Findings Of Fact In keeping with the terms of Subsection 120.60(6), Florida Statutes, the Petitioner, by certified mail, return receipt requested, notified the Respondent of its intentions to modify or revoke the Respondent's license as a "home health agency." This notification occurred on June 12, 1980. A copy of that notification may be found as Respondent's Exhibit A-30. Through the Notice, the Petitioner alleged that the Respondent was operating a "subunit" in Pasco County, Florida, at a time when the "parent agency" was located in Pinellas County, Florida. Under the circumstances, the Petitioner was out of the persuasion that a separate license for the Pasco County office must be procured and that in fact Gulf Coast did not have the necessary license and had been operating as a "subunit" in violation of Section 10D-68.04(2), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner afforded Gulf Coast an opportunity pursuant to the Notice to demonstrate that he had complied with all lawful requirements related to the Pasco County operations of the Respondent and to give reason why the State of Florida should not institute administrative proceedings against the Respondent. On June 20, 1980, through correspondence which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit VII, Gulf Coast made written explanation concerning its activities in Pasco County, particularly as related to the office in Pasco County and this item of explanation was reviewed by the Department. The explanation was not found to be sufficient and on October 3, 1980, a Notice of Intent to Enter Final Order was filed by the State of Florida and served on the Respondent by certified mail. Although this charging document was framed in terms of a "cease and terminate" claim as stated in the prior footnote, the claim was subsequently amended to be an action for modification or revocation of the Respondent's Pasco County activities in the New Port Richey office. The basis of the claim was to the effect that the Respondent was operating in its New Port Richey office without benefit of license, in violation of Section 10D.68.04(2), Florida Administrative Code, related to the requirement for licensure of "subunits." On October 20, 1980, Gulf Coast submitted a timely answer and affirmative defenses to the allegations as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. Those affirmative defenses were responded to on October 27, 1980, in a timely fashion, and the matter was forwarded to the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration in keeping with the terms of Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Following a continuance, the matter was set for final hearing on April 24, 1981, and a hearing de novo was conducted. This Recommended Order is being entered after receipt of the transcript of the record of the hearing and following review of memoranda in argument and a review of the proposed facts, conclusions of law and recommended dispositions filed by counsel for the parties. To the extent that the proposals, conclusions and recommendations are consistent with the findings herein, they have been utilized. To the extent that the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations are inconsistent with the findings herein, they are hereby rejected. Fact Determinations Gulf Coast Home Health Services, Inc., is a nonprofit corporation in the business of providing "home health care" services in Pinellas, Pasco, Hernando and Hillsborough Counties, State of Florida. To conduct these activities, the Respondent has been licensed by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, in keeping with Chapter 400, Part III, Florida Statutes, requiring the licensure of "home health agencies." Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is an agency of State government which has, among other responsibilities, the licensure and regulation of "home health agencies", to include the Respondent. The "parent agency" of Gulf Coast is located in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. The Respondent has other offices in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida; Brooksville, Hernando County, Florida; and New Port Richey, Pasco County, Florida. The New Port Richey office, which is the primary focus of this inquiry, was opened on June 27, 1975, and an office in that community has been in operation since that time. There has been one move to a larger facility. Notification to the Petitioner of the existence of the New Port Richey office occurred on June 30, 1975, by correspondence from the Administrator of the Respondent to the Program Coordinator for Home Health Services, Division of Health, Department of Health and Rehabilitation Services. This may be seen through a copy of correspondence which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit A-1. There have been other indications of the existence of this office which have occurred over a period of time beyond the original notification and the instances may be seen in a review of the Respondent's Composite Exhibit A. Gulf Coast Home Health Services, Inc., received its initial license to operate as "home health agency" from a "parent office" in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida, on April 14, 1977. For each year subsequent to that time, to include April 1, 1981, through March 31, 1982, the Petitioner has continued to license the Respondent as a "home health agency". The area of responsibility for this "home health agency" has included Pasco County, Florida. The Respondent has never applied for any form of license for its office in New Port Richey. Consequently, a separate license has not been issued for the benefit of that facility. The first indication given by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services that a license would be required for the New Port Richey office came on June 12, 1980, in the form of the investigation letter referred to in the case history. The New Port Richey office of the Respondent is located approximately forty (40) miles from the "parent agency" in St. Petersburg, Florida. This distance has remained relatively constant since the inception of the New Port Richey in 1975. The New Port Richey office covers an area of 3,925 square feet, floor coverage. It can be seen in examining the graphs found in the Respondent's Composite Exhibit E, that a substantial percentage of the services rendered by the Respondent, in terms of home visits, are made by the New Port Richey branch office. Petitioner's Exhibit III, lists the employees in that office, to include the Associate Director of Nursing, depicted in the table of organization, Petitioner's Exhibit I. By job description, Petitioner's Exhibit III, she has the duty of coordination and administrative responsibility related to personnel in the New Port Richey office, with particular emphasis on nursing services. Some of the personnel in the New Port Richey staff area as follows: registered nurses, paramedical supervisor, registered nurse supervisor, physical therapist, home health aide, home health aide secretary, field supervisor, office manager, medical records secretary, weekend office supervisor, log clerk, and transcriber, among others. These persons are involved in providing daily "home health care services" from the New Port Richey office and files are maintained in the office related to clients serviced by the office. The New Port Richey office also provides support services to the Respondent's Brooksville and Clearwater offices, in instances where those other offices are short on staff or supervisory capacities. This arrangement is an addition to supervisors who might be provided from the St. Petersburg office. The New Port Richey office of the Respondent provides transcription services for patients' progress notes for the benefit of the Brooksville and Clearwater offices, as well as providing those services for the New Port Richey office. The Petitioner conducts annual surveys on the health care provider by the "home health care agency" and in the course of those surveys, the materials to be surveyed which are gathered from the individual offices, to include New Port Richey, are separated for consideration in the survey process. When the surveys are concluded, the materials related to the survey process are returned to the individual offices of the Respondent, to include New Port Richey. Appearance at the surveys is by the Director of Medical Services, an employee housed in the St. Petersburg office. The Administrator for Gulf Coast Home Health Services, Inc., in testifying about the responsibility of certain personnel in the New Port Richey office, namely clerical and secretarial positions was of the opinion that those personnel are not involved in the determination of eligibility for service or involved in the billing process for services rendered. Notwithstanding this testimony, the job description of the New Port Richey personnel would indicate the participation of those personnel in the determination of eligibility and in the billing process, and leads to the conclusions that the New Port Richey personnel do have those responsibilities. Financial service employees of the Respondent who operate from the St. Petersburg office are ultimately responsible for payroll functions, accounts payable functions and billing of medicare and private patients. The New Port Richey office is not involved in staff education and does not have an Advisory Board and Medical Director assigned solely to that concern. In addition, some supervision for the New Port Richey office is provided from St. Petersburg. In summary, the New Port Richey office is subject to the controls and policies established at the St. Petersburg "parent agency" and relies to a certain degree on logistical support from the parent organization; however, in terms of day-to-day decisions and the delivery of "home health service," the New Port Richey office has a substantial degree of autonomy. This fact was recognized by its Administrator in correspondence of October 20, 1978, addressed to Joseph D. Dowless, Jr., Director of Licensure and Certification, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, a copy which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit A-18. In that correspondence, the Administrator states that, "our Pasco office is a fully equipped well organized Agency, larger in size then [sic] the majority of agencies in the State. From here we have been able to provide high quality services to our Hernando patients." (This letter was written in response to correspondence from the Department on the subject of establishment of an office in Hernando County.) The New Port Richey office of the Respondent is a semi-autonomous agency servicing persons in Pasco County at a time when the "parent agency" is located in Pinellas County. As the organization is now constituted, it is capable of sharing administration, supervision and services on a daily basis with the "parent agency".
Recommendation Based upon a full consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Gulf Coast Home Health Services, Inc., have its operations being conducted from the New Port Richey, Pasco County, Florida, office suspended, subject to proper licensure of that "subunit." DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of June, 1981. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Palm Beach County is located in Florida Health Service Area Region VII (HSA #7) which also includes Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee, and St. Lucie Counties. The Health Systems Plan (HSP) for Region VII breaks down bed need for Palm Beach County separately from the other four counties. The population of the southern portion of Palm Beach County is growing at a much faster rate than the population of the northern portion of the County. There is a maldistribution of hospital beds between the northern and southern portions of the County. The northern portion of the County has three times as many hospital beds as the southern portion of the County. Palm Beach County presently has 2,752 hospital beds which are either licensed or approved for construction. This figure includes a new 160-bed NME facility in Delray Beach projected to open in the Fall of 1982, a 50-bed expansion at Bethesda Memorial Hospital completed in January of 1982, a 50-bed expansion at Boca Raton Community Hospital and a 48-bed expansion at John F. Kennedy Hospital presently under construction. An additional 80 beds have been approved by HRS for the new Delray facility, but this is presently in litigation and these beds can not be considered in this proceeding. The two hospitals which currently serve the south Palm Beach County area are the Boca Raton Community Hospital (Boca Community) located in Boca Raton and the Bethesda Memorial Hospital (Bethesda) located in Boynton Beach and operated by the District. Both facilities are within a thirty minute driving distance for 95 percent of the population of the southwestern portion of Palm Beach County. According to patient origin studies, Boca Community draws some 7.7 percent of its patients from the southwest portion of Palm Beach County and Bethesda draws only 1.8 percent of its patients from such area. The primary service areas of both facilities are concentrated on the coastal side of the County. Boca Community has a closed medical staff and does not offer obstetrical services. In 1981, Boca Community had an average occupancy level of 91 percent. During the tourist season which runs from November to April of each year, Boca Community was overcrowded, at times operating at a 100 percent occupancy rate. Oftentimes, patients were either turned away or were placed in hallway or holding room beds. There were occasions during the tourist season when the Del Trail Fire Control Tax District, which provides emergency medical rescue service for the residents of southwest Palm Beach County, was advised by Boca Community that they were on a Priority 1 status only. This meant that they could only utilize that facility for the most severe cases of cardiac or respiratory arrest. The Fire Control Tax District's paramedic program anticipates that it will respond to approximately 2,250 medical rescue calls in 1982. A hospital located in the southwestern portion of Palm Beach County would reduce the response time of paramedics, enable them to make more calls and provide better medical service for members of the Fire Control District. In 1981, Bethesda operated at an average occupancy rate of 82.9 percent, with the rate exceeding 90 percent during the tourist season. The HSP utilizes a 75 percent occupancy rate as a guideline for determining the need for additional hospital beds. In health care planning, it is the policy of HRS to utilize county-wide population estimates prepared by the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). The most recent population figure promulgated by BEBR for Palm Beach County is a 1981 estimate of 615,165. This figure indicates an increase over its prior projections of almost 20,000. For the year 1985, the medium range population estimate for Palm Beach County is projected by the BEBR to be 707,900. This figure does not significantly differ from projections made by various planning experts who testified at the hearing. Some 99 percent of the population growth in the County is attributable to migration. Among the guidelines for determining need for additional hospital beds in an area are occupancy levels of existing hospital facilities, utilization rates and a desired number of beds per thousand people in an area. The HSP for Region VII considers an occupancy rate of 75 percent to be desirable, and utilizes the formula of 4 beds per thousand population in reaching determinations on the question of need. The State Health Plan, in accordance with federal guidelines, takes into consideration the factors of age of the population and utilization, including migration in and out of an area. Persons over age 65 normally utilize hospital beds and facilities four times as much as people under 65. Some 23 percent of the residents of the southwest area of Palm Beach County were 65 years of age or older. This compares with a national average of approximately 11 percent, and a county-wide average of 20 percent. Accordingly, in computing preliminary bed need projections for 1985, the 1981 Florida State Health Plan utilizes a formula of 4.25 beds per thousand population for HSA #7 as its medium estimate and a formula of 4.61 beds per thousand population as its high estimate. Utilizing the 4/1000 formula, and assuming a 1985 population of 707,900, the bed need for Palm Beach County in 1985 would be 2,832. A 4.25/1,000 formula produces a bed need of 3,009, and a 4.61/1,000 formula results in a bed need of 3,263. Given the exsiting licensed and approved 2,752 beds in the County as a whole, there would be a need in 1985 for an additional 80 beds using the 4.0 approach, 257 beds using the 4.25 approach, and 511 beds using the 4.61 approach. Utilizing the University of Florida population figures for Palm Beach County, distributing that population to various areas within the County in accordance with the Area Planning Board estimates, and further distributing ,beds between the facilities in the southwest area of the County based upon anticipated market shares, the District's health care planning expert determined there would be a need for 157 new beds by 1986 in the southwest area. This projection takes into account the new Delray Hospital, the 50-bed additions at Bethesda and Boca Community and utilizes an 80 percent occupancy rate. By allocating County population figures into subregions, NME's planning expert projected the population of the west Boca service area to be 43,598 by 1985. Utilizing two different methodologies -- occupancy levels and bed per thousand population -- NME's expert determined that there would be a minimum additional bed need of 170 to 188 in the west Boca service area in 1985 to 1986. The previous HSA 1980-1984 HSP only showed a need for 40 or 50 beds in Palm Beach County. The 1981-1985 HSP, which now takes into account the recently approved 160 beds at Delray, 50 at Bethesda and 50 at Boca Community, shows a need for an additional 128 beds. John F. Kennedy Hospital, which does not serve the southwest portion of the County, has been granted approval for 48 beds. The Boca Raton City Council and the Board of County Commissioners for Palm Beach County have each adopted resolutions citing the need for a new hospital in the West Boca area. Many physicians practicing in the Boca Raton area are experiencing their greatest growth in numbers of patients from the West Boca area. Several physicians experienced delays in admitting patients to Boca Community in 1981, and do not believe that that facility's expansion by 50 beds will alleviate the overcrowing at that institution. There is community support for a new hospital facility located in the southwest portion of Boca Raton. The approved and existing hospitals which serve residents of the southwest Boca Raton area have expansion capabilities of approximately 300 beds -- 50 at Boca Community, 90 at Bethesda and 160 at Delray. Expansion of an existing facility can result in lower construction and operational costs than the construction of a new facility. This would be dependent upon the existence of adequate ancillary facilities, adequate space, personnel capabilities and the desires of the existing facility to expand. Other than the 80-bed expansion at Delray which is currently in litigation, no evidence was adduced at the hearing that either Boca Community or Bethesda were seeking expansion beyond that which has previously been approved. The Southeastern Palm Beach County Hospital Taxing District was created by Special Act of the Legislature in 1953 to provide hospital services for the people in a specified geographical area. It is operated by an eight- member Board of Commissioners who are appointed by the Governor for staggered four-year terms. The District currently owns and operates a 350-bed full service hospital known as Bethesda Memorial Hospital in Boynton Beach. Its services include gynecological, pediatric and new born nursery services. Bethesda has the capacity to expand to 440 beds. In 1980, Bethesda received approximately $2,000,000 in ad valorem tax revenues. Without these tax revenues, Bethesda would have operated at a deficit in excess of $1,000,000. The District proposes to construct and operate a new hospital to serve the residents of southwest Palm Beach County. The service area for the new hospital appears to include some areas beyond the geographical boundaries of the District. It intends to construct 138 medical/surgical beds and 12 intensive care beds, for a total bed count of 150. The new facility