Conclusions Having reviewed the four Notices of Intent to Deny Application issued May 13-18, 2010, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1, 2, 3, and 4), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration (“Agency”) has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Ex. 5) with the other party to these proceedings, and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: 1. The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Petitioner shall remit to the Agency, within thirty (30) days of the entry of a Final Order adopting this agreement, an administrative fee in the sum of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) to resolve the Agency's allegations of unlicensed activity, in the interest of expediently resolving these matters and in recognition of the expense and uncertainty of litigation. 3. Checks should be made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration.” The check, along with a reference to this case number, should be sent directly to: Filed January 10, 2012 1:47 PM Division of Administrative Hearings Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS# 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 4. Unpaid amounts pursuant to this Order will be subject to statutory interest and may be collected by all methods legally available. 5. Any requests for an administrative hearing are withdrawn. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorney’s fees. This matter is closed. DONE and ORDERED this [0 day of ~ Bettie: ; 20/2, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. — Ds we { izabeth Dudek, retary fey ir wacked 0. th€are Administration A PARTY WHO JS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Lance P. Cohen, Esquire Warren J. Bird, Asst. General Counsel Cohen & Thurston, P.A. Office of the General Counsel 1723 Blanding Boulevard, Suite # 102 Agency for Health Care Administration Jacksonville, Florida 32310 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 (U. S. Mail) Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Roger Bell Health Care Clinic Unit Manager Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #53 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS# 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Suzanne F. Hood Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (U.S. Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the oa above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this the 10 day of aaa » 2012" Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630 Certified Article Number , ?bbO 390) Y5778 8971 SEMDERS RECORD i", Certified Article Number (?160 3901 9846 7935 1337 SENDERS RECORD One Nofice $1149/1° CHARLIE CRIST FIORDAAGENCY FOR HEATH CARE ADMINS TRATION Better Health Care for ail Floridians THOMAS W. ARNOLD GOVERNOR SECRETARY May 12, 2010 Physicians Medical Centers - Jax Inc File Number: 8428 1680 Dunn Ave Case #: 2010004935 Ste 39 Jacksonville, FL 32218 F INTENT TO DENY APP TION It Is the decision of this Agency that the application for certificate of exemption from health care clinic licensure for Physicians Medical Centers - Jax Inc, located at 1680 DUNN AVE, STE 39, JACKSONVILLE, FL, 32218, be DENIED. The specific basis for this determination is based on the fact that: Requested information was not complete or timely received by the Agency pursuant to Section 408.806(3)(b), Florida Statutes. You were notified by correspondence dated April 9, 2010 to provide further Information addressing identified apparent errors or omissions within twenty-one days (21) from the receipt of the Agency's correspondence. Our records indicate you received this correspondence by certified mail on April 15, 2010. The outstanding issues remaining are: A copy of the closing documents, stock or similar certificates signed and dated by both the buyer and seller is required, In addition, the Agency received information that the facility does not meet exemption requirements as it is not wholly owned by a Florida licensed health care practitioner, pursuant to Section 400.9905(4)(g). EXPLANATION OF RIGH Pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obtain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. SEE ATTACHED ELECTION AND EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS FORMS. ce: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 ; Legal Intake Unit, Mall Stop 3. EXHIBIT 14 Visit AHCA online at http://ahca.myflorida.com 2727 Mahan Drive,MS-53 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 " Certified Article Number , 7260 3901 9648 57748 8995 SENDERS RECORD FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION CHARLIE CRIST THOMAS W. ARNOLD GOVERNOR Better Health Care for all Floridians SECRETARY May 12, 2010 Physicians Medical Centers - Jax Inc File Number: 8430 9826 San Jose Blvd Case #: 2010004881 Jacksonville, FL 32257 .. : NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY APPLICATION It is the decision of this Agency that the application for certificate of exemption from health care clinic licensure for Physicians Medical Centers - Jax Inc, located at 9826 San Jose Bivd, Jacksonville, FL, 32257, be DENIED. The specific basis for this determination is based on the fact that: Requested information was not complete or timely received by the Agency pursuant to Section 408.806(3)(b), Florida Statutes. You were notified by correspondence dated March 27, 2010 to provide further information addressing identified apparent errors or omissions within twenty- one days (21) from the receipt of the Agency's correspondence. Our records indicate you received this correspondence by certified mail on April 8, 2010, The outstanding issues remaining are: Subpart 1.B, Name-of.Applicant: The name of the applicant must be the corporation or legal entity as it is registered with. the Division of Corporations, it must also match-the FEIN indicated in section 1.C. This subpart was submitted as a response to the omissions, but the. applicant's name indicated does not match the FEIN# listed in section 1.C. of the application. : As this facility did a change of ownership, provide a copy of the closing documents signed and dated by both