, the Florida League of Hospitals and the Florida Hospital Association participated in the Work Group. The participants included hospitals that have open heart surgery programs and those that do not, including several who had applied or who have an interest in offering those services. The minutes of the Work Group Meeting were transcribed and are contained in the rule promulgation file which was accepted into evidence as HRS Exhibit 5. Elfie Stamm, the HRS planner primarily responsible for the original development and subsequent amendments of the open heart surgery rule was an active participant in the Work Group. She also oversaw the development of Volume 3 of the State Health Plan in 1988 and 1989. This volume deals with certificate of need matters and contains detailed research and analysis of open heart surgery trends and developments. Thus, Ms. Stamm was very familiar with the issues and current research in the area. Based upon the evidence deduced during the Work Group Meeting and a review of the research in the area, HRS decided to promulgate the Proposed Amendments which it considered to be "technical" changes to the rule that were intended to not change the impact on current and prospective providers. HRS specifically decided not to make any changes that would modify the current overall need projections. Prior to publication, the Proposed Amendments were circulated for internal review, approval and signoff, and were sent to the House Health Care Committee and the Senate HRS Committee. The Proposed Amendments were also sent to all the members of the Work Group, who were advised that it would be published on January 18, 1991. As noted above, the Proposed Amendments were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on January 18, 1991. Only one public comment (dated January 24, 1991, and received by HRS on January 28, 1991,) was submitted in response to the January 18, 1991 publication of the Proposed Amendments. That comment suggested clarifying language to Subparagraph 7(a) II of the Proposed Amendments. In response to this letter, HRS caused to be published a Notice of Change in the February 1, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. The January 18, 1991 Notice provided that a public hearing on the Proposed Amendments would be conducted on February 11, 1991 at 10:00 a.m. if requested. No public hearing was requested and, therefore, none was held. St. Mary's has insinuated that the Notice was somehow deficient because the public hearing was scheduled more than 21 days after the notice of rulemaking was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The evidence indicates that such scheduling is customary in order to assure that a request can be made right up until the last possible moment without the necessity of holding two public hearings. Overview of the Proposed Amendments Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f) is a new section entitled "Departmental Intent." This section states that certificates of need for open heart surgery programs will not normally be approved unless the applicant meets the relevant statutory criteria, including the need determination criteria in the rule. This Section also provides that separate certificates of need will be required in order to establish either an adult or pediatric open heart surgery program. As discussed in more detail below, the existing rule does not expressly state that separate CONs must be obtained to implement adult and pediatric programs. The proposed rule amendments do not specifically address the provision of adult and pediatric open heart surgery within the same program. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)2 sets forth several new definitions. Subparagraph 2j establishes for the first time pediatric open heart service areas which are made up of combined HRS districts and are thus much larger than adult open heart service areas. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)3 mandates that pediatric open heart surgery programs must have the same services and procedures as adult programs, including intraaortic balloon assists. Subparagraph 3c requires that pediatric open heart surgery programs shall only be located in hospitals with inpatient cardiac catheterization programs. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)4 contains the travel time standard which applies to adult open heart surgery service accessibility, and the maximum waiting period for open heart surgery team mobilization for adult and pediatric programs. There is no travel time standard for pediatric services in the Proposed Amendments. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)4d requires applicants for adult or pediatric open heart surgery programs to document the manner in which they will provide open heart surgery to all persons in need. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)7 is entitled "Adult Open Heart Surgery Program Need Determination". Subparagraph (a) essentially recodifies and restates existing Rule 10-5.011(f)11 and provides that each and every adult open heart surgery program within a district should be performing 350 adult open heart surgery operations per year prior to there being a calculated net need for a new program in that district. The section does not contain an explanation or delineation of "not normal" circumstances that HRS will consider in the absence of a net numeric need. Currently, Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)11., provides: There shall be no additional open heart surgery programs established unless: The service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric heart cases per year. As discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 89-97 below, from approximately early 1985 through January 22, 1990, HRS interpreted this section to require that the volume of procedures provided by all existing programs in each service district be averaged to determine whether need existed for a new open heart surgery program (the "averaging method"). This averaging method allowed HRS to find numeric need when the average total of procedures per program in the district equaled 350 or more. After this interpretation was rejected in several cases, HRS abandoned the "averaging" approach and has been requiring "each and every" existing program in a district to meet the 350 minimum standard before a new adult program will normally be approved. Subparagraph (b) of Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)7 mandates that only one program shall be approved at a time, and contains the numeric need calculation formula for adult open heart surgery programs. Subparagraph (c) states that, regardless of whether need is shown according to the formula, if an incoming provider will reduce an existing provider's volume below 350, the applicant will not normally be approved. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)8 contains a new method for calculating need for pediatric open heart surgery programs. Pursuant to this proposal, need would be calculated based on the number of resident live births in a pediatric open heart surgery program service area. The proposal would require at least 30,000 resident live births per pediatric program. The economic impact statement (EIS) which accompanied the Proposed Amendments states that, other than administrative and word processing costs, there will be no additional annual or operating costs associated with the implementation of the Proposed Amendments. The EIS contains no statement of the impact upon potential applicants or existing providers due to the changes in either the adult or pediatric portions of the rule. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A SEPARATE CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR AN ADULT OPEN HEART SURGERY PROGRAM AND PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART SURGERY PROGRAM. The existing rule does not expressly require separate certificate of need applications for pediatric and adult open heart surgery programs. However, HRS' policy for at least the last year has been to require hospitals to obtain separate certificates of need for adult open heart surgery programs and pediatric open heart surgery programs. See Findings of Fact 135 below. In other words, the proposed amendment codifies HRS' current interpretation of the existing rule. The Work Group which assisted in the development of the Proposed Amendments examined the issue of whether HRS should require hospitals to obtain separate CONs for adult open heart surgery programs and pediatric open heart surgery programs. In addition, HRS reviewed the available literature, including the National Guidelines and the Guidelines for Pediatric Cardiology Diagnostic and Treatment Centers (hereinafter the "Pediatric Guidelines"). Comments were also solicited from the Children's Medical Services Program Office which regulates certain aspects of pediatric cardiac surgery. Based upon a review of this information, HRS concluded that (1) pediatric and adult open heart surgery programs are generally and properly operated as separately organized programs and (2) pediatric programs are and should be staffed by personnel specially trained to provide