will not have obstetrics or pediatric services. The total estimated cost of the project is $34,007,000, or a cost of $226,713.33 per bed. Its cost per square foot is $162.12. The District did not itemize its predevelopment costs and based its equipment costs as a percentage of construction costs. It is anticipated that the new facility will share many services and be linked closely with Bethesda. The two facilities will utilize the same Directors of Personnel, Purchasing and Finance. Other shared services will be the central computer service, clinical laboratory services, anatomical-pathological services, certain pharmacy services and legal services. A pathologist will be on-site at the new facility during normal working hours and on-call during off hours to perform those pathological services which require an immediate result. Other lab tests will be performed at Bethesda. It is anticipated that the new facility will be financed through the issuance of two series of tax-exempt revenue bonds. The District anticipates that it can secure bond financing at an 11 percent projected interest rate, and that 87 percent of the project will be financed by debt with an equity contribution by the District of $2.2 million. Ad valorem revenue is not expected to be the source-of repaying the debt. The District projects a loss of some $1.9 million during the first year of operation and an income of $99,484 during the second year of operation of the new facility. A 21-month construction period is anticipated. While the District proposes to locate its new facility on 20 acres of land at the northeast corner of Glades Road and Lyons Road, it had no formal interest in that property as of the time of the hearing. The site is presently zoned as agricultural and is owned by a savings and loan institution. Pursuant to a "gentlemen's agreement" between the institution and the Chairman of the District's Board, it is anticipated that the District can purchase this property at an estimated cost of $1,000,000. If the District is unable to purchase this property, it intends to use its power of eminent domain to acquire that site or another suitable site. The proposed District site will not require any major road improvements, though a traffic control signal may be necessary. National Medical Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates about 40 hospitals and 160 nursing homes and manages another 18 hospitals and 22 nursing homes throughout the United States. Its corporate headquarters are in Los Angeles, California, and it has a regional office in Tampa, Florida. NME has total revenues exceeding $1.4 billion, net income of $70 million and stockholders' equity of $420 million. As of November 30, 1981, NME had over $150 million in the bank and unused commitments from lenders for $170 million. NME has sufficient cash and cash flow to fund a new project without outside financing. If financing were chosen, it would be of a long term (20 year) unsecured nature at a 15 percent interest rate which would cover 65 percent of the project cost. The balance would come from NME's equity contribution. NME proposes to construct and operate a 175-bed hospital to serve the southwest area of Palm Beach County. There are to be 151 medical/surgical beds, 16 intensive care beds and 8 beds for obstetrics, for a total project cost of $30,688,290 or $175,361.65 per bed. The cost per-square foot is $127.00. The new facility will be operated by a local governing board composed of physicians and lay persons originally appointed by NME. The Administrator of the new facility will be appointed by and report to NME's regional office. Hospitals owned and managed by NME share common support services from both the corporate and regional offices. NME employs specialists and experts in the areas of nursing (recruitment and training), energy conservation, administration, communications, architectural and design matters, financial and legal matters, planning and development, management engineering, and purchasing. These professionals are available to NME facilities. National contracts for the procurement of equipment and supplies are available to NME hospitals. NME proposes an opening date of October or November, 1984 and estimates that it will have a net income of $615,000 after its first year of operation and a net income of $917,000 after the second full year of operation. NME proposes to locate its new facility adjacent to the corner of U.S. Highway 441 and Glades Road. It has an option to purchase 20 acres of land at $30,000 per acre. It intends to use 10 of the 20 acres for the hospital site and use the remaining 10 acres for medical office buildings. Site development costs are designated as $800,000. Its total cost of $30,688,290 is broken down into predevelopment costs of $120,000, building and construction costs of $22,646,490 and equipment costs of $7,921,800. NME's projected equipment costs were based upon a room-by-room analysis. The proposed site is presently zoned for agricultural use. Some major roadway improvements would be required, and the cost for these improvements have not been specifically determined or included in NME's projected project costs, other than the $800,000 designated for site development. NME's proposal includes an 8-bed obstetrical unit. Approximately 500 deliveries are expected during the first year of operation. The recognized health planning standard for determining need for an obstetrical unit in an urban area with a population in excess of 100,000 is whether the facility would perform 1,500 births per year. In Florida, some 105 licensed hospitals have obstetrical beds. 74 of those hospitals recorded less than 1,500 births per year. Population statistics broken down by age do not illustrate a significant need for additional obstetrical beds in the southwest area of the County. Obstetrics and pediatrics are currently available at Bethesda. Bethesda recently closed down 9 of its 24 pediatric beds, and, in February of 1982, that unit had a 42 percent occupancy level. Bethesda's nursery had an occupancy rate of 52 percent in 1981, and the 18 post-partum beds had an occupancy rate of 79 percent in 1981. If needed, Bethesda can convert some of its medical/surgical beds to postpartum beds. The Boca Raton Community Hospital has an 11-bed pediatrics unit. Both the District and NME demonstrated that they would have no difficulty in staffing their proposed facilities. Each has vigorous and innovative recruiting program. By comparing data from Bethesda and Palms of Pasadena in St. Petersburg, a facility owned and operated by NME, the District attempted to illustrate that a not-for-profit tax district hospital is able to render services in a more cost-effective manner and at less cost to the patient or charge payors than an investor-owned or proprietary hospital. However, the analysis performed by the District's witness did not include the ad valorem tax income which the District receives and did not consider or compare the types or intensity of services offered or performed by the two different hospitals. It is impossible to infer the cost-effectiveness of a hospital without knowledge of the volume, intensity and mix of services provided. NME's application for a Certificate of Need included a CT scanner at its new proposed facility. No evidence was adduced at the hearing concerning the need for an additional CT scanner in the Palm Beach County area.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by HRS determining that a need for a least a 170-bed hospital exists in the southwest area of Palm Beach County and that NME's application to construct such a hospital be approved, with the exception of that portion which proposes eight obstetrical beds and a CT scanner. It is further recommended that the application of the District to construct a 150-bed hospital be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 23rd day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred W. Baggett, Esquire and Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, LaFace, Richards and Wiser 101 East College Avenue Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 C. Gary Williams, Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor Washington Square Building 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Eric J. Haugdahl, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building 1, Room 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Clarke Deputy Assistant Secretary Health Planning & Development 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Cilla McCray, is a resident of Gadsden County. The parties have stipulated that on December 3, 1977, she was admitted to the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital in an emergency medical condition, and that the treatment performed by the hospital was of an emergency nature. The parties have further stipulated that the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital is a regional referral hospital within the meaning of Section 154.304(4) , Florida Statutes (1977). Cilla McCray was admitted to the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital on December 3, 1977, and was discharged on January 9, 1978. The total bill for her services amounted to $8,753.80. The Hospital submitted a bill to Gadsden County in the amount of $1,521.48 for the services. This latter amount is the maximum allowed to be billed in accordance with the Florida Health Care Responsibility Act. Gadsden County has refused to pay the bill, contending that the patient was not indigent. The patient has not paid the bill. Cilla McCray is married to Lawrence McCray. They have three children but only two of them reside at home. The oldest child is not supported by his parents. During the six months preceding the hospitalization of Cilla McCray her husband had average earnings of $80.00 per week as a logger. Mrs. McCray had earned a total of $732.60 for employment during the six months prior to her hospitalization. The McCray's thus had average monthly earnings during that period in excess of $450.00 per month.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered rejecting the bill submitted by the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital for medical services performed for Cilla McCray. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John Shaw Curry, Esquire Post Office Box 706 Quincy, Florida 32351 John D. Buchanan, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Chairman Board of County Commissioners Gadsden County Courthouse Quincy, Florida
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need for a 50-bed addition to the Ormond Beach Hospital should be approved, pursuant to Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. This case involves petitioner's application for a certificate of need to expand, renovate, and consolidate ancillary service areas, and a 50-bed addition to its hospital. Respondent approved the application and issued a certificate of need for all aspects of the project except the 50-bed addition which it found would be inconsistent with the current health systems plan of Health Systems Agency of Northeast Florida, Inc., and because it determined that there was not a need for the additional beds in Volusia County. Petitioner filed its request for a Chapter 120 hearing. Thereafter, Intervenor Daytona Beach General Hospital, Inc., an orthopedic hospital located in Daytona Beach, petitioned for and was granted intervention in the proceeding over the objection of petitioner. During the course of the extensive hearing in this case, 15 witnesses testified in behalf of Petitioner, two were called by respondent, and four by the Intervenor. Eighty-seven exhibits were admitted in evidence. Exhibit 68 was withdrawn by stipulation of the parties.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensed 81-bed non-profit osteopathic general acute care hospital located at 264 South Atlantic Avenue, Ormond Beach, Florida. It is located on a site of approximately 4.6 acres bordered by Highway A1A on the east and Ormond Parkway on the north. The hospital plant consists of three buildings which have been joined together. One is a one-story dietary building that was originally a restaurant. A two-story building was built in 1970, and a one-story structure was built in 1954 and added to in 1960 and 1967. Other buildings owned by the hospital are adjacent residential homes on the premises which are used for storage, laundry, and other purposes. (Testimony of Hull, Exhibits 1-2, 13, 30, 59, 70) By a series of letters commencing on January 25, 1979, Petitioner advised Respondent's Office of Community Medical Facilities and the Health Systems Agency of Northeast Florida Area 3, Inc. (HSA) of its intent to expand and modernize its hospital and increase bed capacity. The last letter of intent was dated July 24, 1979. On September 21, 1979, Petitioner submitted its Certificate of Need Project Review Application to Respondent which included a request to increase the hospital's bed capacity from 81 to 161 beds. By letter of September 25, 1979, Respondent requested further information and, on December 11, 1979, Petitioner complied with the request and revised its application to seek only 50 additional beds. The proposed expansion and modernization plan included construction of a two-story addition to provide approximately 39,500 additional square feet, and renovation of approximately 22,000 square feet. Completion of the project would raise the hospital's total square footage of 39,350 to approximately 79,000 square feet. Incident to its request for additional beds, Petitioner proposes to initiate a 6-bed obstetrical unit at the hospital. (Exhibits 1-2, 7, 45-48) Petitioner's application was considered by various components of the HSA in January 1980, which resulted in a report and recommendations on the application which was filed with Respondent on February 25, 1980. During the course of the HSA's consideration of Petitioner's application at its several levels, representatives of Petitioner and the Intervenor appeared at the various meetings and presented their respective views regarding the application. The HSA report recommended approval of Petitioner's application for the renovation of its existing facilities and ancillary services, and approval of 44 additional beds. It further recommended that the state should take actions necessary to delicense a like number of beds within Petitioner's service area. The recommendation of 44 instead of 50 beds resulted from a finding that the proposed 6-bed obstetrical unit was not needed in the community in view of the probability that osteopathic physicians would likely be granted obstetric privileges in the future at allopathic facilities as a result of the enactment of legislation prohibiting the discrimination by particular provider professions against osteopathic physicians. The HSA found that although "Goal" DTS 1 in its Health Service Plan (HSP) which is used as a "guide" for health planning called for less than 4.3 acute care hospital beds per 1000 population with an overall average annual occupancy rate of at least 80 percent by 1984 in Health Service Area 3, it could approve additional beds for opening prior to 1984 if "extraordinary circumstances" exist as identified in "Goal" EA 2. It further found that Area 3 then had 5255 civilian acute care hospital beds, or a rate of 5.4 beds per 1000 population, with an average occupancy of 61 percent, and that, therefore, approval of additional beds, without cause, would be contrary to "Goal" DTS 1. However, the agency determined that extraordinary circumstances existed in Petitioner's case due to the fact that it had been operating for the past several years at an average occupancy of near or above 90 percent and that within its service area there existed in excess of 200 licensed medical surgical beds which were not staffed or used. The HSA therefore concluded that the situation denied ready access to acute care facilities to the citizens residing in Petitioner's service area. The HSA also considered that approval of the project would improve the effective and geographic distribution of beds and patient and physician accessibility in Volusia County because it was the only hospital located on the beach peninsula. It further found that the great number of elderly patients living in Volusia County and seasonal population fluctuations due to large numbers of tourists living in the area could be denied access to inpatient facilities if the project was not approved. As other extenuating factors, the HSA report stated that Petitioner had been granted prior certificates of need to expand its bed capacity, but that they had expired prior to implementation, that its inpatient facilities were antiquated, that denial of the beds would serve to deny access to patients of osteopathic facilities, and that federal law (PL 96-79) recognized that the need for additional or expanded osteopathic facilities should be determined on the basis of the need for and availability in the community for such services and facilities. (Testimony of Floyd, Hull, Exhibits 4, 8-12, 14, 59) By letter of March 28, 1980, Respondent's Administrator, Office of Community Medical Facilities, informed Petitioner that its application for certificate of need to expand, renovate and consolidate ancillary service areas at a total project cost of four million dollars was approved, and Certificate of Need Number 1236 was attached. The letter further advised petitioner that the proposed 50-bed addition was denied as being inconsistent with the current Health Systems Plan of the HSA, that there was not a need for the additional 50 beds in Volusia County as evidenced by facts contained in an attached State Agency Action Report, and that the extraordinary circumstances upon which the HSA recommended approval were not valid as evidenced by the same report. However, the referenced report was not submitted in evidence at the hearing, nor was any testimony adduced as to the rationale for the agency decision. By letter of May 28, 1980, Petitioner requested Respondent to increase the amount of the issued certificate of need to ten million dollars due to anticipated additional costs of construction and, by letter of July 24, 1980, Respondent advised Petitioner that the "cost over-run" had been approved and an amended copy of the Certificate of Need Number 1236 reflecting the additional cost was attached. (Testimony of Hull, Exhibits 57-58) Volusia County has eight hospitals of which six are allopathic and two are osteopathic. There are five hospitals in the Daytona Beach/Ormond Beach "coastal area" of the county which include Petitioner, Intervenor Daytona Beach General Hospital, Inc. (osteopathic), Ormond Beach Memorial Hospital, Daytona Community Hospital, and Halifax Hospital Medical Center. Two other hospitals in the county are Fish Memorial and West Volusia located in Deland. The remaining hospital is Fish Memorial at New Smyrna Beach. Petitioner is the only hospital on the beach peninsula which is connected to the mainland by several drawbridges. Daytona Beach General Hospital and Ormond Beach Memorial Hospital are located on the mainland in the northern "coastal area" several miles in distance from Petitioner. The remaining two hospitals in the area are within an average of 30 minutes driving time from Petitioner except during the peak tourist season of February to July each year, or when undue delays are experienced at the drawbridges. The HSA recognizes Petitioner's health service area to be Volusia County. In June 1979, the eight hospitals in Volusia County had a total of 1675 licensed beds, of which 1395 were open and staffed for use. Of the 378 osteopathic beds, only 178 were open and staffed. Occupancy of the licensed beds during the period July 1978 to June 1979 ranged from a low of 13.8 percent for Daytona Beach General Hospital to a high of 92 percent for Petitioner. The average occupancy of all licensed hospital beds was 51.2 percent. For the month of July, 1980, 1418 beds were open and staffed with 65.2 percent occupancy. Fish Memorial Hospital of New Smyrna Beach has a certificate of need for an additional 45 beds. In June 1979, all of Petitioner's licensed beds were staffed, but only 97 of Daytona Beach General Hospital's 297 licensed beds were staffed and available for use. Its patient population, however, has increased during the past year. In July 1978, Volusia County had a population of approximately 230,000 and therefore had about 7 acute care beds per 1,000 population. The 1980 preliminary census figures for the county showed the population to be 249,434 and it is projected that the final census figures will increase from one to two percent which would place the county population at between 252,000 and 254,000. If the higher figure