the buyer (new owner) and seller (previous owner). Acceptable documentation may include any one of the following: Copy of final sale/transfer documents showing date of final transfer and signatures of buyer(s) and seller(s), or a signed, written statement from an attorney, on letterhead, that confirms sale/transfer completion and provides the date of final action. : In addition, the Agency received information that the facility does not meet exemption requirements as it is not wholly owned by a Florida licensed health care practitioner, pursuant to Section 400.9905(4)(g). TION OF HT! Pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing, In order to obtain a formal proceeding before -the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120,57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing-must conform to the - requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. ; : : Visit AHCA online at http://ahca.myflorida,com 2727 Mahan Drive,MS-53 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 EXHIBIT 2 Physicians Medical Centers -. . Inc Page 2 : May 12, 2010 SEE ATTACHED ELECTION AND EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS FORMS. ce: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 Legal Intake Unit, Mail Stop 3 Te thictee-Va thet [9 Number fd60 3901 9848 7495 a2, SENDERS RECORD FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION CHARLIE CRIST THOMAS W. ARNOLD GOVERNOR Better Health Care for all Floridians SECRETARY May 13, 2010 Physicians Medical Centers - Jax Inc File #8427 5960 Beach Blvd : Case #2010004956 Ste3 ; Jacksonville, FL 32207 NOTICE OF INTENT TQ DENY APPLICATION It is the decision of this Agency that the application for certificate of exemption from health care clinic licensure for Physicians Medical Centers - Jax Inc, located at 5960 Beach Bivd., Ste 3, Jacksonville, FL, 32207, be DENIED. The specific basis for this determination is based on the fact that: Requested information was not complete or timely received by the Agency pursuant to Section 408.806(3)(b), Florida Statutes. You were notified by correspondence dated April 7, 2010 to provide further information addressing identified apparent errors or omissions within twenty- one days (21) from the receipt of the Agency's correspondence. Our records indicate you received this correspondence by certified mail on Apri! 9, 2010. The outstanding issues remaining are: As this facility did a change of ownership, provide a copy of the closing documents signed and dated by both the buyer (new owner) and seller (previous owner). Acceptable documentation may include any one of the following: Copy of final sale/transfer documents showing date of final transfer and signatures of buyer(s) and seller(s), or a signed, written statement from an attorney, on letterhéad, that confirms sale/transfer completion and provides the date of final action. ; In addition, the Agency received information that the facility does not meet exemption requirements as it is not wholly owned by a Florida licensed health care practitioner, pursuant to Section 400.9905(4)(g). EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obtain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. EXHIBIT 3 Visit AHCA online at http://ahca.myflorida.com 2727 Mahan Drive,MS-53 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Physicians Medical Centers - Jax Page 2 May 13, 2010 SEE ATTACHED ELECTION AND EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS FORMS. Health Cae Clinic Unit ce: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 Legal Intake Unit, Mail Stop 3 RTE ecm 3901 94a 7935 yy74 SENDERS RECORD FLORIDA AGENCY TOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION oe ERNGS Better Health Care for all Floridians THOMAS W. ARNOLD May 18, 2010 CERTIFIED MAIL / RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED File Number: 8429 Physicians Medical Centers - Jax, Inc 2020 Kingsley Ave Case #: 2010005135 Suite A Orange Park, FL 32073 NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY APPLICATION It is the decision of this Agency that the application for certificate of exemption from health care clinic licensure for Physicians Medical Centers - Jax Inc, located at 2020 Kingsley Avenue, Suite A, Orange Park, Florida, 32073 be DENIED. The specific basis for this determination is based on the fact that: Requested information was not complete or timely received by the Agency pursuant to Section 408.806(3)(b), Florida Statutes, You were notified by correspondence dated April 9, 2010 to provide further information addressing identified apparent errors or omissions within twenty-one days (21) from the receipt of the Agency’s correspondence, Our records indicate you received this correspondence by certified mail on April 12, 2010, The outstanding issues remaining are: Evidence of Ownership — Information received by the Agency states that Victoria Critzer is the owner of Physicians Medical Centers-Jax Inc. Provide the following documentation as evidence of ownership: * A copy of the final closing documents such as a bill of sale or stock purchase agreement. signed and dated by both the buyer and seller including the effective date sale or transfer. The closing documents should contain the signature of Gordon Garver DC, previous owner of Physicians Medical Center-Jax Inc and Joseph Thomas MD, new owner of Physicians Medical Center-Jax Inc. ¢ A copy of the cancelled and reissued stock certificates transferring shared to Joseph Thomas MD. ¢ Acopy of the lease agreement that includes the name(s) of the owner(s). e Acopy of the business tax receipt that includes the name of the corporation and owner. In addition, the Agency received information indicating that the facility does not meet exemption requirements as it is not wholly owned by a Florida licensed health care practitioner, pursuant to Section 400.9905(4)(g). EXHIBIT 2727 Mahan Drive,MS-53 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Visit AHCA online at http://ahca.myflorida.com . Physicians Medical Centers - Ja... .nc Page 2 May 18, 2010 EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 