pediatric care. There are significant differences between providing open heart surgery to adults and providing open heart surgery to children. Adults generally have acquired heart disease, while children generally have congenital heart problems. The transfer process and approach to open heart surgery differs between adults and children. Pediatric open heart patients are more labile in certain situations than adult open heart surgery patients. People who work with adult open heart surgery patients often lack the ability to work with pediatric open heart surgery patients. In sum, the evidence established that pediatric open heart surgery is a complex service which requires a team dedicated to that service. With the possible exception of one program, all the pediatric open heart surgery programs in Florida are offered in separately organized programs. The incidence rate of pediatric open heart surgery is significantly lower than that for adult open heart surgery. The latest data reflects that from October 1989 to September 1990 there were only 545 pediatric heart surgeries performed in the state of Florida as compared to nearly 21,000 adult open heart surgeries during the same period. Nothing in the Proposed Amendments prohibits an applicant from applying for both adult and pediatric open heart surgery. The rule does have separate requirements, including separate need methodologies, which would normally have to be satisfied as a predicate to the award of either program. St. Mary's voiced a concern that the Economic Impact Statement did not address the additional costs to applicants, (i.e. duplicate application fees) that will result from this provision of the Proposed Amendments which requires separate certificates of need for adult and pediatric programs. As noted above, such costs are already necessary under HRS' interpretation of the existing rules. In any event, St. Mary's has not demonstrated that such additional costs would be other than minimal. WHETHER THE CLASSIFICATION OF OPEN-HEART SURGERY BY THE DIAGNOSTIC RELATED GROUPS LISTED IN SUB-PARAGRAPH 2.g. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS VAGUE, ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. Subparagraph 2.g. of the proposed amendments reads as follows: "Open Heart Surgery Operation". Surgery assisted with a heart-lung by-pass machine that is used to treat conditions such as congenital heart defects, heart and coronary artery diseases, including replacement of heart valves, cardiac vascularization, and cardiac trauma. One open heart surgery operation equals one patient admission to the operating room. Open heart surgery operations are classified under the following diagnostic related groups: DRGs 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 110. Diagnostic related groups or "DRGs", are a health service classification system used by the Medicare System. The existing rule does not include the reference to DRG classifications. Some confusion had been expressed by applicants as to whether certain organ transplant operations which utilized a bypass machine during the operation should be reported as open heart operations or as organ transplantation operations. The amendment was intended to clarify that only when the operation utilizes the bypass machine and falls within one of the enumerated categories should it be considered an open heart surgery operation. The inclusion of the listed DRGs was meant to clarify the existing definition by limiting the DRG categories within which open heart surgery services may be classified. There is no dispute that the primary factor in defining an open heart surgery procedure is the use of a heart-lung machine. Florida Hospital argued that the proposed definition is ambiguous and vague because not all procedures which fit into the listed DRG categories necessarily involve open heart surgery. Florida Hospital's fear that the new language would seem to indicate that each procedure falling into the listed DRGs qualifies as an open heart surgery operation is unfounded. While the provision could have been written in a simpler and clearer manner, the definition adequately conveys the intent that the use of a heart-lung by-pass machine is an essential element to classifying an operation as open-heart surgery. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 2.j. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT ESTABLISHES PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART SERVICE AREAS WHICH ARE LARGER THAN ADULT OPEN HEART SERVICE AREAS WHICH MAY RESULT IN DEPRIVATION OF NEEDED OPEN HEART SURGERY PROGRAMS IN SOME SERVICE AREAS. The Proposed Amendments will regulate pediatric open heart surgery on a regional basis. Five "Services Areas" are created by combining HRS service districts. In establishing these Service Areas, HRS considered the extent to which patients would have geographic access to pediatric open heart surgery services. The Service Areas were organized geographically in a manner intended to result in one pediatric open heart surgery program in each Service Area. Section 20.19(7), Florida Statutes, provides that "[t]he Department shall plan and administer its programs of health, social, and rehabilitative services through service districts and subdistricts ... ." This statute sets forth the geographic composition of each district and subdistrict through which HRS is to administer its programs. Section 20.19(7)(a), Florida Statutes. St. Mary's contends that no statutory authority exists for combining "service districts" to create "service areas." However, no prohibition against combining districts for tertiary services exists in the statute and, indeed, the nature of tertiary services mandates such an approach in some instances. As indicated below, HRS has combined districts for other programs. Section 381.702(20) defines "tertiary health services" and authorizes HRS to establish by rule a list of tertiary health services. Tertiary health care services are complex services which involve high consumption of hospital resources. Due to the low incidence of those medical conditions which require tertiary services, there is a benefit in limiting those services to select facilities in order to maximize volume at those facilities. This approach is known as the regionalization of health care services. HRS has promulgated a list of tertiary health services in Rule 10- 5.002(66) (previously 10-5.002(40), Florida Administrative Code. Subsection 9 of this Rule includes "neonatal and pediatric cardiac and vascular surgery." Thus, pediatric open heart surgery is a tertiary health care service. HRS regulates other tertiary services, including burn units, organ transplants programs, and pediatric cardiac catheterization services, on a regional basis. See e.g., Rules 10-5.043, and 5.044 Florida Administrative Code. Regionalization of tertiary services at a central point has been used by HRS to encourage an appropriate volume level at each center. The evidence established that there is a correlation between volume and outcome in pediatric open heart programs. HRS has concluded that pediatric open heart surgery should be limited to and concentrated in a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost effectiveness of the service. No persuasive evidence was presented to rebut this conclusion. The evidence indicates that pediatric open heart surgery services are currently delivered in Florida on a regional basis. A limited number of hospitals scattered throughout the state are serving the state's population. Of the eight hospitals which are included among the HRS inventory of hospitals providing pediatric open heart surgery services, only 5 perform a significant volume of cases. Each of those five hospitals is either a teaching hospital or a specialty pediatric hospital. The other three hospitals listed on the inventory have large adult open heart surgery programs, but perform a very low volume of pediatric cases. The evidence did not establish that the existing providers are currently unable to meet the need for services in the state. Based upon a review of the existing research and literature, HRS has concluded that a facility should perform approximately 100 pediatric heart surgeries annually in order to retain proficiency. As discussed in Findings of Fact 132 below, the 30,000 annual live births standard will, over time, result in approximately 100-130 pediatric open heart surgery cases per year among the population base from birth to age 21. In Service Area 1, the resident live births in 1988 were 16,142. (Service Area 1 combines HRS Districts 1 and 2.) Thus, the number of live births in this Service Area would have to almost double before a new program could meet this standard. While Petitioners object to this result, no persuasive evidence was presented to establish that HRS has acted arbitrarily in establishing the Service Area. The rule requires a pediatric program in each Service Area. However, only one of the Service Areas established by this Proposed Amendment meets the 30,000 live birth standard. St. Mary's contends that this discrepancy renders the proposed amendment internally inconsistent. However, there are significant countervailing considerations which militate against closing an existing program and justify the continuation of established programs in these areas. These considerations include the need to insure geographic access, the reluctance to disturb existing referral patterns and a reluctance to disturb programs with demonstrated proficiency. The HRS Work Group which assisted in the development of the Proposed Amendments addressed the issue of regulating pediatric open heart surgery services on a regional basis. No persuasive evidence was presented in opposition to this approach. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT REQUIRES SERVICES AND PROCEDURES WHICH ARE NOT NECESSARY TO THE SAFE EFFECTIVE PROVISION OF PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART. The Proposed Amendments will require hospitals seeking to provide pediatric open heart surgery to have the ability to provide certain specified services. The requirements contained in paragraph 3 of the Proposed Amendments are the same as those contained in the existing rule. They are considered by HRS to be minimum standards for the provision of both adult and pediatric open heart surgery. The evidence established that it is desirable to have those services available, even if they are infrequently used. Dr. Byron testified that some of the procedures such as intra-aortic balloon assists, prolonged myocardial bypass and the repair and replacement of heart valves are performed less commonly in children. However, he did agree that these procedures are occasionally necessary and a pediatric program should have the ability to provide those services. Requiring a pediatric open heart program to have the capability to provide those services if necessary is consistent with the goal of regionalization of pediatric open heart surgery. There was no adverse public comment received during development of the Proposed Amendments regarding these requirements and no persuasive testimony or other evidence was offered during the Work Group or the hearing in this cause to establish that these minimum requirements are not appropriate and/or should be deleted. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 3c VI OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, WHICH REQUIRES THAT IN ORDER TO BE AWARDED A PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART PROGRAM THE APPLICANT MUST ALSO HAVE PEDIATRIC CARDIAC CATH, CREATES A "CATCH 22" WHEN READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CARDIAC CATH RULE WHICH REQUIRES AN APPLICANT FOR PEDIATRIC CARDIAC CATH TO OFFER PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART, AND IS THEREFORE INVALID. The Proposed Amendments require that in order to be awarded a certificate of need for a pediatric open heart surgery program, an applicant must have a pediatric cardiac catheterization ("cardiac cath") program. A similar requirement can be implied from the current open heart surgery rule and, indeed, HRS has interpreted the current rule is this manner. The cardiac cath rule requires that an applicant for a pediatric cardiac cath program must have a pediatric open heart surgery program. The Services Areas and the need methodologies in the proposed pediatric portion of the open heart surgery rule and the amended pediatric portion of the cardiac catheterization rule are the same. St. Mary's contention that applicants are placed in a "Catch 22" is rejected. If a facility wants to offer pediatric open heart, it is going to have to simultaneously apply for cardiac cath. There is nothing in this section, or anywhere else in the rule, which prohibits an applicant from applying for pediatric cardiac cath and pediatric open heart contemporaneously. In fact, such a simultaneous application is exactly what HRS is trying to encourage. The two services, pediatric open heart and pediatric cardiac cath, should only be offered in combination with each other. St. Mary's own witness, Dr. Harry Byron, a pediatric cardiologist, agreed that a facility that offers an open heart surgery program in pediatrics should also have pediatric cardiac cath capabilities. Every facility in the state of Florida which provides pediatric cardiac cath also provides pediatric open heart surgery. During the hearing, it was suggested that Hollywood Memorial Hospital is performing pediatric open heart without offering pediatric cardiac cath. However, an examination of the CON issued to Hollywood Memorial reveals that it was awarded both services simultaneously. St. Mary's contends that the Proposed Amendments to the open heart rule are deficient because they cross-reference the cardiac cath rules and there is some question as to the status of the cardiac cath rules. St. Mary's argues that HRS' predecessor cardiac catheterization rule is the current cardiac catheterization rule because proposed amendments to the cardiac cath rule were prevented from becoming final as the result of timely challenges. As best can be determined from the evidence in this case, there is no inconsistency between the Proposed Amendments and the cardiac cath rules. The evidence regarding the status of the cardiac cath rules was inconclusive. Amendments to the cardiac cath rule were published on April 22, 1988, but never became effective because of rule challenges which were eventually settled. When the rule amendments were republished on July 29, 1988 with certain agreed upon changes, timely challenges brought pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, prevented those changes from becoming effective. However, the Final Order in the case challenging the procedural adequacy of the July 29, 1988 amendments upheld a large portion of that proposed rule, including the sections pertinent to this case. See, Florida Medical Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 88-3970R (DOAH Final Order entered June 30, 1989). Thus, it appears that St. Mary's contention is without merit. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 4.a. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONTAIN A TRAVEL TIME STANDARD FOR PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART SURGERY. The Proposed Amendments do not contain a travel time standard for pediatric open heart surgery services. St. Mary's contends that the proposed rule should include a travel time standard for pediatric patients who need emergency procedures. There is no dispute that the longer a pediatric patient has to wait to have open heart surgery, the greater the chance of a negative outcome. Moreover, transporting pediatric patients is often more complicated and dangerous than transporting an adult patient because infants are more labile and closer attention must be paid to their glucose levels, to the environmental temperature and similar matters. In the course of its deliberations concerning the Proposed Amendments, HRS considered whether it should include a travel time standard relating to pediatric open heart surgery. No persuasive evidence was presented to HRS during the rule development process that an appropriate travel time standard could or should be adopted. HRS elected not to provide for a travel time standard out of concern that such standard would have suggested a "need" for programs in geographic areas which would not generate a sufficient case load to allow the program to maintain proficiency. A travel time standard such as that contained in the rule for the provision of adult open heart surgery programs would not be appropriate for the provision of pediatric open heart surgery programs because of the highly tertiary nature of the service. Had HRS used a two-hour travel time standard for pediatrics as it did for adult open heart, a need may have been shown for more programs than the volume of operations could support, resulting in programs with lower volumes than desired from a quality of care standpoint. Some pediatric patients in need of open heart surgery may have to travel as much as six hours by car if the need methodologies and Service Areas in the Proposed Amendments are adopted. In most instances, however, the travel time would be substantially less and most areas of the state will be within two to three hours by car to a pediatric open heart surgery center. Geographical location was one of the factors considered in the establishment of the Service Areas. However, the need to insure an adequate volume of cases for each program was an overriding concern. While it is certainly desirable to minimize travel and distance for pediatric patients as much as possible, these concerns must be counterbalanced against the need to insure that each center performs enough procedures to maintain proficiency. The evidence was insufficient to establish that HRS was arbitrary and/or capricious in dealing with these sometimes conflicting goals. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 4.c. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT REQUIRING TEAM MOBILI- ZATION FOR EMERGENCY OPERATIONS WITHIN A MAXIMUM WAITING PERIOD OF TWO HOURS IS CONTRARY TO THE EXCLUSION OF A TRAVEL TIME STANDARD FOR PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART. As indicated above, there is no travel time standard for pediatric open heart surgery in the Proposed Amendments. There is, however, a requirement that a hospital be able to mobilize an open heart surgery team within a maximum time limit of two hours. Proposed Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)4. The purpose of the team mobilization standard is to assure rapid mobilization within the hospital once the baby has arrived at the hospital. This requirement is contained in the existing open heart rule and no adverse public comment was received regarding it. St. Mary's contends that having a two hour team mobilization standard for pediatric open heart surgery but no travel time standard for pediatric patients is inconsistent and reflects a disregard for pediatric accessibility or geographic accessibility. This criticism is rejected. The emergency mobilization standard addresses the applicant facility's ability to render emergency open heart surgery services subsequent to a patient's arrival at the facility. It is an internal requirement. A travel time standard addresses the extent to which the Service Area population has access to services. It is a requirement external to any specific hospital. For the reasons set forth in Findings of Fact 57-60 above, a travel time standard is not appropriate for pediatric open heart programs. However, these reasons do not negate the benefits of an emergency mobilization standard. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 4.d. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE HRS IS WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO DOCUMENT HOW OPEN HEART WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL PERSONS IN NEED. The existing rule mandates that open heart surgery be available to all persons in need regardless of the ability to pay. This provision remains intact in subparagraph 4.d. of the amended rule, but is clarified in part as follows: Applicants for adult or pediatric open heart surgery programs shall document the manner in which they will meet this requirement. HRS currently requires evidence of an applicant's past record with regard to Medicaid and indigent care, as well as statistical projections for the provision of such care upon implementation of its program. In fact, the language added to paragraph 4.d. simply reflects the Department's existing method of reviewing CON applications pursuant to the guidelines of Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, which requires consideration of an applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Section 381.704(4), Florida Statutes (1989) gives HRS the authority to adopt rules necessary to implement Sections 381.701-381.715. Section 381.705, Florida Statutes (1989) requires HRS to review certificate of need applications in context with "(n) The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent," "(h)... the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district", and "(b) the ... accessibility of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant." The Petitioners have not established any inconsistencies between the Proposed Amendments and the statutory standards of review. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, SERVICE QUALITY STANDARDS, IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE THE STANDARDS ARE UNRELATED TO PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART. The standards contained in Subsection 5 are minimum quality of care standards which apply to programs providing pediatric as well as adult open heart surgery. These requirements do not significantly change the existing rule. St. Mary's suggested that the standards were only applicable to an open heart program servicing adults and that pediatric programs should have different standards. No persuasive evidence was provided to establish that any of the requirements are unrelated or unnecessary to pediatric open heart programs. In fact, St. Mary's own witness, Dr. Bryon, testified that he had no objection to the provisions of paragraph 5. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT DOES NOT PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE "NOT NORMAL" CIRCUMSTANCES. Subparagraph 7b of the proposed rule amendments establishes a need determination formula. Application of this formula is governed by minimum volume and utilization standards established under subparts a and c of paragraph 7. Subparagraph 7e of the proposed amendments provides as follows: a. A new adult open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved in the HRS District if any of the following conditions exist: There is an approved adult open heart surgery program in the HRS District; One or more of the operational adult open heart surgery programs in the HRS District that were operational for at least twelve months as of six months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the twelve months ending six months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool; or, One or more of the adult open heart surgery programs in the HRS District that were operational for less than twelve months during the twelve months ending six months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than an average of 29 adult open heart surgery operations per month. * * * (c) Regardless of whether need for a new adult open heart surgery program is shown in subparagraph b. above, a new adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved for an HRS district if the approval would reduce the 12 month total at an existing adult open heart surgery program in the HRS district below 350 open heart surgery operations. (emphasis added) The need determination formula includes a presumption against approval of a new provider if there is already an approved program within a district, or any existing program within a district is operating at less than 350 procedures annually. HRS has recognized that the need determination formula cannot take into account all factors within a district which may affect actual need. Accordingly, the rule implicitly allows consideration of "not normal" circumstances in determining need. If circumstances are "normal", then a failure to satisfy the conditions in paragraph 7 will mean that the application is denied. However, by proving that circumstances are "not normal", a new adult open heart surgery program can be approved despite the failure to satisfy the conditions in paragraph 7. The "not normal" provision is also found in the statement of Departmental Intent, subparagraph 1 of the Proposed Amendments. That provision proclaims that an application will "not normally" be approved unless the applicant meets relevant statutory criteria, including the standards and need determination criteria. HRS perceived its current rule and the Proposed Amendments as providing applicants with the opportunity to demonstrate need for a new adult open heart surgery program by demonstrating numeric need under paragraph 7 or by demonstrating "not normal" circumstances. HRS can and will approve an application in the absence of quantified need where the other statutory review criteria are met and the applicant demonstrates that a need for a new program exists. The current rule provides a similar presumption against approval if there is already an approved program in the district, or if any existing program in the district is operating at less than 350 procedures annually. This rule has been interpreted to allow applicants to demonstrate actual need by demonstrating circumstances that transcend the numeric calculation. For example, an open heart program was recently approved by HRS for Marion County even in the absence of numeric need as determined by the rule. It is impossible to list all of the circumstances where a new program could be approved even in the absence of "numeric need." Examples of not normal circumstances include a showing of inaccessibility, excessive utilization of a particular facility, or an intentional action by an existing provider to keep its utilization below 350 annual procedures. Other factors may include exceptional circumstances as they relate to the review criteria listed in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, evidence of an unusual payor mix, established referral patterns among existing providers, or evidence to suggest that an existing program could not reach the 350 minimum procedure volume because of poor quality of care. In sum, Paragraph 7 of the Proposed Amendments does not preclude an applicant from attempting to demonstrate that its application should be approved in the absence of quantified need. The "not normally" language will enable HRS to consider all the statutory review criteria in its review of applications even in the absence of numeric need under paragraph 7. The Petitioners challenging the "not normal" language in paragraph 7 of the Rule have failed to provide any credible evidence to demonstrate that the "not normal" provisions are arbitrary or capricious or unduly vague. Similar provisions have been upheld in prior cases. See, Humana, Inc., v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 469 So.2d 889, 891, (Fla. 1st DCA, 1985); North Broward Hospital District v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 86-1186R (Final Order issued July 18, 