is utilized, the bed ratio for the county at the present time would still be over 6 beds per 1,000 population. It is projected that the population of Volusia County will increase to 275,900 by 1984. If the current 1675 licensed beds remain the same, there would then be approximately 6 beds per 1,000 population. Approximately 25 percent of the Volusia County population consists of individuals who are 65 years of age or older whereas only some 9 percent of the population in the other six counties in HSA Area 3 are in that category. Although the HSA's plan arrived at its goal of 4.3 beds per 1,000 population for Area 3 in accordance with federal guidelines which allowed for adjustments in areas with referral hospitals, high tourism rates, and areas with greater than 12 percent of the population being 65 years of age or older, no further adjustment was made for Volusia County in spite of the fact that the Area 3 rate of about 13 percent of elderly population is about half that of the county. Further, the seasonal fluctuation as a result of tourists was not quantified on the basis of available statistics. However, in its justification for the 4.3 beds goal, the HSP makes note of the fact that Volusia County has 22 percent more patients per day during the high tourist months than during the lowest occupancy months of he year. On an average day in 1979, 73,000 tourists were in Volusia County which equated to approximately an additional 30 percent of the county population of 240,421. During the year 1979-80, about 22 percent of Petitioner's patients were residents of places other than Volusia County. However, there are no available statistics on the numbers of such persons who were inpatients. Most of the tourists seek only outpatient treatment for sunburn and minor injuries, although some undergo surgery during the months they are visiting the coastal area. (Testimony of Schwartz, Floyd, Smith, Hull, Clapper, Exhibits 3, 5-6, 18-26, 29, 51) Petitioner's application reflected that its 81 licensed beds were then utilized as medical/surgical (69 beds), intensive care (6 beds), and pediatrics (6 beds). The proposed additional 50 patient beds would be utilized as medical/surgical (29), intensive care (6), progressive care (4), pediatrics (3), obstetrical (6), and isolation (2). However, subsequent to filing its application, Petitioner discontinued its pediatric ward, and created 3 additional medical/surgical beds from the 6 former pediatric beds. (Testimony of Hull, Exhibit 2) The need for six additional intensive care beds and the initiation of a four-bed progressive care unit is to eliminate the past practice of prematurely transferring intensive care patients to other patient beds due to an insufficient number of intensive care beds. Such transfers required the conversion of semi-private into private rooms with additional equipment and nursing care which also reduced the total number of available beds within the hospital. Transfers of this nature were made extensively during the past fiscal year. (Testimony of Hull, Schwartz, Nargelovic, D'Assaro, Exhibit 2) The request in the application for two beds to serve as isolation rooms is based upon the fact that petitioner does not maintain any such rooms at the present time and it requires them to meet acceptable standards of health care. Currently, when isolation is necessary, a semi-private room is converted for the single patient requiring isolation, thus reducing the number of available beds. (Testimony of Schwartz, Hull, Nargelovic, Exhibit 2) Petitioner's request to establish a six-bed obstetrical unit is based upon its claim that such a unit is necessary to properly provide patients of osteopathic physicians with such a service and to provide full health care services which would not only attract new physicians to the hospital, but also enable Petitioner to conduct an intern training program. In addition, Petitioner is of the opinion that such a unit is necessary to provide service to patients living on the peninsula because the closest hospital providing obstetrical care is Halifax Hospital which is located on the mainland. The other obstetrical units are located at Fish Memorial Hospital at New Smyrna Beach and West Volusia Hospital at Deland which are some thirty miles away and do not conduct approved intern or residence programs for osteopathy. Halifax Hospital restricts staff privileges to those physicians who have met American Medical Association criteria and, therefore, osteopathic physicians generally are not eligible to utilize the obstetrical unit there. The HSA found that Petitioner projected 375 deliveries in its proposed obstetrics department during the third year of operation. The agency's HSP goal DTS 4.2 provides that no additional obstetrical departments should be approved in Volusia County until each existing department in the county is performing at least 1,000 deliveries annually. Only Halifax Hospital exceeds the 1,000 annual delivery standard. The HSA disapproved the requested obstetrical beds based upon its view that obstetrical beds at Halifax Hospital would eventually become available for use by osteopathic physicians. (Testimony of Schwartz, Hull, Rees, Exhibit 2-3, 6, 14, 54-55) Petitioner primarily bases its request for the additional 29 medical/surgical beds on the fact that it is the only hospital on the peninsula, has extreme seasonal demands placed on it by tourist population, and that the hospital census has been over 92 percent average occupancy during the past fiscal year. At times, the hospital has been filled to capacity, and has found it necessary to use "hall beds" to meet the need for emergency admissions. The crowded conditions have necessitated frequent delays in patient admissions or the referral of patients to other hospitals. A patient occupancy rate averaging 80-85 percent is normally acceptable, but Petitioner experiences a certain amount of inefficiency and lessened quality of care when over 80 percent of its beds are occupied. This is reflected in the difficulty of staffing and providing support services, and possible premature patient discharge. (Testimony of Schwartz, Hull, D'Assaro, Draper, Mason, Shoemaker, Exhibits 2, 51, 69) Although approximately 80 percent of Petitioner's patients reside in the coastal area of Volusia County, only some 29 percent reside in the northeastern part of the county where Petitioner's hospital is located. Petitioner currently has 27 osteopathic physicians on its staff, 18 of whom admit their patients principally to Ormond Beach Hospital and 7 admit there exclusively. Nineteen of the osteopathic physicians have staff privileges at other hospitals. Twenty-four allopathic physicians have staff privileges at Ormond Beach Hospital, but most are specialty consultants who admit less than one percent of Petitioner's patients. (Testimony of Schwartz, Floyd, Hull, D'Assaro, Exhibits 16-17, 60, 67) The quality of care provided patients at Ormond Beach Hospital is excellent, particularly in view of the antiquated physical plant and prevailing crowded conditions. These problems have led to the existence of a number of existing beds which do not conform to state fire, safety and other standards. It is planned that the majority of the existing beds will be located in a new building to provide room in the present buildings for expansion of ancillary and support facilities. The hospital is accredited by the American Osteopathic Association and by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. Accreditation by the Joint Commission indicates that a hospital provides an excellent standard of Health care. (Testimony of Draper, Boxx, Hull, Wisely, Mason, Shoemaker, D. Smith, Exhibits 1-2, 28-42, 49-50, 71-77) Petitioner is an osteopathic hospital whose Board of Directors is composed of osteopathic physicians. There are no physical differences between allopathic and osteopathic hospitals with the minor exception that the latter utilizes a table for manipulative therapy for some 20 to 30 percent of the patients. The primary difference between the two concepts is philosophical in nature. Osteopathy emphasizes a "wholistic" approach to medicine which stresses the importance of the musculoskeletal structure and manipulative therapy in the maintenance and restoration of health. It is family practice-oriented with about 75 percent of osteopathic physicians engaged in general practice rather than specialty medicine. Emphasis is placed upon personal attention by the physician to the patient. These factors produce a certain amount of patient preference for treatment in an osteopathic facility. (Testimony of Floyd, Schwartz, Wisely, Hull, Mason, Shoemaker, D. Smith, D'Assaro, Exhibit 78) Although the bylaws of two of the three allopathic hospitals located in the coastal area of Volusia County have recently been amended to permit osteopathic physicians to obtain staff privileges, certain vestiges of prior discrimination still exist due to the fact that hospital control is exercised by allopathic physicians, and that board certification is required which excludes many osteopathic physicians. The third hospital, Halifax, requires board certification in an American Medical Association approved specialty or residence program. As a consequence, only one osteopathic physician is on its staff. (Testimony of Draper, Hull, Porth, Helker, Rees, D. Smith, Exhibits 54, 63, 66) Daytona Beach General Hospital, Inc. is the other osteopathic hospital in the area which is located on the mainland several miles away from Ormond Beach Hospital. It has 297 licensed beds, but only 107 were staffed and open for use in July 1980. Its rate of occupancy in June 1979 was 13.8 percent of the licensed beds. The hospital has experienced past difficulties due to a substandard physical plant and inadequate staffing in certain areas. Although many osteopathic physicians decline to admit patients to the hospital, they generally agree that the standard of care is adequate, except for critical care cases. The hospital has sought in the past to attract additional patients by accepting staff applications from qualified area physicians. Daytona Beach General is accredited by The American Osteopathic Association and has pending an application for accreditation by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. (Testimony of Draper, Wisely, Boxx, Hull, D. Smith, Clapper, Solomon, Exhibits 27, 29-80) Petitioner has exerted efforts to acquire licensed hospital beds from other area hospitals to alleviate its shortage, but has been unsuccessful. Hospitals are reluctant to give up licensed beds even though they are not currently being utilized because they normally anticipate a need for them in future years. Although Daytona Beach General Hospital has been the subject of negotiations for sale with various entities, including Petitioner, in recent years, they have not been successful. None of the hospitals, including Petitioner, desires to share space in other hospitals due to the resulting lack of control over operations and procedures. Petitioner held a certificate of need for 84 beds in 1976 which it was forced to relinquish when it received a certificate of need for the proposed purchase of Daytona Beach General Hospital. (Testimony of Boxx, Hull, Porth, Hilker, Clapper, Rees, Draper, Exhibits 15, 28, 21-37, 43-44, 55-56) It is estimated that the renovation and expansion of Ormond Beach Hospital will take from 18 to 24 months to complete. Approval of additional beds will result in dividing construction expenses among a greater number of patients, thus lowering costs of health care. On the other hand, without the addition of hospital beds, an increase in patient costs is to be expected. The addition of new beds will be a positive factor in Petitioner's recruitment of osteopathic physicians to the area and in initiating an intern training program. It should also serve to increase Petitioner's competitive position among other area hospitals and provide a better quality of care for its patients. (Testimony of Draper, Boxx, Hull, D. Smith, Clapper)
Recommendation That the application of Petitioner for a certificate of need for a 50 acute-care bed addition to its facility be approved in part for 38 additional acute-care beds. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric J. Haugdahl, Esquire Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bernard H. Dempsey, Jr., Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquires Suite 610 Eola Office Center 605 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 L. LaRue Williams, and Glenn R. Padgett, Esquires Kinsay, Vincent, Pyle, Williams and Tumbleson 52 South Peninsula Drive Daytona Beach, Florida 32018 Honorable Alvin Taylor Secretary, Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether notice was accorded the patient, as contemplated by section 766.316, Florida Statutes (2012).
Findings Of Fact Ashley Lamendola first presented to Gulf Coast OB/GYN on the morning of December 16, 2011, for a prenatal visit. This visit constituted the beginning of her professional relationship with the physicians who were part of the Gulf Coast OB/GYN group, which included Dr. Calderon and Dr. Shamas.1/ Violet Lamendola, Ms. Lamendola’s mother, accompanied Ms. Lamendola to that visit. When she arrived at Gulf Coast OB/GYN, Ms. Lamendola was given information and forms to fill out by the receptionist. According to both Ms. Lamendola and her mother, the materials included a NICA brochure in Spanish and an acknowledgment of receipt of the NICA form. While reviewing the materials, Ms. Lamendola, who does not speak Spanish, noted that the NICA brochure given to her was in Spanish. She asked her mother to take the brochure back to the receptionist. When Ms. Lamendola’s mother asked the receptionist about the Spanish brochure, the receptionist told her that the office had run out of NICA brochures printed in English, but that she would obtain one from another office and give it to Ms. Lamendola at the end of her appointment. Ms. Lamendola was instructed to sign and did sign the acknowledgment form so that she could see the physician. The acknowledgment form advised that all physicians in the Gulf Coast OB/GYN, P.A., were participating physicians in the NICA program. Ms. Lamendola received a black-and-white facsimile copy of the NICA brochure on her way out of the office along with other materials relating to prenatal and infant care. The brochure, received by Ms. Lamendola from Gulf Coast OB/GYN, bears a facsimile transmission header dated December 16, 2011, at 9:47 a.m. The brochure prepared by NICA is a color brochure which contains the following text in white letters on a light-to-medium green background on the back of the brochure: Section 766.301-766.316, Florida Statutes, (“NICA Law”) provides rights and remedies for certain birth-related neurological injuries and is an exclusive remedy. This brochure is prepared in accordance with the mandate of Section 766.316, Florida Statutes. A copy of the complete statute is available free of charge to completely inform patients of their rights and limitations under the application provision of Florida law. Since 1989, numerous court cases have interpreted the NICA law, clarifying legislative intent. The above-quoted language is absent from the facsimile copy of the brochure that Ms. Lamendola received from Gulf Coast OB/GYN. Apparently because the letters in the original brochure were white, the letters did not transmit. It is noted that on the front of the brochure, white lettering that appears on the green background of the color brochure did not transmit on the copy that Ms. Lamendola received. The majority of the information contained in Ms. Lamendola’s facsimile copy of the brochure is contained in the color copy of the brochure. The facsimile copy informed Ms. Lamendola that the statutes provide an exclusive remedy and a copy of the statutes may be obtained from NICA. The facsimile outlined the rights and limitations provided in the statutes. The only things that are not contained in the original brochure are that a copy of the statutes is available free of charge, the preparation of the brochure was mandated by section 766.316, and court cases have interpreted the statutes. St. Petersburg General Hospital offers a tour of its obstetrical department to expectant mothers and their families. Ms. Lamendola’s mother called St. Petersburg General Hospital to register for a tour. The hospital employee who was scheduling the tour asked to speak to Ms. Lamendola to obtain pertinent biographical information. Ms. Lamendola provided the information to the hospital employee. The tour is an informational tour and attendance at the tour does not constitute pre-registration at St. Petersburg General Hospital for the delivery of a baby. Ms. Lamendola and her mother, along with 12 other couples, attended the tour on March 22, 2012. During the tour, Ms. Lamendola received a tour packet, which contained a document titled Preadmission and Financial Information. This document instructed Ms. Lamendola to fill out the pre-admission form and return it to the hospital. Ms. Lamendola filled out the pre- admission form, but did not return it to St. Petersburg General Hospital. Ms. Lamendola did not pre-register for admission to the hospital. On April 3, 2012, Ms. Lamendola presented to St. Petersburg General Hospital with complaints of vaginal bleeding. Ms. Lamendola was told by a hospital employee that she was already in the system and that additional information would not be necessary. Ms. Lamendola signed a “Consent to Treat” form and was treated in the labor and delivery unit of the hospital. A short time later, she was given informational materials relating to prenatal and infant care and released. She was not given a NICA brochure during the visit on April 3, 2012. It was the hospital’s policy to give a NICA brochure to a patient only when the patient was being admitted as an inpatient for delivery of her baby. Ms. Lamendola’s professional relationship with St. Petersburg General Hospital relating to her pregnancy began with her visit on April 3, 2012. At 20:19 on June 26, 2012, Ms. Lamendola presented to St. Petersburg General Hospital. She had been experiencing contractions for six hours prior to her arrival at the hospital. She had been placed on bed rest for gestational hypertension five days prior to coming to the hospital. When she arrived at the hospital, she had hypertension. Normally when a patient is 37 to 39 weeks gestation, her physician will bring the prenatal records to the hospital or the physician’s office will send the records to the hospital by facsimile transmission. When Ms. Lamendola arrived at St. Petersburg General Hospital, her prenatal records from her physicians’ office were not on file. Megan Muse, R.N., was on duty when Ms. Lamendola presented at St. Petersburg General Hospital. Because Ms. Lamendola’s records were not on file, Ms. Muse requested that Bayfront Hospital send Ms. Lamendola’s records to St. Petersburg General Hospital. The evidence did not establish how Ms. Muse knew that the prenatal records were at Bayfront Hospital. Ms. Lamendola’s prenatal records, consisting of 11 pages, were sent by facsimile transmission to St. Petersburg General Hospital beginning at 21:35 on June 26, 2012. Ms. Muse recorded in her notes that Ms. Lamendola’s prenatal records were received from Bayfront Hospital at 21:45 on June 26, 2012. Although Ms. Lamendola’s prenatal records may have been sent to Bayfront Hospital, it was never Ms. Lamendola’s intention to deliver her baby at Bayfront Hospital. She took the informational tour offered by St. Petersburg General Hospital and went to St. Petersburg General Hospital in April 2012 when she had a problem related to her pregnancy. At 20:33, Dr. Javate admitted Ms. Lamendola to St. Petersburg General Hospital for the delivery of her infant. Ms. Lamendola was examined by Emanuel Javate, M.D., at approximately 21:35. At 22:02, Ms. Lamendola signed the hospital’s Condition of Admission form. At 22:10 the hospital gave Ms. Lamendola the brochure prepared by NICA, and Ms. Lamendola signed the acknowledgment form, acknowledging that she had received the brochure. Ms. Lamendola gave birth to Hunter Lamendola (Hunter) on June 27, 2012, at St. Petersburg General Hospital, which is a licensed Florida Hospital. At birth, Hunter weighed in excess of 2,500 grams and was a single gestation. Ashley Lamendola received obstetrical care from Guillermo Calderon, M.D. Dr. Calderon was a “participating physician” as defined in section 766.302(7). Christina Shamas, M.D., provided obstetrical services in the course of labor, delivery, and resuscitation in the immediate post-delivery period. Dr. Shamas was a “participating physician” as defined in section 766.302(7).
The Issue Whether there is need for a new 60-bed general acute care hospital in Seminole County? If so, to which of two applicants should a CON be awarded to construct and operate the hospital: Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc. (CON 9496), or Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Florida Hospital (CON 9497)?
Findings Of Fact The Battleground: District 7 At the heart of the conflict in this proceeding is that the two corporate combatants are the dominant providers of hospital services in major metropolitan Orlando and both are providers of very high quality acute care hospital services. Each seeks authority to construct and operate a 60-bed general acute care hospital in the fast-growing community of Oviedo, Florida. The Agency for Health Care Administration, arbiter of the conflict, has introduced a quarrel of its own by its determination that there is no need for the hospital in Oviedo, a determination with which the hospitals decidedly take issue. Oviedo is an incorporated area in east Seminole County. Seminole County, in turn, is a county that with two other counties makes a contribution by suburb or city center to the conurbation in and around Orlando, Florida's largest non-coastal city. Seminole County is also one of four counties that comprise District 7, one of eleven health service planning districts into which the Legislature has partitioned the state. See Section 408.032(5), Florida Statutes. The other three counties in the District are Orange, Osceola and, removed from the controversy in this case, Brevard. The four counties are each considered by rule of AHCA to constitute a sub-district of District 7. Brevard is Sub-district 1; Orange, sub-district 2; Seminole, sub-district 3; and, Osceola, sub-district 4. The parties consider parts of Seminole and Osceola Counties to constitute the major metropolitan area of the City of Orlando together with, of course, parts of Orange County, the county that contains incorporated Orlando. As indicated above and by its irrelevance to this proceeding, no part of Brevard County is considered by the parties to make up any of metropolitan Orlando. There is also one county outside District 7 about which the parties introduced evidence, Lake County in District 3. Nonetheless, District 7 remains the primary battleground with a focus on sub-district 3 as the site of the CON sought by the parties. The Parties AHCA The Agency for Health Care Administration is the state agency responsible for the administration of the CON program in Florida pursuant to the Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. ORHS One of the two dominant health care providers in the Orlando area, Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc., is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that owns and operates eight facilities in the four-county area of Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Lake Counties, "the only market" (tr. 22) that it serves. Half of ORHS's facilities are in Orange County. These four facilities are: Orlando Regional Medical Center, a 517-bed general acute care hospital that provides tertiary services in addition to routine acute care hospital services and that is the site of a trauma center; Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children and Women, a 281-bed specialty hospital that provides women's and children's services including neonatal services; Orlando Regional Sand Lake Hospital, a 153-bed general acute care facility that provides comprehensive medical rehabilitation services; and Orlando Regional Lucerne Hospital, a 267-bed general acute care hospital that provides comprehensive medical rehabilitation and skilled nursing unit services. In Seminole County, ORHS wholly owns and operates Orlando Regional South Seminole Hospital ("South Seminole"), a 206-bed general acute care facility that provides adult/child psychiatric and adult substance abuse services as well as general acute care services. In Osceola County, ORHS owns Orlando Regional St. Cloud Hospital, an 84-bed general acute care facility. In Lake County, ORHS jointly owns and operates two health care facilities under joint venture business arrangements: South Lake Hospital, a 68-bed general acute care facility and Leesburg Regional Medical Center, a 294-bed general acute care facility. The wholly owned facilities operate under a single license and are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations ("JCAHO"). One of six statutory teaching hospitals in the state, ORHS has been in continuous existence since 1918. Its mission is to be a local, unaffiliated health care provider, providing health care services to the citizens of Central Florida. Recognized as one of the top 100 hospitals in the United States by US News and World Report, ORHS has been the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions. As but one example, it was the winner of a Consumer Choice Award from the National Research Corporation for the years 1999 through 2001. Orlando Regional Healthcare System provides outstanding health care of the highest quality to patients at its eight facilities in three of the four counties in AHCA's Health Care Planning District 7. Florida Hospital The other dominant health care provider in the Orlando area is Florida Hospital. Founded as a sanitarium, Florida Hospital has been in existence and a presence in the Orlando medical community since 1908. Florida Hospital is part of the Adventist Health System, a not-for-profit hospital organization that operates hospitals throughout the country. In the Orlando area, Florida Hospital has seven acute care campus systems operated under a single license in a three- county area: Orange, Seminole and Osceola Counties. The original and main campus is located in downtown Orlando. A second campus is in East Orlando. The five other facilities are in Altamonte Springs, to the northwest of Orlando; Apopka, further northwest; Winter Park, just north of Orlando; and Celebration and Kissimmee, both southwest of the city. Florida Hospital also operates Florida Hospital Waterman under a separate license in Lake County in District 3. The seven campuses in District 7 are unified by more than just licensure. Consistent with their operation under a single license, all seven operate under a single provider number with Medicare/Medicaid. They have a single medical staff and a single accreditation with JCAHO. The seven Florida Hospital campuses operate under a single leadership structure; all policies, procedures and matters that pertain to the operation of the hospital are part of the single body of operational guidelines and procedures that are provided by the organization. The seven campuses also operate under a single price structure, a single charge master that runs across the entire organization. The goal of operating the seven campuses in a unified manner is to maintain continuity and promote one standard of care so that when a patient enters any of the facilities, the patient can rely on receiving the same high standard of care as would be received at any other Florida Hospital facility. Operation under a single structure also provides a patient with the coverage of physicians and staff throughout the system to cover any and all needs of the patient. From its inception, the mission of Florida Hospital has been to extend a religious ministry of healing to the community consistent with Adventist principles. Among these principles are awareness of the eternal nature of the moment at which care is extended to the patient as well as recognition of each patient as a child of God, entitled to the highest possible quality of care embodied in "whole person health" (tr. 876) composed of physical, mental and spiritual well-being. Florida Hospital carries out its mission with "a strong sense of stewardship for providing care in the communities that [the hospital] serve[s] . . . ." (Tr. 875). The success of Florida Hospital's philosophy of care is evident in recognition bestowed by others. For example, Florida Hospital was recognized as being among the top 50 hospitals in the country for nine specialties in the July 2002 edition of U.S. News & World Report's "America's Best Hospitals." To take but one of the nine, "Heart & Heart Surgery," Florida Hospital is ranked 12th in the nation in the company of those ranked just above: Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic (Rochester), Massachusetts General, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Duke University Medical Center, Johns Hopkins, Texas Heart Institute-St. Luke's in Houston, Emory University Hospital, Stanford University Hospital, Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis and the UCLA Medical Center. Well-Matched Applicants In its state agency action report ("SAAR"), AHCA noted that ORHS and Florida Hospital are two large, well-matched hospital systems. Both operate over 1,500 beds in the Orlando area. Both generate approximately two billion dollars of gross charges annually. Both deliver over 300,000 patient days of patient care. Together, they are the overwhelmingly dominant providers of health care in the major metropolitan Orlando area. In the SAAR, the Agency discussed distinctions between the two applicants. Had AHCA determined that there was need for the facility, it would have had a difficult time deciding which corporation should be awarded the CON. None of the distinctions between the two were found by AHCA to be substantial enough to serve as a basis for choosing either applicant over the other. Other District 7 Hospitals Besides the two applicants, the dominant providers of hospital services in District 7 by virtue of number of facilities (13 hospitals in the District and three hospitals in Lake County immediately adjacent to the District), among other reasons, there are three other hospitals in the District. Health Central is a hospital operated by a statutorily created tax district in the City of Ocoee, in Orange County. Central Florida Regional Hospital is owned and operated by Hospital Corporation of America ("HCA") located in the City of Sanford in Seminole County. It is approximately 14 miles from the proposed locations of the applicant's facilities. Osceola Regional Medical Center, another HCA facility, is located in Kissimmee in Osceola County, not far from Florida Hospital's Kissimmee and Celebration facilities. Stipulation The parties stipulated to the following: The applicable fixed-need is zero. Both applications complied with the requirements of Sections 408.037, 408.038 and Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 408.039, Florida Statutes, and the requirements of Rules 59C-1.008 and 59C-1.010, Florida Administrative Code. Both applications meet the review criteria contained in Subsections 408.035 (3),(6),(8),(10) and (11), Florida Statutes and the review criteria in Subsections 408.035(4),(5) and (12), Florida Statutes, are not applicable in this case. The statutory review criteria at issue in this case are Subsections 408.035(1), (2), (7) and (9), Florida Statutes. Numeric Need Numeric need for general acute care beds is determined pursuant to Agency rule, Rule 59C-1.038, Florida Administrative Code. The rule's methodology for the calculation of numeric need for general acute care beds is by sub-district. Since "there really is no longer a future projection methodology in the rule . . . it was stricken out two or three years ago," Gene Nelson, one of ORHS' experts in health planning, refers to the rule as containing a "retrospective occupancy model." (Tr. 619). Under the methodology, additional beds are not normally approved in any sub-district where historic occupancy is less than 75%. If occupancy exceeds 75%, beds will be awarded to bring occupancy down to 75%. In other words, instead of projecting forward as it once did to determine need, the rule looks back to occupancy. If occupancy in the sub- district has met the threshold, then positive numeric need is established. Criticism has been leveled at the methodology. Not taking into account future population growth or occupancy rates at times other than midnight, are but two examples. Criticism, however, of the rule is of little moment in this case since the case is a challenge to agency action not to the rule that contains the methodology. Whatever the appropriateness or validity of the criticism, the calculations pursuant to the methodology have not yielded a fixed-need pool above zero for any of the many sub- districts in the eleven districts of the state for some years now. Nor is numeric need for general acute care beds expected by the Agency to exceed zero anywhere in the state for the foreseeable future. During this time of numeric need "drought," AHCA, nonetheless has awarded CONs for new general acute care beds and even new hospitals on a number of occasions. For example, "[d]espite the fact that there was an applicant proposing to relocate beds within the subdistrict, which wouldn't have affected the bed inventory at all, the state elected to approve [another] applicant . . . that applied for a brand-new 60 bed hospital" (tr. 635) in the community of Lady Lake in District 3. The application in that instance had been filed in the fall of 1998. In a second example, in the fall of 2001, a few years later, Osceola Regional and Florida Hospital Celebration were each approved to add beds to existing facilities despite the fact that there was no numeric need and the hospitals did not meet the statutory occupancy levels for additional beds. Mr. Nelson also testified about a third recent example where a new hospital was built when the subdistrict occupancy was low, the facts of which compare favorably, in his view, with the facts in this case. As he tells it, these three cases, compared to this case, produce inconsistency: In the fall of 1999, Sacred Heart Hospital applied to build a new 60-bed hospital in the southern portion of Walton County. That particular subdistrict is actually a two-county subdistrict consisting of Okaloosa and Walton counties, has some existing hospitals, current subdistrict occupancy in that area is 56.3 percent. Despite . . . the low occupancy . . . the state recognized the validity of the arguments about a growing population, about accessibility, many of the same issues that you have here and approved Sacred Heart to build a new 60-bed hospital in that location. * * * I am not criticizing any of these approvals. I . . . am criticizing [that the state was] presented with a similar set of circumstances in this case [and] the applications were all denied. And I think there is an inconsistency here. (Tr. 637-8). During the same period, moreover, beds have been added to existing hospitals without CON review, accomplished by way of Section 408.036(n), Florida Statutes. The statute allows 10 beds or 10% of licensed bed capacity to be added to a hospital's acute bed inventory upon certification "that the prior 12-month average occupancy rate for the category of licensed beds being expanded at the facility meets or exceeds 80% . . . ." Section 408.036(n)(1)a., Florida Statutes. See also Rule 59C-1.038(5), Florida Administrative Code. The bed additions made with and without CON review contribute to current numeric need determinations of "zero" and the continued reasonable expectation that AHCA's methodology for determining acute care bed numeric need will not yield numeric need in excess of zero for years to come. Most pertinently to this case, these additions erode AHCA's position advanced in hearing in this case for a preference to keep open the option for a future competitor, a competitor other than one of the two dominant providers, presumably when numeric need has been determined to exist, a condition not likely to come into play for the foreseeable future. However the future plays itself out and the effect on AHCA's current methodology, there remains one point central to consideration in this case. In light of a numeric need of "zero" for the applicable batching cycle, for a CON to be awarded as a result of this proceeding, as a first step, the applicants must demonstrate the existence of "not normal" circumstances that support an award. The two applicants attempt that step in tandem. Both ORHS and Florida Hospital contend that rapid population growth, problems of access to acute care and emergency services in the Oveido area, and mal-distribution of beds in the sub-district and district constitute circumstances that justify need for their proposed facilities. In other words, they are "not normal" circumstances. Not Normal Circumstances - Population Growth A rural farm community not long ago with a population of about 7,500, the City of Oviedo, in the last 15 years, has grown into an Orlando bedroom community. The population increase within the city limits is proof of the city's metamorphosis from countryside to suburb. During this period of time, the municipal population has nearly quadrupled to 28,000 with no end in sight to continued growth in the area as explained by ORHS' expert, Dr. Rond: The special circumstances . . . that drive this application are, first, the unprecedented population growth. As we have seen, we are experiencing population growth in excess of a hundred percent in the east Seminole area. In the adjacent Winter Springs area, we are experiencing a rate in excess of 51 percent. We are talking about a population that is going to reach almost 200,000 people by the year 2006. (Tr. 377-8). The area is projected for an additional 18.2% growth by 2006, when as testified to by Dr. Rond, the population will reach nearly 200,000. The municipal population is not the only population of a political entity in the area to quadruple in modern memory. Over the past three decades Seminole County has grown fourfold - from 83,692 in 1970 to 365,196 in 2000. As a result, the county is the third most densely populated of the state's 67 counties. Until the mid-1990's, population growth was concentrated in the western half of the county as Orlando area development spread north into Seminole County along the I-4 and U.S. Highway 17/92 corridors. Since then the rate of population growth has been dramatic in east Seminole County in part because of the opening of another major transportation corridor, the "Greenway," Highway 417. Between 1990 and 2001, east Seminole County more than doubled in size (24,840 to 51,287; a 107% increase) while West Seminole grew by only 22%. East Seminole County is expected to remain the fastest growing portion of the county into the foreseeable future. With approximately 43% of the total land area of the county but only about 16% of the population, it remains much less densely populated than the remainder of the county, affording greater opportunities for future growth. Seminole