1988.) WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 7.a. IS INVALID FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: Existing programs could block a proposed program by keeping the number of open heart operations performed in a given year below 350. As indicated above, the Proposed Amendments provide that a new adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved in a service district if any of the existing programs in the district performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the 12 months ending 6 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool. The challengers claim that the Proposed Amendments to paragraph 7a are invalid because they allow existing programs to bar approval of new programs by keeping their volume below 350. This issue was considered by HRS in its rule amendment promulgation deliberations. No evidence was presented during those deliberations or at the hearing in this cause that there has been a deliberate attempt by any existing provider to keep the number of operations performed below 350 per year. Indeed, such an attempt is unlikely because it would require physicians to intentionally turn away patients requiring open heart surgery when a facility's numbers reach close to 350 operations on an annual basis. The existing rule has a similar provision. As discussed in more detail below, a Section 120.56 rule challenge was filed in 1987 against this provision in the existing rule alleging the possibility that an existing provider could block a proposed adult open heart surgery program by deliberately keeping its annual adult open heart surgery volume below 350 cases. These charges were rejected as speculative and unsubstantiated. St. Mary's Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative, 9 F.A.L.R. 6159, DOAH Case No. 87- 2729R. The Proposed Amendments would not prohibit the award of a CON if a deliberate pattern or scheme to keep volume low to lockout new providers was demonstrated. Because it protects market share which is anticompetitive and contrary to statute; is unconstitutional in that it denies equal protection and due process, and because it is contrary to agency policy through 1989. Paragraph 7.a. of the Proposed Amendments is based upon a substantially similar provision found in the National Guidelines. The National Guidelines were adopted by the Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare following an extensive consultation and review process in 1978. The National Guidelines are one of the key resource materials used by local and state health planning agencies in developing certificate of need regulations. The state of Florida conforms to the National Guidelines in most areas. According to the National Guidelines, a new open heart program should not ordinarily be approved if an existing program is operating at less than 350 operations annually. Specifically, Section 121.107(3) of the "Rules and Regulations" of the National Guidelines, entitled "Open Heart Surgery" published at Vol. 43, No. 60 of the Federal Register, provides at page 262: There should be no additional open heart units initiated unless each existing unit in the health service area(s) is operating and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 open heart surgery cases per year in adult services or 130 pediatric open heart cases in pediatric services. According to the "Discussion" at Section (b) of the Rules and Regulations for open heart surgery in the National Guidelines: In order to prevent duplication of costly resources which are not fully utilized, the opening of new units should be contingent upon existing units operating, and continuing to operate, at a level of at least 350 procedures per year. (emphasis added) The 350 service volume requirement has been a part of HRS' open heart surgery certificate of need rule since its adoption in 1982. As discussed in more detail below, there is a substantial body of literature which concludes that there is a relationship between volume and outcome in the provision of adult open heart surgery services. The literature contains data which demonstrates that, as a general rule, hospitals which provide higher volumes of adult open heart surgery cases achieve better patient outcomes. Based upon this research, the optimum efficiency standard, both from quality of care and economy of scale perspective, is believed to be approximately 500 procedures per year. The 350 minimum volume standard reflects HRS' desire that each existing and approved facility be operating at 75% of this optimum standard before any additional programs are approved within an HRS District. The 350 standard assumes that each facility can provide an average of seven operations per week, a schedule judged to be feasible in most institutions which provide open heart surgery services. As a matter of health planning policy, HRS adopted the 350-standard in an effort to prevent duplication of costly services which are not fully utilized, both as to facility resources and manpower. This standard is intended to assure both quality of care and efficiency in the operations of adult open heart surgery programs. For several years after the rule was originally adopted in 1982, the rule was interpreted by HRS to require a showing that each existing program was at or above 350 procedures annually before a new program could normally be approved. However, as discussed below, sometime around 1984 or 1985, HRS began "interpreting" the 350 standard to be an average, i.e., the average utilization of all existing programs in a district had to be at or above 350 before a new program would normally be approved. From approximately early 1985 through January 22, 1990, HRS interpreted the existing rule in accordance with the "averaging method". This averaging method allowed HRS to find numeric need when the average total of procedures per program in the district equaled 350 or more. In 1987, a Section 120.56 rule challenge was brought against the then existing open heart rule. In that case, the 350 standard was directly attacked as being too high as a minimum procedure threshold. In the 1987 challenge to the open heart rule, HRS explained the rule utilizing the averaging approach. St. Mary's Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, supra, 9 FALR at 6174. HRS witness Elfie Stamm testified during that hearing in support of the rule as it was being interpreted at that time. Extensive testimony was presented regarding the 350 standard. It is not clear whether any of the parties challenged the averaging approach as part of that case. Ultimately the rule, including the 350 standard was, upheld. The Final Order presumes that the averaging approach would be used and does not specifically address the validity of that approach. None of the Petitioners in this case have provided persuasive evidence that the 350 standard has become obsolete or inappropriate. Indeed, as discussed in more detail below, the evidence indicates that the 350 standard is still the most widely accepted standard. During 1989, several Orders were entered by the Division of Administrative Hearings rejecting HRS' interpretation that the existing rule permitted the averaging method. In Lakeland Regional Medical Center v. HRS, 11 FALR 6463 (DOAH Final Order November 15, 1989), a hearing officer declared the HRS "averaging policy" to be inconsistent with the language of the existing rule and an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it had not been adopted in accordance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. In a subsequent 120.57 proceeding involving the proposed issuance of a CON for a new open heart surgery program, the Recommended Order rejected HRS' averaging policy and concluded that it could not be applied because it was inconsistent with the existing rule. Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. HRS, 12 FALR 785 (Final Order, January 23, 1990). In the Recommended Order in the Hillsborough County case, the hearing officer did not address the relative merits of the averaging policy versus the each and every method. He found that "the incipient policy constitutes an impermissible deviation from the terms of an existing rule and cannot be used in this proceeding. In view of this conclusion, it is unnecessary to determine whether an adequate record foundation exists to support that [averaging approach]." Although HRS had argued in favor of the averaging policy at the hearing in the Hillsborough County case, the Secretary of HRS in his Final Order in that case accepted the "each and every" interpretation declaring that "it is good health planning to allow newly approved providers to become operational and reach the 350 procedure level as soon as possible and before new programs are authorized." Id. at 787. In subsequent final orders on other open heart surgery CON applications, HRS has followed this original interpretation of its existing open heart surgery rule and agreed that, as written, the rule requires that the 350 standard be met by each existing and approved facility before a new program can normally be approved. See, Mease Health Care v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 853 (Final Order dated January 23, 1990); Humana of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Lucerne v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Central Florida Regional Hospital Inc. d/b/a Central Florida Regional Hospital. 