County is unique in the state from the perspective of bed-to-population ratios. The three hospitals in Seminole County with a combined total of 575 licensed beds, yield a ratio of 1.55 beds per 1,000 population; tied for lowest bed to population ratio of the sub-districts in the state. The only area with a comparable ratio is Sub-district 8-4, comprised of Glades and Hendry Counties, located southwest of Lake Okeechobee, "a very rural area." (Tr. 625). While these two sub-districts are similar in bed to population ratio, they are at opposite extremes in terms of population density. The population of Seminole County, at 371,000 is nearly nine times the combined populations of Glades and Hendry Counties at slightly more than 42,000. Sub-district 8-4 is "totally unlike Seminole County from the standpoint of population demographics; and yet in terms of resource availability, . . . it has a comparable amount of resources per thousand population." (Id.) Thus, Seminole County occupies a unique place in the state for its low bed-to- population ratio considering its overall population. Population forecasts for the next five-year period support the expectation of continued strong growth in east Seminole County. For example, the downtown area of Oviedo plans a residential area with a density up to 50 dwellings per acre, at least one of the highest in the County. In the City of Oviedo vicinity, median densities are increasing from 4 homes per acre to 10, to allow for townhouses. East Seminole County is reasonably expected to have 60,597 residents by the year 2006, an 18.2% increase over 2001. By comparison, West Seminole County is expected to experience only a 6.3% rate of growth. Projected growth in the City of Oviedo, moreover, is in all likelihood understated due to significant residential developments currently underway that alone are expected to add up to 6,238 new residents to the city's population. One need only look to actual growth in the area for support for such a prediction. Actual growth has consistently outpaced projected growth governed by methodologies that have repeatedly failed to reflect the reality of population growth in Oviedo. Related to population growth are utilization projections by the applicants' health planning experts for an Oviedo hospital. Judy Horowitz, Florida Hospital's expert health care planner, explained Florida Hospital's: [W]e looked at historically what had come out of the service area as we defined it. We projected that that volume would grow in proportion to population growth. We looked at a subset of services, those that were likely to be provided at a community hospital as was being proposed by Florida Hospital Oviedo. We looked at what we thought a reasonable market share would be; and our overall forecast is that within two years of opening this facility, that we would reach 77 percent occupancy at a 60-bed facility. So our year two, which is the 12 months ending June of 2007, . . . . we would already be at 77 percent occupancy. Then our first year we would be at approximately 68 percent occupancy. * * * [T]here is clearly sufficient demand to support the hospital as proposed; and the fact that we are projecting a relatively high utilization very quickly shows the magnitude of that demand. (Tr. 1352, 1353). With the high level of population growth and the demand for hospital services that such growth generates, the citizens of Oviedo expect access to hospital care within the community. In keeping with citizen expectation, the City of Oviedo has adopted a resolution that urges AHCA to approve a new hospital in the Oviedo community. It has been joined in its resolve by the Board of County Commissioners for Seminole County through a resolution of its own. To underscore the force of the two resolutions, the corporate parties presented the testimony of representatives of both the City Council and the County Commission. Grant Malloy, the County Commissioner for County District I who grew up in the area with fond childhood memories of "being overcome by the orange blossom smells, they were so intense," (tr. 802) described the growth observed first-hand by him during his lifetime as "phenomenal." (Tr. 806). In answer to the question whether his constituents would benefit by a new 60-bed hospital, Commissioner Malloy testified I do believe so. There is . . . the growth that's occurring there. And I heard . . . discussion about getting to some of the other hospitals. And once you get out of Seminole County . . . the roads are very, very difficult to travel on especially getting into Orlando. Especially rush hour . . . . . . . [T]he growth . . . would support such a facility. I know our board passed a resolution, along with the City of Oviedo[.] [O]ur board, and all the commissioners are unanimously supportive of a hospital in the area. I haven't heard from any residents or constituents that have said it was a bad idea. . . . [P]eople are pretty excited about it. (Tr. 807-8). Tom O'Hanlon, Chairman of the City Council, in the company of three other members of the council, unequivocally backed up Commissioner Malloy's appeal for a new hospital. The changes he has seen in Oviedo, he described as: Dramatic changes. When I moved there, [Oviedo] was a very rural area, and it is no longer . . .; it’s a highly compacted urban area. [W]e are working on a new master plan for downtown, which will have higher densities than we have in our city today. (Tr. 812). Chairman O'Hanlon went on to describe how the pace of the growth continuously outstrips population projections that are the product of the City's best efforts to follow appropriate methodologies for making such projections: [T]he city continually makes population projections. I have always been involved with them[.] [T]here are guidelines . . .; and everytime we make them, the city grows far in excess of th[e] projections. The area is such a dynamic area because we have got the University of Central Florida there, which is just growing as fast as the city is, maybe even faster. You have the Research Park there and you have got excellent schools. And for that combination . . . everybody wants to move there. (Tr. 812-3). The university is just south of the city limits. It has minimal dormitory facilities on campus. The result is that "a vast majority [of students] live off campus in housing and apartments [and they are impacting all the services that must be provided in Oviedo.]" (Tr. 814). Following this testimony of Chairman O'Hanlon, the following colloquy ensued between him and counsel for ORHS: Q Is it fair to say, Councilman O'Hanlon, that the City of Oviedo and surrounding area is in growing urban area that has everything but a hospital? A That is a true statement. Q Are you familiar, Councilman O'Hanlon, with the proposals of Orlando Regional Healthcare System and Florida Hospital to locate a 60-bed hospital in the City of Oviedo? A Yes. Q Do you support that effort? A A hundred percent. Q Do you believe, Councilman O'Hanlon, it would be of benefit to your constituents to have that [hospital] in the city of Oviedo? A Absolutely. People approach me every week wanting to know where our hospital is. Q Can't understand why it's not there already?A Well what they understand is that there is a tremendous need for a hospital and they don't understand why it's not in the process. (Tr 816-7). Residents of Oviedo also do not understand why they have to drive for such a long time to reach a hospital particularly when their goal is the emergency department. This concern about which Councilman O'Hanlon hears from a constituent "at least once a month" (tr. 819) also made its way into the resolutions of the two political bodies in the form of an identical introductory clause, as follows: "WHEREAS, there are increasing problems with timely access to care especially for emergencies," (Joint ORHS/Florida Hospital Nos. 8 and 10). It is, moreover, a concern that takes up the second prong of the applicants' case for "not normal" circumstances: issues of access. - Access The Oviedo Service Area Although similarities exist between the two, the Oviedo Service Areas defined by the two applicants are somewhat different. The service area selected by ORHS is larger than the service area selected by Florida Hospital. The Primary Service Area ("PSA") for ORHS' proposed hospital is composed of four zip codes: 32765, 32732, 32766, and 32708. Of the four, the first three are in eastern Seminole County, that is, east of Highway 417, the Greenway, and south of Lake Jessup. The fourth, 32708 in the Winter Springs area, is just west of the Greenway. The Winter Springs zip code was included in ORHS' PSA in part because it is adjacent to the Greenway. It has also experienced tremendous population growth and is very close to the proposed site for ORHS' hospital. A secondary service area proposed by ORHS is composed of a zip code in Seminole County north of Lake Jessup, 32773, and three zip codes in Orange County, 32817, 32820, and 32826. Located in the midst of the three Orange County zip codes is zip code 32816. It appears on ORHS exhibits as part of the secondary service area. As the zip code for the University of Central Florida, it has a very low residential population so that there are only a few students who might live in a dorm that would list it as their residence when receiving hospital services. There are actually "very few" (tr. 302) discharges from zip code 32816. If one does not include zip code 32816 then ORHS' service area is a comprised of eight zip codes. The April 1, 2001, population for the primary and secondary service areas or the service area designated by ORHS is 170,774. This service area has more than doubled in population over the last decade. Over the next five years, the service area is expected to reach 193,408 residents, of which 45% will be of prime child bearing age (15-44), "a dominant position for that age cohort within the population." (Tr. 315). The Oviedo service area is defined by Florida Hospital as four zip codes in Seminole County, 32708, 32732, 32765, and 32766 and one in Orange County: 32826 (all zip codes in ORHS' service area) with a population of more than 100,000. Florida Hospital's service area does not include Zip Code 32773 (the zip code north of Lake Jessup) that is in ORHS' service area nor, with the exception of 32826, does it include any of the Orange County zip codes that are in ORHS' service area. Thus, there are five zip codes in what Florida Hospital regards as the Oviedo Service Area and eight in what ORHS regards as the Oviedo Service Area if zip code 32816 is excluded. Although somewhat different, for purposes of examining travel distance and time between Oviedo and area hospitals, the Oviedo Service Areas of the two applicants are similar enough to be considered to be the same. Or, as William E. Tipton, an expert in traffic transportation and civil engineering, testified at hearing, the results of his study entitled "Travel Time Analysis Proposed ORHS Oviedo Campus, Oviedo, Florida" (ORHS Ex. 14) would not be substantially different if he had focused on the Florida Hospital site instead of the ORHS site. Travel Time Analysis Mr. Tipton prepared a travel time analysis to evaluate the differences in travel time that could be anticipated with the development of a hospital campus in Oviedo. Mr. Tipton's study concluded that there would be a reduction of average daily travel time from the ORHS PSA to a hospital by 64% or 18 minutes. The maximum reduction will be 75% of the time or 21 minutes. In the critical peak afternoon hour, there will be a maximum reduction of 79% or 22 minutes in time from that which exists today. The reductions in drive distance for Oviedo area residents if a hospital were in Oviedo would be significant especially in the arena of emergency services. Emergency Services Access to emergency services at a hospital emergency department ("ED") is one of the most important factors in making sure people have reasonable access to community hospitals. "[Y]ou really need . . . immediate care for emergencies, and so it's important to be able to get to the emergency department quickly and to receive care rapidly once you get there." (Tr. 336). Between 1997 and 2001, the hospitals experiencing the highest percentage of ED visit increase, other than Health Central, were Florida Hospital East in Orange County and South Seminole Hospital in Seminole County. During the period between 1997 and 2001, although the population of Seminole County grew less than Orange County, Seminole County had a larger percentage of ED visits. Specifically, the population of Seminole County grew 12% but its ED visits increased 23%, twice its population growth. During the same period, the population of Orange County grew by 15% but its ED visits only increased by 17%. Closer examination of these statistics reveals that ED visits in the downtown area of Orlando, to include Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital, were below the county average. However, suburban hospitals, or those in outlying areas, particularly near Oviedo, had much greater ED visit growth: ED visits grew 27% at Florida Hospital Apopka and 37% at Florida Hospital East. Florida Hospital East is the closest hospital in Orange County to the Oviedo area. Of the hospitals in Seminole County, South Seminole was the most severely affected by ED visit increase with a 38% increase of ED visits between 1997 and 2001. (ED visits in excess of 27,000 by area residents are projected in 2006.) In the Oviedo area there are unfortunate but not uncommon delays in emergency transport. More than 20% of emergency transports involve delays of in excess of 45 minutes after arrival at the hospital. These delays are serious because patient outcomes decline dramatically if definitive care is not delivered within the "golden hour," a concept that: reflects the fact that patient outcomes decline [dra]matically in terms of . . . mortality rates if definitive care is not delivered within one hour of the traumatic injury that has been sustained. In cardiology, they tend to . . . say "time is muscle," * * * the longer it takes for a patient to get definitive care following a major cardiovascular event, the more muscle mass is likely to be damaged. . . . [Y]ou can go on and talk about stroke victims, cerebral vascular patients and just a whole array of patients who [fare] much better in terms of morbidity and mortality if they receive definitive care within an hour of the episode. (Tr. 336). Part of the delay for patients in need of prompt emergency services is due to ambulance standing time. Standing time is the time a patient waits in the ambulance or hallway of the emergency department before the patient is seen by medical staff. This standing time does not include the time it takes the ambulance to respond to the call or the time the EMS personnel spend at the scene to stabilize the patient. Nor does it include the travel time to the hospital from the scene. Ambulance standing time for patients from the Oviedo area on average is between 42 and 47 minutes. When average travel times established in Mr. Tipton's study are combined with the standing times, there is not one existing provider of emergency services that can provide a patient from Florida Hospital's Oviedo Service Area or ORHS' PSA with emergency care within the "golden hour." This combination, moreover, as stated above, does not take into account the dispatch time and time of the ambulance at the scene. The typical types of emergency calls EMS personnel see in Oviedo include difficulty breathing, auto accidents, kids falling off bicycles, heart attacks, and drug overdoses. The largest majority of calls would go to a local community hospital as opposed to trauma center in downtown Orlando. Jeffrey M. Gregg, Chief of the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation, which includes the Certificate of Need Program for the Agency for Health Care Administration, testified that emergency room access is a problem that has gotten worse over time. Mr. Gregg also stated that a new hospital in the area will improve emergency access for people in the immediate area. A new hospital in Oviedo service area would also benefit and improve emergency access for patients in Orange County emergency rooms by lessening the emergency patient loads they experience. Wayne Martin, Fire Chief, Emergency Management Director, City of Oviedo, testified that the standing times and delays at the area hospital emergency rooms tie up Oviedo area ambulance services for an extended period of time. Emergency Medical Service ("EMS") staff must stay with their patient until the patient is taken into the emergency room and given medical care by emergency department staff. Because of these delays, EMS staff are out of their service area for extended periods of time. This decreases the level of service for the residents of the Oviedo area. One aspect of the problem influences another so as to create a compounding effect. Dr. Robert A. Schamberger, a family practitioner in Oviedo, testified that recently a patient went to the emergency room at an area hospital and it took 16 hours from the times she arrived until she was seen by the emergency room personnel. Dr. Schamberger tried to admit another patient of his in an area hospital on a recent Friday and was informed there were no beds. The hospital said they would call when they had an available bed. The patient was finally admitted on Monday. Emergency room waiting times across the entire community are several hours, which is an unacceptable care standard. Dr. Zulma Cintron practices internal medicine in Oviedo. Dr. Cintron testified that there is a "huge need" for a hospital in the Oviedo area. "We definitely need the beds." Dr. Cintron has had patients with chest pains who ended up waiting in the emergency room for four, five, and six hours before receiving care. Patients with less imminent needs have waited 12, 16 even 24 hours. Dr. Cintron's testimony for Florida Hospital was confirmed by the testimony produced by ORHS of Scott Greenwood, M.D., a cardiologist who heads a cardiology group. The evidence provided by Drs. Schamberger, Cintron And Greenwood, anecdotal though it may be, supports the existence of a problem with emergency services access in the Oviedo area that is shown by the analysis provided by the combination of Mr. Tipton's traffic study and ambulance standing time. So does projected volume for ED visits. Projected volume at Florida Hospital Oviedo in year two would be in excess of 27,000 visits. The Oviedo area has a population that "is adequate to support a hospital at high utilization levels within [a] short period of time and also will generate a significant number of emergency visits." (Tr. 1355). A new hospital facility in the Oviedo service area would help to alleviate the delays currently being experienced in the area hospital emergency departments. The Agency is not unaware of the problem and the solution that an Oviedo hospital would provide. The issue for AHCA is "[w]ould the improvement that would result for some people justify the construction of an new hospital?" (Tr. 726). The applicants claim that the three existing Seminole County hospitals are not appropriately located to provide emergency services required by the growing population of Oviedo. Put another way, within the sub-district and District 7, ORHS and Florida Hospital assert there is a mal-distribution of beds. Mal-distribution of Beds While population growth has increased dramatically in east Seminole the opening of health care facilities in the east part of the county has lagged behind; the area has more than 100,000 people but no hospital. The three acute care hospitals in Subdistrict 7-4 are all located in the western portion of Seminole County. People tend to use hospitals closest to them especially for emergency services. Because of the north/south nature of the road corridors in Seminole County and the congestion and distances involved in east/west travel in the county, the Oviedo area population's access to existing hospital service in the district is problematic. The population has better access to resources in Orange County, a different subdistrict, and, in fact, 66% of the Oviedo population take advantage of that better access. Consistent with the pattern of transportation development in Seminole County, all three hospitals in Seminole County are located between I-4 and U.S. Highway 17-92. Florida Hospital Altamonte is situated along the 436 corridor, whereas South Seminole Hospital is located further to the north on State Road 434, while Central Florida Regional Hospital is situated at the northern border of the county along the U.S. Highway 17-92 corridor. Dr. Rond had this to say about the locations of the three Seminole County hospitals in relation to the population in east Seminole County: The resources in the western part of the county are not situated in such a way that they are being utilized effectively by residents of [ORHS'] service area. Instead, they seek to move along the north/south corridor, primarily the Greenway, to utilize the services located in Orange County or … they take other routes of access to reach Winter Park Hospital, which is . . . in Orange County. (Tr. 319). The problem of distribution of hospitals is not restricted simply to inside the county. There is a mal- distribution in District 7 as well. Overall in the district, there are 2.3 beds per thousand. Orange County enjoys a ratio that is very high when compared to Seminole County's. Orange County's bed to population ratio is 2.7 beds per thousand, whereas Seminole County's is only 1.55 beds per thousand. The average bed ratio in Florida is 2.85 per thousand. Whether measured against the state ratio or the Orange County ratio, general acute care hospital beds per thousand population in Seminole County is low. The ratio comparison between Orange County and Seminole County will improve with an Oviedo Hospital although it makes the overall ratio only "a little closer; so that Orange County has beds per thousand and Seminole County would have 1.6 beds per thousand." (Tr. 316). The applicants intend to make that improvement with their proposed projects. The Proposed Projects ORHS' Orlando Regional proposes to construct a new 60-bed acute care hospital in the City of Oviedo. The location was described at hearing by Karl W. Hodges, ORHS vice president of Business Development: [T]he hospital [will be built] within a two- mile radius of . . . Highway 426, also called Loma and Mitchell Hammock Road which is also called Red Bug Road. [The CON Application] further stipulates we'll be east of 417. (Tr. 20). Within that area, ORHS proposes to build a three-story 155,000 square foot facility on approximately 35 acres of land. Although a site has not yet been purchased, there is at least one parcel of 35 acres of land available in the area that can be acquired by ORHS at a price of $7,000,000 or less, as indicated in its application. The bed complement of the proposed facility will be eight ICU beds, ten labor-delivery-recovery and post-partum ("LDRP") beds serving the obstetrics department, 15 telemetry monitored beds, and 27 medical/surgical acute care beds. The proposal will add 30 beds to the inventory of beds in the sub-district but it will not add beds to the inventory of District 7. The 60 beds will be transferred by ORHS from two facilities. Thirty of the beds will come from South Seminole Hospital (in Seminole County). By itself, moving the 30 beds within the sub-district "for the stated goal of enhancing access . . . is a non-controversial project" (tr. 627) that is not subject to a certificate of need methodology but that still requires CON review and approval. The other thirty beds will come from Orlando Regional Lucerne Hospital in Orange County. However attractive for its minimization of controversy, all 60 beds could not have been transferred from South Seminole because to do so would have raised its occupancy above 80%, "an untenable result." (Tr. 630). For the additional 30 beds, "Lucerne seemed like a logical choice, given its bed size and its utilization." (Tr. 628). The design of the proposed hospital is based on another ORHS facility: South Lake Hospital, a replacement facility that opened in January of 2000. Florida Hospital's Florida Hospital also proposes to construct a 60-bed acute care hospital in the City of Oviedo. Unlike ORHS, Florida Hospital owns the site, 15 acres at 8000 Red Bug Lake Road near an intersection with the Greenway. The site currently includes a two-story, 41,000 square foot medical office building and a one- story, 6,000 square foot urgent care center. A two-story, 161,000 square foot facility is proposed to be constructed on the remaining vacant space at the site that has been approved under the Development of Regional Impact process for a 120-bed hospital. Ownership of a DRI-approved site will save Florida Hospital time and expense entailed by permitting requirements. All 60 beds will be part of an innovative design referred to as a "universal room and universal care delivery model." For the present, Florida Hospital does not intend to provide obstetrics at the Oviedo facility but "all of the universal patient rooms are capable of being LDRP rooms" (tr. 1181) should Florida Hospital decide in the future to provide obstetric services at the hospital. Florida Hospital will transfer 60 beds from Orange County facilities so that Florida Hospital's proposal will increase the sub-district's bed inventory by 60 beds, 30 more than the increase that will be affected by ORHS' proposal. Just as with ORHS, Florida Hospital's proposal will not increase the bed inventory in District 7. Fifty beds will be transferred from Florida Hospital's Winter Park facility and 10 beds will transferred from Florida Hospital's Apopka facility. AHCA's View of the Proposals The Agency's conclusion that the applications did not demonstrate "not normal" circumstances was reached with difficulty. Review of the applications taxed the agency's decision-making process because of the challenging circumstances presented by the applicants. As Jeffrey Gregg testified for the Agency, when there is "no fixed-need pool," AHCA look[s] at applicants in terms of a unique set of circumstances that they present . . . and in this instance, The circumstances . . . in this case challenge the system, make it more difficult for [the Agency] to make a sound decision in the tradition of the CON program. (Tr. 723). However much in keeping or not with the tradition of the CON program, the determination that there were no "not normal" circumstances to justify need afforded a benefit to the Agency; it would not have to make the difficult choice between the applications. While it could have granted both applications, an option considered by the Agency (see tr. 729), no party contended in this proceeding that circumstances justify two new 60-bed hospitals in Oviedo. If need is proven for but one hospital, then a selection must be made. Yet, at every turn, AHCA has found one advantage held by an applicant to be defeated by another held by its opponent or one set of circumstances that would normally be an advantage neutralized by other considerations. For example, in view of the nature of the Orlando market, AHCA reasonably did not give much weight to ORHS' proposal to add fewer beds than Florida Hospital to the sub- district despite the fact that usually there would be advantage to a mere intra-sub-district move. In the absence of fixed need, for example, such a move would not have to be supported by "not normal" circumstances. To the contrary, however, from the point of view of practicality, it makes more sense "to take beds from a more urban setting [in Orange County, a different sub-district] where they are not being used [as proposed by Florida Hospital] and move them to a new rapidly growing area where there are not hospital beds." (Tr. 739). A sense of practicality guided AHCA throughout its CON review in this case. The Agency, in fact, approached the applications by "trying to be as practical as possible." (Id.) As explained by Mr. Gregg, again on behalf of AHCA: [The Agency] do[es] not give much weight to the fact that [the applicants] would be crossing subdistrict lines here and that one of them [ORHS] is in a position to . . . add fewer beds to the planning area. That's noted in the SAAR, but practically speaking, we are talking about a metropolitan area here. We are talking about in both cases large systems wanting to move beds from one part of their system to another part. So in many ways, . . . once again, [ORHS and Florida Hospital] are really well-matched and difficult to distinguish. (Tr. 724, emphasis supplied). The difficulty inherent in distinguishing between the applicants was repeatedly emphasized by the Agency. The point was brought home once more in questioning of Mr. Gregg by counsel at hearing: Q [W]ith regard to the minute distinctions between the applicants, at your deposition, some of the statements you made in that regard included [that ORHS and Florida Hospital] are both good citizens. All of these things in this case, coming up so close and so equal, that . . . in terms of CON analysis, it becomes very difficult . . . to make a distinction between the two of them. They are both just that good. And then also [the Agency] think[s] they compare very favorably, and very evenly, noting again and again and again that they are very, very close, very, very comparable. Is that still your position here today? A Yes. (Tr. 766-7). However close the Agency regards the two, there are differences in the applications. While some may not be of great benefit to a decision, others may serve to sustain a principled choice. Differences in the Applications Obstetrics The leading reason for hospitalization among area residents is the need for obstetrical services with births running at more than 2,000 per year. During the 12-month period ending June 2000, for example, childbirths accounted for 2,041 discharges. Of the top ten DRGs for discharges among area residents, uncomplicated vaginal delivery accounts for the most discharges, cesarean section ranks third and vaginal delivery with complications is seventh. In keeping with the demand for obstetrical services, the utilization patterns of the population in the Oviedo Service Area and the area's age composition, upon the opening of its facility, ORHS proposes to provide obstetrical services. The proposal is also due, in part, in response to the closing of the obstetric program at Florida Hospital East in May of 2001. There is physician support for ORHS' proposed obstetric services. Robert Bowles, M.D., testified by deposition that his group practice, Physician Associates of Florida, comprised of 14 obstetricians and gynecologists would cover obstetrics at an Oviedo hospital. While Dr. Bowles would not personally admit obstetrics patients at the new hospital, three of his partners would. Florida Hospital does not propose to provide obstetrics upon opening although it has designed its physical plant to provide an OB unit so that Florida Hospital would have the capability of initiating that service without a problem. In other words, Florida Hospital's proposed facility would be "OB- ready." (Tr. 725). Unlike ORHS, Florida Hospital does not have physician support for providing obstetric services at its proposed facility, a part of the reason for not offering OB. The basis for Florida Hospital's lack of physician support is a malpractice insurance crisis for obstetricians. Florida Hospital's proposed facility is not projected to open for another three years. If, during that time, the malpractice crisis eases and there is greater physician coverage availability, Florida Hospital could open obstetric services at the same the hospital opens since it will be OB-ready. Another reason that Florida Hospital has decided against offering obstetrics upon opening is that most maternity patients are more comfortable delivering babies in a setting that has neonatal intensive care services available. Two such settings are ORHS-Arnold Palmer and Florida Hospital's main campus. Indeed, a significant number of maternity patients from Oviedo are choosing to travel past multiple hospitals that offer obstetric services to have their babies delivered at one or the other of these two hospitals. Arnold Palmer, in fact, is the leading provider of obstetrical services to the residents of the Oviedo area's two most populous zip codes: 32708 and 32765, both more than 30 minutes driving time away from the hospital. Medicaid and Charity Care Conditions Approval of ORHS' CON is conditioned on a minimum of 7% of total annual patient days for Medicaid patients and 1% for charity care. Florida Hospital's application offers no conditions with regard to Medicaid or charity care. Like ORHS, Florida Hospital is one of the top ten providers in the State of indigent care, and a disproportionate share Medicaid provider. The Agency's view of the difference between ORHS' provision of indigent care conditions and Florida Hospital's decision to not condition its application was explained by Mr. Gregg: Conditions [such as those for indigent care] are important when it allows us to distinguish between applicants. They are less important when we have competing applicants, both of whom has such strong track records as these two do. . . . [W]e look at evidence of past performance relative to indigent care . . . . [I]n a case like this . . . both of these applicants have such good records in th[e] area [of indigent care]. They are both in the top ten statewide. . . . [A] promise of this condition or that condition [does not] give us particular concern one way or the other. They are both very good in that area [of Medicaid and charity care] and very tough to distinguish between. (Tr. 735-6). Architectural Design and Site The architectural plans of both applicants meet all codes that apply to a new hospital in the state of Florida. The ORHS design is tried and proven at ORHS' South Lake facility and will work on a 35-acre site. The size of Florida Hospital's site, 15 acres much smaller than ORHS', led to criticism of the site from ORHS experts. But the site is large enough to incorporate growth in the future. It can accommodate 320 beds and ancillary services. The design, moreover, takes these expansion capabilities into account. Related to the size of the site, the site's conservation area, comprised of wetlands and a forested upland buffer that will remain undeveloped indefinitely also produced criticism that the site is too cramped for a new hospital. But the conservation area, with its mature tree canopy, presents advantages. The hospital was designed to incorporate the view of the conservation area from hospital rooms because such a view is beneficial to the healing process. Furthermore, the conservation area can be used to satisfy water retention requirements. Florida Hospital's site is DRI-approved and part of a DRI master storm water plan that connects many ponds and wetlands. Surrounded by three roads, it has excellent access from existing roadways. Vehicular circulation is split to provide different public, service and emergency entrances. Innovation by Florida Hospital Unlike traditional hospital care models where the patient is moved from room to room depending on type and intensity of care, all care and services are provided to the patient in one "universal" room under the "universal delivery of care model." The model was developed by Florida Hospital. "The nursing leadership of the universal room design . . . was under the direction of Connie Hamilton." (Tr. 1080). Ms. Hamilton, accepted as an expert in nursing and nursing administration, explained at hearing that under the model, the room is designed to provide any type of care the patient might need. Whether the patient is admitted in acute care and then moves to intermediate care or med-surg, all care is provided within one "universal" room. Not only does the patient stay in one place, but as Ms. Hamilton testified, "[t]he nurses stay in one place in providing that care to [the patient] and the families know where the patient is and the physician knows where the patient is [at all times]." (Tr. 933). The universal care model streamlines the interactive processes of care of a patient. The care and attention of physicians, nursing staff and families devoted to moving the patient from room to room and keeping track of the patient as type and intensity of care changes is reduced to nearly zero if not eliminated entirely. The time, energy and resources formerly devoted to all that is entailed with changes in the patient's room is then free to be re-directed to care and attention paid to the patient. The result is enhancement of Florida Hospital's ability to provide "whole person" care consistent with Adventist principles of health care. The universal care delivery model is an innovative approach to the delivery of healthcare. Pioneered by Florida Hospital at Celebration Health, the universal care delivery model has been shown there to reduce medical error, reduce length of stay, reduce pharmacy costs, reduce nursing workload, reduce housekeeping work, and probably to reduce infection rates. Following the universal care model employed at Celebration Health, Florida Hospital has designed its proposed Oviedo hospital facility with universal rooms. Consistent with the universal care delivery model, the rooms are designed to improve