12 FALR 823 (Final Order dated January 23, 1990), reversed on other grounds 16 F.L.W. 1515 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Hospital Development and Services Corporation d/b/a Plantation General Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 3462 (Final Order dated July 27, 1990.) In sum, since January, 1990, the Department has abandoned its former policy of averaging utilization on a district-wide basis and applied the Rule literally to require that "each and every" facility perform the required threshold number of procedures before a new program will normally be approved. HRS uses the averaging method to determine need for other programs such as cardiac catheterization, nursing homes, rehabilitation services, psychiatric and substance abuse services, and neonatal intensive care. The challengers contend that it is arbitrary for HRS to use an averaging approach to determine numeric need for some services and not use it for open heart programs. The mere fact that an averaging approach is used for other services does not in and of itself establish that HRS is acting arbitrarily in refusing to follow that approach with open heart surgery programs. The evidence established that HRS treats open heart surgery services differently because the existing research indicates a direct tie between volume and outcome. HRS has not found a similar demonstrated connection between volume and outcome in any of those other services. In fact, in certain of those services, such as psychiatric care, the volume/quality of care correlation may be a negative one. The Proposed Amendments do not change the 350 standard in the existing rule, except in the case where an existing program has been operational for less than a year. Whereas the existing rule would not normally authorize a new program before an existing program is providing 350 procedures per year, the Proposed Amendments relax the standard by allowing a new program to be approved if a program that has been operational for less than one year achieves an average monthly volume of 29 operations. The challengers contend the Proposed Amendments to paragraph 7a are anticompetitive and serve to protect the market shares of existing providers. To the contrary, the more persuasive evidence indicates that the purpose of the 350 standard is not to thwart competition, but, rather, to ensure quality care and efficiency. The Petitioners did not establish that the 350 standard is inappropriate or does not tend to promote quality and efficient care. Without a doubt, HRS' conclusions and the Proposed Amendments reflect a preference for large volume open heart surgery providers and consequently serve to restrict new providers from entering the market. As set forth below, this preference is supported by the existing research in this area. While the correlation between large volume and quality of care is not absolute, the evidence did not demonstrate that HRS has acted arbitrarily in adopting a policy which is aimed at encouraging all open heart programs an opportunity to grow to the 350 level. HRS has adopted a rule designating adult open heart surgery as a tertiary health service. See, Rule 10-5.002(66)8. (previously 5.002(41)8,) Florida Administrative Code. A tertiary health service is defined in Section 381.701(20), as follows: "Tertiary health service" means a health service which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, an cost-effectiveness of such service. To the extent that the 350 standard may work in some instances to favor greater use of existing providers over approval of a new competitor, that result is consistent with the nature of open heart surgery services as a tertiary health service. There is no question that several existing adult open heart surgery programs, including the programs of some of the intervenors in this case who are defending the Proposed Amendments, were approved after numeric need was found using the averaging policy. In many, if not all of those cases, need would not have been found if the "each and every" approach was used. See, Central Florida Regional Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 16 F.L.W. 1515 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The challengers contend that they are being denied equal protection and/or that the "each and every" approach is being used to protect existing providers. As indicated above, the Petitioners have not established that the standards set forth in the National Guidelines are obsolete or inappropriate. The evidence of record in this case was insufficient to conclude that HRS is acting arbitrarily by reenacting standards that are consistent with the National Guidelines. HRS' temporary application of the averaging approach was not consistent with the language of the existing rule or the original interpretation given to the rule by HRS at the time it was adopted. While no evidence was presented that quality of care diminished during the period of time the averaging approach was used, HRS' policy decision to return to standards established in the National Guidelines can not be characterized as arbitrary and capricious. The research contained in the HRS 1988 and 1989 rule promulgation files supports the 350 standard as set forth in Paragraph 7.a. of the Proposed Rule. Most of this research indicates that there is a strong correlative relationship between the volume of open heart surgery performed by a program and the resulting quality of care, both in terms of morbidity and mortality. Specifically, studies performed by Dr. Harold Luft, suggest a relationship between volume of procedures and quality of care. The Luft studies suggest that mortality and morbidity tend to increase as a percentage of total procedures performed when volume is reduced. In contrast, morbidity and mortality tend to decrease as the annual number of procedures is increased. The Challengers have presented no persuasive evidence to rebut these studies. Given the undisputed relationship between the quality and economic efficiency of an open heart surgery program and its volume, HRS reasonably concluded that it is sound health planning policy to normally allow approved providers to achieve and sustain the 350 procedure level before new programs are authorized. The Work Group which assisted in the development of the Proposed Rule Amendments addressed the "each and every" versus "averaging" approach to the 350 standard. Representatives of hospitals which do not offer open heart surgery services were in attendance at the Work Group. No member of the Work Group presented evidence to support the "averaging" approach to the 350 standard nor was any evidence presented to rebut the data contained in the Luft studies. The evidence presented at the hearing in this matter did not establish that the "averaging approach" would in any way improve or contribute to quality assurance. Indeed, it could lead to problems in districts with established high volume open heart surgery providers. For example, if one provider in a service district performs 600 cases and another performs 100 cases, the service district would meet a "350" average standard However, the lower volume provider would be operating at well below the minimum necessary to insure quality of care. In other words, using an averaging approach, need could be found in a district containing an extremely low volume provider, which would probably inhibit the ability of the struggling existing provider to raise its service volume and could be detrimental to the overall quality of care in the district. The National Guidelines and Intersociety Study establish a minimum quality of care threshold at 200 annual procedures per open heart team. The existing rule provides, under the heading "Service Quality" for a "Minimum Service Provision" which requires 200 procedures to be performed annually within 3 years of initiation of service by an open heart program. Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)5.d., Florida Administrative Code. The 200 procedure requirement was intended to ensure that a new program would operate at a minimum quality of care level. The Proposed Amendments delete this requirement. The challengers contend that HRS is inappropriately substituting the 350 procedure requirement contained in the Proposed Amendments as a new quality of care standard to be applied to open heart programs. The 350 standard is not intended by HRS to be a per se indicator of quality of care, nor is it intended to create a presumption that a program operating below 350 annual procedures provides poor quality of care. While the Petitioners claim that the 350 requirement in the National Guidelines was primarily an economic efficiency provision and was not a quality of care issue, the evidence indicates that the 350 standard was developed with both quality of care and efficiency in mind. Efficiency standards are important to allow a program to be doing enough operations to justify the staffing ratios, the inventory of supplies, and the utilization of the rooms themselves. While the challengers believe that the 350 standard is too high, the evidence was insufficient to establish that there is a more reasonable figure let alone that HRS' reliance upon the National Guidelines was arbitrary. Approximately seven districts would have shown need for a new program in 1993 if an averaging approach was used. However, under the "each and every" interpretation, HRS found there to be zero program need. The challengers point out that HRS has no authority to revoke a CON for a hospital operating an open heart surgery program with a low service volume. They contend that, due to referral patterns, quality of care problems, a shift in demographics, or similar reason, a hospital may be unable to generate a volume of 350 procedures which could preclude the addition of a new program even if there is a need in the district. The calculation of numeric need is only one of many criteria which the Department is required to consider under Section 381.705, Florida Statutes when reviewing applications for open heart surgery certificates of need. The Health Facility and Services Department Act sets forth many criteria which the department must consider when making a determination on an application for certificate of need including its need for the proposal, the existing availability of the proposed service of facility, the impact of the proposal on the cost of providing the service, and the quality of care provided by existing providers and proposed by the applicant. These criteria are consistent with the statutory aim as expressed in Title 42 - Public Health, Chapter 1 Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Part 121 - National Guidelines for Health Planning which provides: "Equal access to quality health care at a reasonable cost ... Cost savings may be achieved without sacrificing the quality of or access to care through more efficient utili- zation of existing resources and increased emphases on ambulatory and community services. Moreover, limitations of certain resources, such as open heart units, can lead to improve- ments in the quality of care while at the same time containing costs." Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 60., page 254. It is important to keep in mind that the 350 standard does not prohibit the approval of a new open heart program if an existing program in the district does not meet this standard. The proposed amendments, as well as existing HRS policy, simply provide that an application for a new program will "not normally" be approved. In other words, the burden of showing need for a new program is shifted to the applicant. The challengers contend that acquiring a CON when there is no numeric need calculated in accordance with the rule is next to impossible. Without question, an applicant's burden in such a situation would be substantially more difficult. However, the evidence does not support the contention that such approval is impossible. In conclusion, the 350 standard is a reasonable threshold criterion to presume need under normal circumstances. It is neither anti-competitive nor unconstitutional to require an applicant to allege and demonstrate the existence of not normal circumstances to overcome this presumption. Because no new program can be added when there is an outstanding approved but yet operational program in existence which could take an undue amount of time coming on line thereby preventing the approval of a new program. The challengers claim that requiring approved programs to become operational before a new program will normally be approved is unreasonable because of the length of time it could take for a newly approved program to come on line. HRS is generally aware of the length of time it takes an approved program to become operational. HRS reasonably resolved the balance of competing considerations by deciding that it should not approve a second new program in a district while there is still an approved program that has not yet become operational. HRS has concluded that it is preferable to allow programs to grow to a volume of 350 annual operations to assure quality and efficiency before adding a new program. The challengers have not established that this decision was arbitrary or that it would be in any way beneficial to allow simultaneous development of two or more adult open heart surgery programs within a service district. There are time restrictions on the implementation of a newly approved program and HRS has authority to void a CON when those restrictions are not met. See, Rule 10-5.018(2), Florida Administrative Code. Approved providers may not simply retain their CONs for open heart surgery services indefinitely without implementing them. If for some reason an approved program failed to commence operations within a reasonable time to the point of creating problems of service accessibility, an applicant could raise this issue as a "not normal" circumstance. The provision in the Proposed Amendments which would normally prevent approval of a new program when there is an outstanding approved but not yet operational program in existence is consistent with HRS' interpretation of the existing rule. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 7.b OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE ONLY ONE NEW PROGRAM CAN BE APPROVED AT A TIME. Paragraph 7.b. of the Proposed Amendments provides that even where the numeric need calculation results in a projected need for more than one new adult open heart program, only one new program per service district may be approved in a given batching cycle. The only evidence presented concerning this issue was the testimony of Ms. Stamm, who asserted that the practice of approving one program at a time ensures that only one new provider will compete with established facilities within a service district and that a new program will have an opportunity for rapid start-up growth in order to reach a safe volume level in a short period of time. By limiting approval to only one new program per planning horizon, the volume and quality of care at existing programs is protected and the continued viability of new providers is assisted. The challengers claim that this provision is arbitrary and capricious because it could prevent the approval of a new open heart surgery program even when numeric need, as determined by the Rule, is present. However, as indicated above, the calculation of numeric need is based upon desired, not maximum levels of operation. Thus, even if numeric need is shown in accordance with the Rule, a new program is not automatically required. Petitioners have not established that HRS' balancing of the conflicting concerns on this issue was arbitrary or capricious. The requirement that only one new program be approved at a time is consistent with HRS' interpretation of the existing rule. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 8 IS ANTICOMPETITIVE, UNDULY RESTRICTIVE, ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. Paragraph 8 of the Proposed Amendments sets forth a new quantitative need formula for pediatric open heart surgery services programs. It provides: 8.9. Pediatric Open Heart Surgery Program Need Determination. The need for pediatric open heart surgery programs shall be deter- mined on a regional basis in accordance with the pediatric open heart surgery program service areas as defined in sub-subparagraph 2.1. A new pediatric open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved unless the total of resident live births in the pediatric open heart surgery service area, for the most recent calendar year available from the department's Office of Vital Statistics at least 3 months prior to publication of the fixed need pool, minus the number of existing and approved pediatric open heat surgery programs multiplied by 30,000, is at or exceeds 30,000. The 30,000 live birth standard is based upon and consistent with the standards adopted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Cardiology, for use by health planning agencies and health service organizations to evaluate existing pediatric cardiac centers and to establish the need for the development of new centers. The 30,000 live birth standard is set forth in the "Guidelines for Pediatric Cardiology, Diagnostic and Treatment Centers," published in Volume 62, No. 2, American Academy of Pediatrics (1978) (the "Pediatric Guidelines"). Those guidelines were updated in 1990 and the 30,000 live birth standard was retained in the updated version. The Pediatric Guidelines, like the National Guidelines, is a well-respected and readily available research tool that health planners customarily rely upon in evaluating the need for health care programs. The 30,000 live birth standard is also contained in the HRS Children's Medical Services administrative rules and this methodology is consistent with the minimum service volume standards found in the National Guidelines. Unlike the methodology utilized to project need for adult open heart surgery programs, the methodology proposed to project need for pediatric open heart surgery does not utilize a "use rate." This pediatric need methodology assumes a constant