the healing experience during hospitalization and minimize the patient's feeling of being in a hospital setting. Another benefit of the universal care model is high physician satisfaction due to continuity of nursing care and other factors. The physicians know where the patient is, that is, in the same location every day. Physicians, moreover, are not called at all hours of the day and night to effectuate patient transfers to other rooms. Kathleen Mitchell has studied the universal care model and published and submitted articles on the model to nursing journals. She has consulted with hospitals around the country interested in the model as well as the "health care arm of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Army, Navy, Veteran's Administration." (Tr. 1084). Ms. Mitchell, accepted as an expert in nursing amplified the testimony of Ms. Hamilton. With regard to the problem the universal care delivery model is designed to address, Ms. Mitchell testified: [T]ransferring patients for different levels of care . . . fractures continuum of care. It is . . . disruptive to everyone . . . involved . . . to the patient and their families . . ., to nursing, pharmacy, the physicians . . . . It creates a great deal of anxiety for patient and the families . . . even [those] who are getting better and moving to a lower acuity of care. One of the most significant things about transferring patients for different levels of care is it involves a great deal of work. Not only bundling the patient up, but the documentation and all the communication that goes along with securing a new location for the patient and expediting a transfer. And moving patients around creates a risk of medical error. The length of stay in hospitals has gotten so short and everybody is focused on reducing the length of stay that in the traditional model of care, nurses are turning over more than half their patient assignment daily . . . . [T]here is the confusion and risk that goes along with that. (Tr. 1086-1088). The benefits of the reduction and elimination of transfers produced by the universal care model were listed by Ms. Mitchell: increase in the continuity of care, reduction in nurse workload, high physician satisfaction, reduction in emergency room waiting time, family satisfaction, connectivity between patient, family and staff. Others were elaborated on by Ms. Mitchell. For example, reduction in pharmacy costs, probable reduction in infection and reduction in housekeeping costs: When you are meeting the needs of the patient in one location, you are not leaving medications behind or sending them to the wrong place, and there is work that nurses and pharmacists do with calling each other with ['] where is it, I can't find it, I sent it[',] all that goes away. We are demonstrating a low incidence of nosocomial infections because we expose our patients to one environment of organisms. This is a very difficult one to prove; even though we have a low incidence of nosocomial infections, we also have a fairly new facility [at Celebration], but it makes common sense that if you are reducing the transfer of the patient and the exposure . . . to different environments, you are reducing their exposure to organisms and will have a lower . . . infection rate. . . . [W]e don't strip linens off the beds and clean the beds where the bed was just made three hours ago, with all the patient transfers that are involved. So there is a reduction in . . . housekeeping work and . . . linen expense. (Tr. 1089-1090). Like the housekeeping efficiencies, the nursing staff benefits from the efficiencies associated with supplies. All of the supplies the nurse needs to care for the patient are close by, so the nurse saves time otherwise retrieving supplies from down the hall or in other areas of a hospital wing. Another benefit of the design is "connectivity to the outside world. The rooms have large windows . . . patients feel connected to the outside world . . . . " (Tr. 1091). This design feature will make use of the conservation area on the Florida Hospital site and the soothing vista it will provide to the patient, and assist in the healing process. Other Design Features Design drawings are a living and continually evolving process. The planning process of Florida Hospital for the design of its new Oviedo hospital involved specialty department experts and ancillary representatives discussing delivery of quality care for a patient throughout the system. The specialty experts and ancillary representative include radiology, emergency department, lab, pharmacy, and respiratory. The involvement of these people assures optimal patient flow throughout the system. In Florida Hospital's design plans, the patient flow and interaction between departments are well designed and well laid out so as to minimize the opportunity for confusion. In order to maximize efficiency, a larger number of beds in one nursing unit works better than smaller pockets. Florida Hospital's design plans have one 40-bed unit and one 38- bed unit. This design gives more flexibility and can expand or shrink more easily as needed. You don't have to open up another unit and staff it so often, when adding only one or two patients. Florida Hospital designed its facility specifically to take advantage of the economies of scale that being a satellite hospital in a larger system provide. For example, Florida Hospital's general storage, central lab, and other areas were purposely designed smaller than one would typically find because Florida Hospital operates a system-wide central warehouse, thus greatly reducing the need for central storage areas. Likewise, Florida Hospital operates a system-wide central clinical lab, thus minimizing the space necessary within a hospital like Oviedo for lab space. ORHS did not design its facility to take advantage of the economies scale of being part of a system. Presence in Oviedo Florida Hospital has had a presence in the Oviedo community since the 1970's, when it purchased land in the Red Bug corridor area. In the 1980's, Florida Hospital built a medical office facility in Oviedo and began to recruit and encourage physicians to practice in the area. When Florida Hospital acquired Winter Park Hospital, its commitment to the community of Oviedo increased by virtue of the fact that the Winter Park Hospital organization already had property and outpatient facilities in Oviedo. The result of Florida Hospital's early presence in Oviedo is that it has a high degree of physician support in place in the Oviedo community. Many of the primary care physicians in Oviedo refer their surgical cases to Florida Hospital. Florida Hospital purchased Winter Park Hospital on or about July 1, 2000. With that purchase, Florida Hospital acquired the hospital site in Oviedo. With the purchase of Winter Park Hospital, Florida Hospital also "purchased" Winter Park's plan to build a hospital in Oviedo. The Florida Hospital site has long been recognized as the "Hospital Site" in Oviedo. Immediately after purchasing Winter Park Hospital, Florida Hospital went to work on developing a plan to build a hospital in Oviedo. Florida Hospital began meeting with Oviedo city leaders in the fall of 2000 and early 2001; Florida Hospital also assembled a team of people from all areas of Florida Hospital including radiology, clinical services, marketing, finance, facilities, and engineering to work toward the development of a Certificate of Need application for a hospital on its site in Oviedo. Florida Hospital's two existing medical office buildings in Oviedo contain over 60,000 square feet of medical office space, in which are housed physicians practicing in a wide range of areas including Family Practice, Internal Medicine, General Surgery, Orthopedic Surgery, Urology, Radiology, Gastroenterology, Ear, Nose and Throat, OB/GYN, and Dental and Psychological Practitioners as well. These physicians are all currently on the staff of Florida Hospital. Also included in these facilities are a Florida Hospital owned and operated radiology center, outpatient rehabilitation center, and outpatient lab. The radiology center offers general radiology services, including CT scanning and ultrasound. The larger of the two medical facilities that Florida Hospital owns in Oviedo is located on the site where the new hospital will be located. This is the facility that includes the outpatient radiology, rehabilitation and laboratory services. An urgent care center is also located on the site. As a result, residents of Oviedo are used to coming to Florida Hospital's site for medical services and already recognize it as a medical facility site. The fact that Florida Hospital has such a significant presence in the Oviedo Community, and that a large number of staff physicians are already in place in Oviedo, is a great benefit because of the existing referral patterns in place between the physicians at the existing Florida Hospital facilities in Oviedo and specialists and sub-specialists on Florida Hospital's staff. In contrast, ORHS had an outpatient surgery center in Oviedo; however, it has been closed due to lack of physician support. Likewise, ORHS originally offered radiology diagnostics at its Oviedo office building, but has since sold that business to the radiologists. Finally, ORHS does not own the medical office building in Oviedo anymore, having sold it two weeks before this final hearing commenced. Dr. Joseph Portoghese, a Board Certified Surgeon, practicing in the Orlando area for over 13 years and president- elect of the Florida Hospital medical staff, testified that his group, Surgical Associates, which is made up of six surgeons, derives approximately 20% of their patients from the Oviedo area. In his opinion, Florida Hospital knows the Oviedo population best as evidenced by its "major presence" in Oviedo with its two facilities. Dr. Portoghese also testified that his group knows most of the primary care physicians in the Oviedo area and that a good many of them send their surgical cases to his group. Dr. Portoghese is on the staff of Florida Hospital, but not on the staff of Orlando Regional. Dr. Schamberger, a family practitioner who has practiced in Oviedo for 16 years and whose patients come primarily from the Oviedo, Chuluota, Winter Springs and East Orlando area testified that Florida Hospital has the best infrastructure for the provision of medical care in the Oviedo area. "The physicians who provide a great bulk of the care for that Oviedo, Chuluota, Winter Springs area practice at Florida Hospital. Their referral patterns are to Florida Hospital. Florida Hospital provides us with all the specialty and sub- specialty care we need for our patients." Dr. Schamberger is on the staff of Florida Hospital, but he is not on the staff of Orlando Regional. Dr. Schamberger further testified to the disruption in continuity of care that would occur for many Oviedo area patients whose physicians are on the staff at Florida Hospital if Orlando Regional were to be the only applicant approved to build a hospital in Oviedo: "[I]ts a negative impact for continuity of care. If I have been attending a patient for many years, the first thing that happens to a patient when they get in the hospital is that they have a history and physical examination done to establish what their underlying medical conditions are. I know a lot more about that from my patients than someone who doesn't see them and doesn't know them." (Tr. 1318) Dr. Cintron, a physician practicing in the area of Internal Medicine, whose main office is in Oviedo at the Florida Hospital site, testified that she has approximately 3,000 active files and 75% to 80% of those are in the Oviedo area. She has been practicing in Oviedo since 1994. Dr. Cintron testified that approximately 85% of her patients that get admitted to a hospital are admitted to one of Florida Hospital's facilities. Also, when she makes a referral to a specialist or a sub-specialist, approximately 85% of those patients go to a Florida Hospital facility. Competition "[T]he U.S. health care system is a competitively driven market . . . with some regulatory components and based on a managed care model." (Tr. 485). Rather than every insurance plan having a contract with every provider, the managed care model uses selective contracting. Competing health insurance plans select providers with which to contract for the provision of health care services to their subscribers. The ability of the competing insurance plans to engage in selective contracting requires providers such as the two hospitals in this case to compete along a number of dimensions including price. When successful, this competitive price model holds down price and maintains quality. The State of Florida has a "fairly well developed and active managed care sector." (Tr. 507). "[M]anaged care in and of itself [however] is not really able to save much money for consumers. . . . [T]he key ingredient in the ability of managed care plans to control health care cost increases is the competitiveness of the hospital market, the structure of the market in which they are negotiating on behalf of their health plan subscribers." (Tr. 500). The parties define the "market" differently. Florida Hospital uses the Elzinga-Hogarty ("EH") Test. The test, along with appropriate supplemental information, indicates that the market is all of Orange and Seminole Counties or the tri-county area that also includes Osceola County. Whether a two county or tri-county market, Florida Hospital refers to its market as the metropolitan Orlando market or the "overall Orlando market." Orlando Regional identified a smaller area as the relevant market, one that is more local to Oviedo. The reason for this more local market was explained by Glenn Alan Melnick, Ph.D., and an expert in health care economics who testified for ORHS: [I]n order for [managed care plans] to attract subscribers, they have to have a health plan that's attractive to people. And one of the features that people look for in their health plans is the availability of local hospital services. . . . [I]n order to make their products marketable, they have to include reasonably accessible hospitals . . . [I]f there is limited local competition, then the opportunities for them to generate price competition by leveraging competitive conditions . . . are very limited and [the managed care] model will not be successful. (Tr. 489). Dr. Melnick used the five and eight zip code Oviedo Service Areas as defined by the applicants as the market. He calculated Herfandahl-Hershman Index ("HHI") valuations for each zip code in the two Oviedo Service Areas. He also calculated HHI valuations for another seven zip codes in Orange County "to provide background to [his] understanding of the allocations in [the] area . . . . ." (Tr. 516). Dr. Melnick's calculations showed that Florida Hospital has a market share between 60 and 69% for the five zip codes in Florida Hospital's Oviedo Service Area and it showed a market share of between 25% and 59% for the three zip codes in ORHS' Oviedo Service Area that were not included in Florida Hospital's Oviedo Service Area. In each of the seven zip codes in the area outside the Oviedo Service Area, Florida Hospital's market share was higher: in excess of 70%. The analysis led Dr. Melnick to conclude that the market is highly concentrated in favor of Florida Hospital. Using the zip codes in the Oviedo Service (and it appears from the record the seven not in either applicant's Oviedo Service Area that Dr. Melnick had analyzed for background purposes), Dr. Melnick concluded that if the CON is awarded to Florida Hospital "[i]t would make an already concentrated market much more concentrated." (Tr. 524). Florida Hospital's relative market share would rise from 65.8% to 85.7%. Orlando Regional's would drop from 27.4% to 11.5%. The award of the CON to Florida Hospital would, moreover, "seal its already existing market power into the future." (Id.) Conversely, awarding the CON to ORHS led Dr. Melnick to conclude that the market as he defined it would be more competitive; Florida Hospital relative market share would drop to 51% and ORHS' would rise to 44%. What Dr. Melnick's relative market shares would have been had he not used the seven zip codes he selected outside the Oviedo Service Areas of the two applicants does not appear to have been shown by ORHS. Including the seven zip codes outside the Oviedo Service Areas for determining the relative market share that led to Dr. Melnick's conclusions runs counter to his premise that the market should be a local one, that is, an Oviedo market. It is not clear what relevance these seven zip codes had to his analysis since their inclusion runs counter to the underpinnings of his approach to the issue. If the overall Orlando market used by Florida Hospital is considered the market, the conclusion is that, whether a CON for an Oviedo hospital is awarded to ORHS or Florida Hospital, the impact on relative market share is minimal. As for pricing, there has been no significant pricing difference between Florida Hospital and ORHS for Oviedo residents. Furthermore, both Florida Hospital and ORHS contract with managed care companies on a system-wide basis; Florida Hospital, moreover, uses a single master charge structure for all of its Orlando area campuses. It is not likely that the presence of a hospital in Oviedo would enable either Florida Hospital or ORHS to control pricing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order on the basis of the facts found in this order concluding that "not normal" circumstances exist for the construction and operation of a new 60-bed hospital in Oviedo and that Florida Hospital's CON application be approved and ORHS' be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2002, 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 18th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 James M. Barclay, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire Mateer & Harbert, P.A. Post Office Box 2854 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 600 Orlando, Florida 32802 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Boone, Boone, Boone, Hines & Koda, P.A. 1001 Avenida del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Michael P. Sasso, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Suite 310G St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc., is a 577 bed, fully accredited nonprofit acute care community hospital located in north Tampa, Florida. It is easily accessible from the interstate highway system and other main thoroughfares. There are approximately four hundred members on the medical staff, with about fifty-five members specializing in family practice and sixty in internal medicine. St. Joseph's does not presently offer open heart surgery, although such a program has been contemplated since moving into its new building in 1967. In 1972, St. Joseph's began to plan for a cardiac catheterization laboratory. In July of 1977, it timely submitted to the petitioner and to the respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services its formal application for a certificate of need and capital expenditure approval to establish a cardiac catheterization laboratory at a cost of $450,000.00. The funding for this proposal is presently available from the hospital reserves for expansion and from the Hospital Foundation. Thus, no interest costs are involved. No further construction is necessary as there is sufficient available room in the radiology department. When the cardiac catheterization laboratory become operation, St. Joseph's intends to begin its open heart surgery program. It presently has a room available for this purpose. The applicant also has a nine-bed coronary care unit with a full-time director. The respondent HRS and the petitioner Florida Gulf Health Systems Agency timely reviewed St. Joseph's application for a certificate of need. The staff of the petitioner analyzed the proposal, applying the criteria utilized in all applications for review. At all time pertinent to the review period herein, neither the petitioner nor HRS had officially adopted any standards or criteria applicable specifically to cardiac catheterization laboratories. Hillsborough County presently has a population in excess of 600,000. It has been estimated that this figure will increase to 770,000 by 1980 and to 850,000 by 1985. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Hillsborough County has had one operating cardiac catheterization lab available to the general public. This lab is located at Tampa General Hospital on Davis Island. Another lab is located at the Tampa Veteran's Administration Hospital, but it is not available to the general public. The Tampa General lab performed 970 cardiac catheterization procedures in the 1975-76 year and 1,141 procedures in the 1976- 77 year. Tampa General has plans to add another two cardiac labs, one for adults and one for pediatrics. At the time of the hearing, such labs had not become operational. Three cardiac catheterization labs exist in Pinellas County. Because Pinellas County is somewhat graphically removed from Hillsborough County, the petitioner decided to concentrate only on Hillsborough County in reaching its recommendation. The staff of the petitioner prepared a report on St. Joseph's application, weighing the proposal against its twenty criteria used in all project reviews. In summary, the staff found that the project was economically feasible in that no debt service was involved in financing, that manpower requirements could be met, that the project was consistent with St. Joseph's long range plan and that all ancillary and support services were available as subsections of St. Joseph's. However, the staff recommended disapproval of the application because of a failure to meet six criteria. Its findings in this regard were that: Similar services exist in the area which have unused capacity; therefore, there is no need for the proposed project. Specifically, the staff relied upon two standards to test the concept of need. It relied upon a report of the Orkand Corporation suggesting methods from evaluating needs and demands. One of such recommended methods is to provide one laboratory for each 300,000 persons. Inasmuch as three labs (the one existing and the two planned for Tampa General) were contemplated for Hillsborough County, the staff concluded that a population of 900,000 could be adequately served. Also, the staff determined that six to eight procedures could be accomplished in one lab daily. Using a five day and a fifty-two week year, the staff determined that each laboratory could perform between 1,560 and 2,080 procedures per year. Since Tampa General's lab had only performed 970 procedures in 1976, the staff determined that unused capacity existed in Hillsborough County. Accessibility would not be improved by the proposal. The staff found that Tampa General was able to accommodate emergency patients immediately and that there was a week's wait for nonemergency patients. Since Tampa General accepts all types of payors, the staff found no improvement in financial accessibility. The proposal would eliminate the sharing of resources which presently exists between Tampa General and St. Joseph's Hospital. Less costly alternatives were available; to-wit: the use of the facilities at Tampa General. Similar services in the area are being under-utilized. The service is sufficiently available in the area. The staff recommendation was considered by the petitioner's Project Review Committee. After a public hearing, this committee revised the figures regarding the number of procedures from six to eight per day down to four to six per day. Still, it was determined that there was unused existing capacity since one lab, operating five days a week, fifty-two weeks per year, could perform between 1,040 and 1,560 procedures annually. The Project Review Committee voted three to one for disapproval of the application. The application was then considered by the petitioner's Hillsborough County Advisory Council. This Council voted ten to five for approval of the proposal. The petitioner's Board of Directors recommended disapproval of the proposal by a vote of ten to seven. The Board's recommendation and the staff report were forwarded to the respondent Office of Community Medical Facilities on August 23, 1977. Due to the closeness of the votes taken at the local level (in total, 18 for disapproval and 18 for approval), respondent's Administrator, Mr. Art Forehand, felt this was a borderline case. He therefore called upon the cost containment committee of the Statewide Health Coordinating Council for advice before making his decision. That Committee held a four to six hour meeting in Miami, Florida on September 29, 1977. Representatives from St. Joseph's and from the petitioner attended and spoke at this meeting. Mr. Forehand also attended the meeting. The committee members present voted unanimously to recommend issuance of the certificate of need. In reaching his determination as to whether to grant or deny the certificate of need, Mr. Forehand considered the application, the statements made at the public hearing in Miami, the reports and votes of the petitioner and the national guidelines for health planning relating to cardiac catheterization unit services proposed by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. These guidelines state, in pertinent part, that there should be a minimum of 300 procedures performed annually in any adult cardiac catheterization unit, that units should be located within facilities in which cardiac surgery is performed and that no new units should be opened unless the projected number of studies per year exceeds 500. It was Mr. Forehand's decision to grant the certificate of need to St. Joseph's Hospital. This decision was based upon the date contained in petitioner's staff report, the applicant's fulfillment of the proposed federal guidelines, the geographical accessibility of the applicant's facility, the fact that there would be no interest costs involved in the project, the fact that there was no agreement on the local level and the unanimous vote of the statewide cost containment committee. On October 12, 1977, the regional health administrator of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued his determination not to exclude reimbursement for expenses related to this capital expenditure under Section 1122 of the Public Health Service Act. Pursuant to Rule 10-5.10(8), Florida Administrative Code, and Florida Statutes Section 381.494(6)(e), the petitioner Florida Gulf Health Systems Agency, Inc., requested a hearing seeking the reversal of the issuance of the certificate of need to St. Joseph's. St. Joseph's moved to intervene and the motion was granted. St. Joseph's than filed a motion with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to deny the petitioner's request for a hearing. After issuing an order to show cause and considering legal memoranda in response thereto, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services granted petitioner's request for a hearing and the undersigned Hearing Officer was duly designated to conduct the proceedings. The Orkand report from which the petitioner obtained the standard of one lab per 300,000 persons also contains other methodologies for determining the need and demand for cardiac catheterization laboratories. These include physician surveys designed to determine referral patterns, population and referral factors, and a determination of the types of procedures that commonly require cardiac catheterizations. These latter methodologies for determining need were not considered by petitioner's staff. The evidence illustrates that in 1977, twelve percent of St. Joseph's patients, or 2, 901 cases, were potential candidates for cardiac catheterizations. St. Joseph's projects that it will perform 300 cardiac catheterization procedures in the first year of operation, 390 in the second, 585 in the third and 715 in the fourth and fifth years of operation. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the optimum and comfortable rate of performance is four or less procedures per day. A consideration of the referral factors and ratios of physicians to population, specialists (cardiologists) to population, and medical schools in the area indicates a medium to high laboratory utilization estimate for Hillsborough County. Although physicians on staff at St. Joseph's do send their patients to Tampa General for cardiac catheterization, there is no written, formal sharing agreement between the two hospitals. The waiting period for non-emergency cases can, on occasion, be dangerous to the patient. Transferring a patient can also be a source of anxiety to the patient and his family and can be an additional expense to the patient. St. Joseph's would accept indigent patients at its proposed facility.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the decision of respondent HRS, Office of Community Medical Facilities, to grant a certificate of need to St. Joseph's Hospital to establish and operate a cardiac catheterization laboratory at its facility be upheld and affirmed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 7th day of July, 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Art Forehand, Administrator Office of Community Medical Facilities 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Horace A. Andrews Harris, Harris and Andrews, P.A. 602 Florida National Bank Building St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Charles T. Collette Office of General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William E. Hahn Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison and Kelly Post Office Box 1531 Tampa, Florida 33601 Woodie A. Liles Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith and Cutler Post Office Box 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue involved in this case is whether the Petitioner Good Samaritan Health Systems, Inc., should be issued a Certificate of Need to construct an ambulatory surgical center in West Palm Beach, Florida. Testifying on behalf of the Petitioner at the final hearing were Kenneth A. Weda, President of Good Samaritan Hospital; Ms. Patricia Sher, an expert in alternative delivery systems; Samuel G. Tischler, an expert in ambulatory surgical design, administration and planning; Dr. Milton R. Tignor, Jr., a urologist on the staff of the Good Samaritan Hospital; Dr. Abraham Schmuckler, an anesthesiologist at Good Samaritan Hospital; Jerome A. Goebel, an expert in hospital design and architecture; Ross Raneri, an expert in architecture for health care facilities; Byron Thompson, an expert in health care finance; Ms. Linda Vossler, an expert in operating room administration, nursing, staffing and equipment; Robert L. Broadway, an expert in health care planning, administration and finance; and Daniel J. Sullivan, an expert in health care planning and finance. Elizabeth Dudek, Health Services and Facility Consultant Supervisor in the Office of Community Medical Affairs, testified for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Michael L. Schwartz, an expert in health care planning; Rick D. Knapp, an expert in financial feasibility; and Robert J. Zasa, a former vice-president of Alternative Care, testified on behalf of Intervenors. Nancy McAnallen, nursing director of surgical services at St. Mary's Hospital testified by deposition for Intervenors. Petitioner Good Samaritan's Exhibits 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, 14, 15(a)-(i) and Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Exhibits 1-4 were offered and admitted into evidence. The following Intervenor's Exhibits were offered and admitted into evidence: St. Mary's Exhibits 1-4, 6 and 7; Visual Health's Exhibit 1; Intervenor's Exhibits 1-4 and Palm Beach Exhibits 1, 2, 3(a), (b) and (c). At the final hearing ruling was reserved on Petitioner Good Samaritan's Exhibits 4-5 and Intervenor St. Mary's Exhibits 5-6 which are now admitted. The transcript of hearing was filed on September 16, 1986. The parties filed their proposed recommended orders on October 16, 1986. Ruling on the parties' proposed findings are contained in the attached appendix.
Findings Of Fact Paragraphs 1-14 Accepted. 15-28 Accepted, but not in dispute at the hearing. 29-30 Accepted and covered in paragraphs 3-5 of Recommended Order. 31-32 Not relevant to this proceeding. 33-39 Accepted. 40-54 Accepted, but not relevant only to the extent institution specific criteria are considered. 55-58 Accepted. 59-64 Rejected. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the proposal will not merely shift existing services, but will add to the under-utilization problem experienced in the service district. 65-66 Accepted, except as modified in the Recommended Order. 67-70 Rejected. 71-78 Accepted. 79 It is unclear from the record whether scheduling problems exist because of the size of the rooms or doctor preference. 80-81 Accepted. 82-84 Accepted, but modified to show that although the applicant's present operating rooms are far from ideal, less costly and more efficient solutions were not adequately considered as an alternative to the Ambulatory Surgical Center. Rejected. Accepted. 87-90 Accepted. 91-109 Rejected. Table 7 was not utilized in the formulation of the Recommended Order primarily because it uses only a portion of the population of Palm Beach County, the North Palm Beach subdistrict, instead of the entire county or health planning district population as required by law. 110 Accepted. 111-124 Rejected. The Department's non-rule policy was not adequately explained nor justified at hearing. The Department's failure to consider the capacity of approved but not yet operational facilities in granting CON's within the service district was likewise never justified. 125 Accepted. 126-130 Rejected. The capacity-based analysis was adequately explained and justified and was essentially accepted. 131 Accepted. 132 Rejected. The elderly presently have numerous alternatives to inpatient treatment within the service district. 133-134 Accepted. 135 Rejected. 136 Accepted, but modified to reflect that neither Palm Beach nor Visual Health are organized as nonprofit corporations. 137-150 Accepted to the extent they are relevent to this proceeding. 151-159 Rejected. It was not adequately demonstrated that the costs of renovation would be greater or less efficient than shutting down existing space and adding space in a new, separate facility. 160-162 Rejected. Not relevant to these proceedings. 163-169 Accepted. 170-243 Accepted as modified in the Recommended Order. 244 Accepted as modified to reflect that the applicant will increase its market share as a result of this project. 245-247 Rejected. The proposal adds services and capacity to the service district. 248 Accepted. 249-250 Rejected. The nature of this project will affect referral patterns of physicians. 251-253 Accepted. 254 The first sentence is accepted and the second sentence is rejected. 255-256 Accepted. 257 Rejected. The project is not cost-effective if it duplicates the services provided by under-utilized facilities. 258 Accepted. 259. Accepted. The proposal will result in increased outpatient market share and additional revenue for the applicant. 260-261 Accepted. 262-264 Rejected. To the extent that competition exists in the health care field, any added health care provider will foster competition. However, the law permits a CON to issue only when a need for the service is demonstrated. It is based on the assumption that excess services will not lower prices, but will instead result in under- utilized, over-duplicated facilities in the service district. INTERVENORS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Paragraphs 1-4 Accepted as modified in the Recommended Order. 5-10 Accepted as modified in the Recommended Order. 11-12 Accepted as modified. 13-14 Not relevant to this proceeding. 15-21 Accepted, not in dispute at the final hearing. 21-25 Accepted as modified in the Recommended Order. 26-38 Accepted. 39-40 Accepted as modified in the Recommended Order. 41 Accepted if the 10-hour day is reasonable. 42-43 Rejected. The need in the community is the primary focus of the CON law rather than the need of an applicant. 44-45 Accepted. There are six approved or existing centers in Palm Beach County. 46 Accepted as modified in the Recommended Order. 47-50 Accepted. 51-54 Accepted. 55-61 Rejected. 62 Accepted. 63-64 Rejected. 65 Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Byron Mathews, Esquire Paul H. Amundsen, Esquire MCDERIOTT, WILL & EMORY 101 North Monroe Street Suite 1090 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas H. Mannheimer, Esquire CULPEPPER, PELHHAM, TURNER & MANNHEIMER, P.A. 300 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Bruce McKibben, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Charles Stampelos, Esquire MCFARLAIN, BOBO, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY 666 First Florida Bank Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Terry Cole, Esquire OERTEL & HOFFMAN, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 F. Philip Blank, Esquire Reynold D. Meyer, Esquire 241 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need authorizing establishment of an ambulatory surgical facility in Palm Beach County, Florida be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-3722 RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S JOINTLY