use rate and attributes increased need to population growth. St. Mary's argues that the 30,000 live birth standard should not be utilized because the incidence rate of pediatric open heart surgery (the number of procedures per 30,000 births) may change and the standard does not take into account such changes which could be based on advances in medicine, etc. This criticism is highly speculative and does not provide a basis for rejecting the 30,000 live birth standard. While the use rate for adult open heart surgery has generally increased since the open heart rule was adopted in the early 1980s, there is no evidence that the use rate for pediatric open heart surgery programs has increased. St. Mary's contends that the 30,000 live birth standard only takes into account the pediatric population in the neonatal or newborn time period. However, this contention was not supported by the evidence. The 30,000 live birth standard assumes that in the years prior to attaining 30,000 live births, a service area experienced something less than 30,000 live births each year and will experience approximately 30,000 live births in subsequent years, so that an age pyramid is building. The Florida data indicates that if this standard is applied over 14 years, approximately 75 pediatric open heart surgery cases per year would be generated based upon multiple years of approximately 30,000 volume base. Approximately 100-130 cases can be expected if the age cohort is increased to 21. St. Mary's proposed an alternative methodology based upon comments appearing in an article titled "Trends in Cardiac Surgery" from the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 1980. That article suggested that a 380,000 pediatric population base from age 0-14 can be expected to generate 75 pediatric open heart surgery operations. Utilizing the 1970 United States age mix, which indicates that 27.5 percent of all persons are under the age of 14, St. Mary's suggests that the 380,000 pediatric population should be grossed up to a 1.38 million total population base and this total population figure is an appropriate standard for determining when to add a new pediatric program. Serious questions were raised regarding the validity of St. Mary's proposed standard. For example, it appears that the age mix in Florida is significantly different than the age mix figures used by St. Mary's. In sum, the evidence did not establish that St. Mary's proposed standard was more appropriate to use, let alone that HRS acted arbitrarily in adopting the 30,000 live birth standard. Indeed, the evidence established that the 30,000 live birth standard employed in the Proposed Amendments as a basis to project need for pediatric open heart surgery programs is a reasonable basis upon which to plan for pediatric open heart surgery programs. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT PROHIBITS AN APPLICANT FROM APPLYING FOR BOTH PEDIATRIC AND ADULT OPEN HEART SURGERY AND FOR THAT REASON IS INVALID. Proposed Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)1. states that providers must apply for separate certificates of need for adult and pediatric open heart surgery programs. The existing rule does not expressly state that separate certificates of need are necessary. However, Rule 10-5.008(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires separate letters of intent for each type of service having a separate need methodology, even if the projects are within the same facility. Thus, separate applications are necessary under both the present rule and the proposed amendments because a separate need methodology is stated in both. As discussed above, the Proposed Amendments do not prohibit an applicant from applying for a certificate of need for pediatric open heart surgery services and adult open heart surgery services simultaneously. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SET FORTH A MINIMUM NUMBER OF MIXED PEDIATRIC AND ADULT OPERATIONS WHICH MUST BE PERFORMED IN A MIXED PROGRAM AS A PREDICATE TO THE AWARD OF ANOTHER ADULT PROGRAM. Neither the existing rule nor the Proposed Amendments to the rule specifically address the minimum number of annual operations which must be performed in a "mixed" program before an additional adult program may be added. Thus, any "mixed" adult/pediatric open heart surgery program would have to be performing at least 350 adult procedures before there would be a calculated need for an additional adult open heart program in the district. St. Anthony's argues that this requirement should not apply to "mixed" programs and/or that a lower volume standard should have been adopted for hospitals that operate "mixed" programs. There is considerable confusion as to how to define a "mixed" program. St. Anthony's contends that a "mixed" open heart surgery program is any program that provides open heart surgery services to both adult and pediatric patients. HRS contends that if the programs are separately organized and staffed, the fact that a hospital has both programs is irrelevant to assessing the appropriate volume capacity. HRS considers a "mixed program" as one in which a single team is performing both pediatric and adult open heart surgery. Under this view, a hospital can have both an adult open heart surgery program and a pediatric open heart surgery program without necessarily being considered a "mixed" program. Applying this definition, there is apparently only one program in the state which is a "mixed" program. That program is located at Bayfront/All Children's Hospital. St. Anthony's contends that there are other programs in this state that offer both pediatric and adult open heart surgery. However, the evidence was insufficient to establish that any of these other programs meets the HRS definition of a mixed program. St. Anthony's cites to a provision in the National Guidelines which provides that the minimum number of open heart surgery procedures that should be performed in a "mixed" program is 200, of which 75 should be for children. However, HRS has reasonably concluded that this provision in the National Guidelines was not intended to establish a threshold for the addition of a new adult program. The studies which were the source of this provision did not attempt to address the number of procedures that should be performed in a "mixed" program before a new adult program should be awarded. In view of the extremely small number of "mixed" programs and the lack of clear evidence regarding the optimal number of procedures that should be performed in such programs, HRS has elected to not address "mixed" programs in the existing rule or the Proposed Amendments. For a true "mixed" program, it may not be reasonable or desirable to expect 350 adult surgeries per year. However, the available data is inconclusive and St. Anthony's has not presented persuasive evidence of a more realistic number. Thus, HRS' decision to not adopt a rule of general applicability to address this issue, is not arbitrary or capricious. An applicant in a district with a "mixed" program that is not performing 350 adult procedures per year can apply on a "not normal" basis. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE INVALID BECAUSE HRS HAS FAILED TO PREPARE A DETAILED ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT, AN ESTIMATE OF THE IMPACT ON COMPETITION, OR DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE DATA AND METHODOLOGY USED IN MAKING THE PROPOSED RULES, THE FAILURE OF WHICH IMPAIRED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE AGENCY. Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes, requires the Department to prepare an Economic Impact Statement (EIS) containing the economic impact of the proposed rule on all persons directly affected. HRS assessed the economic impact of its proposed amendments and concluded that there would be no impact because the proposed amendments do not change the projected need for either adult or pediatric programs. As discussed in more detail above, the Proposed Amendments clarify that the 350 target volume must be achieved by each and every existing and approved program before a new program will be approved. The existing rule has been interpreted to require the same thing. While HRS followed an averaging interpretation for a period in the past, that interpretation has been rejected in a series of final orders. Since the averaging interpretation was deemed invalid before these Proposed Amendments, the Proposed Amendments do not change the way need is assessed under the existing rule. Thus, there is no economic impact by reason of the inclusion in the Proposed Amendments of the 350 standard. Likewise, the new methodology for calculating need for pediatric open heart surgery does not change the calculations made under the existing rule. None of the other changes to the existing rule have been shown to have a significant impact on existing providers or applicants. None of the challengers showed that they are able to obtain an economic benefit now that they will be deprived of under the rule as amended nor have they demonstrated any prejudice by reason of HRS' conclusion that the Proposed Amendments would not have an adverse economic impact.