120,569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obtain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S. your request for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. ey SEE ATTACHED ELECTION AND EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS FORMS, For questions regarding this notice, please contact Ruby Schmigel, Health Services & Facilities Consultant with the Health Care Clinic Unit at (850) 412-4413. oger Bgl, Mandger Health Care Clinic Unit ce: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 Legal Intake Unit, Mail Stop 3 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS PHYSICIANS MEDICAL CENTERS-JAX, INC., Petitioner, DOAH Case Nos. 10-3202, 10-3203, 10-3204 and 10-3205 vs. AHCA CASE Nos.: 2010004881, 2010004956 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE 2010004935 and 2010005135, ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. / SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Respondent, State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (hereinafter the “Agency”), through its undersigned representatives, and Petitioner, Physicians Medical Centers- Jax, Inc. (hereinafter “Petitioner”), pursuant to Section 120.57(4), Florida Statutes, each individually, a “party,” collectively as “parties,” hereby enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) and agree as follows: WHEREAS, the Petitioner applied for four certificates of exemption from licensure pursuant to Section 400.9935(6), Florida Statutes and Chapter 59A-33, Florida Administrative Code; and WHEREAS, Victoria Critzer has applied for four initial health care clinic licenses, expressly intending to purchase the interest of Dr. Joseph Thomas in Petitioner upon issuance by the Agency of those licenses; and WHEREAS, the Agency has jurisdiction of the license and exemption applications described in the foregoing paragraphs, by virtue of being the regulatory and licensing authority over the said licenses and exemptions; and EXHIBIT 5 WHEREAS, the Agency served the Petitioner with four Notices of Intent to Deny Application on or about May 13, 2010, notifying the Petitioner of the Agency’s intent to deny the certificates of exemption for the reasons stated thereon, in Agency cases numbered 2010004881, 2010004956, 2010004935 and 2010005135; and WHEREAS, Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, and in response to said request the matters were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), and were designated as cases numbered 10-3202, 10-3203, 10-3204 and 10-3205 in that tribunal; and subsequently the parties agreed to, and did abate those cases in DOAH, for the purpose of discussing settlement; and WHEREAS, the Agency alleges, and Petitioner denies, that during the period of processing of the aforementioned applications, Petitioner operated one or more unlicensed health care clinics in violation of Florida law as to which no formal administrative, civil or criminal action has thus far been brought; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that a fair, efficient, and cost effective resolution of this dispute would avoid the expenditure of substantial sums to litigate the dispute; and WHEREAS, the parties stipulate to the adequacy of consideration exchanged; and WHEREAS, the parties have negotiated in good faith and agreed that the best interest of all the parties will be served by a settlement of these proceedings; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and recitals herein, the parties intending to be legally bound, agree as follows: 1. All recitals are true and correct and are expressly incorporated herein. 2. Both parties agree that the “whereas” clauses incorporated herein are binding findings of the parties. 3. Joseph Thomas, M.D. hereby acknowledges, affirms and certifies that, at the time this agreement is executed by him, he is the sole owner of the Florida corporation Physicians Medical Center-Jax, Inc. 4, Victoria Critzer hereby acknowledges, affirms and certifies that, at the time this agreement is executed by her, she is the sole owner of the Florida corporation Physicians Medical Center, Inc. 5. Upon full execution of this Agreement, Petitioner agrees to waive any and all proceedings and appeals to which it may be entitled including, but not limited to, an informal proceeding under Subsection 120.57(2), a formal proceeding under Subsection 120.57(1), appeals under Section 120.68, Florida Statutes; and declaratory and all writs of relief in any court or quasi-court (DOAH) of competent jurisdiction; and further agrees to waive compliance with the form of the Final Order (findings of fact and conclusions of law) to which it may be entitled. Provided, however, that no Agreement herein, shall be deemed a waiver by either party of its right to judicial enforcement of this Agreement. 6. Upon full execution of this Agreement, the parties agree to the following: a. Petitioner's four (4) applications for exemption from licensure are hereby withdrawn, and Petitioner expressly waives its right to challenge or appeal, or both, in DOAH or elsewhere, the denial by the Agency of the exemptions. b. The Agency will resume processing the four initial licensure applications submitted by Victoria Critzer as intended future 100% owner of Physicians Medical Centers-Jax, Inc., now pending, and if the applications are complete and the applicant qualified under applicable law, the Agency will issue the licenses upon full payment by Petitioner of an agreed upon sum, as set forth below, to resolve the Agency's claim of unlicensed activity against Physicians Medical Center, Inc. Ms. Critzer agrees to use reasonable diligence to timely remedy any omissions from the applications cited by the Agency, to make the facilities available as required by law for all inspections required in connection with the licensure of the facilities, and to otherwise comply with all requirements of the application process, and all statutes and administrative rules thereunto appertaining, including background screening as may be applicable. c. The Agency agrees to use all reasonable diligence to process the initial license applications, and to issue the initial licenses as expeditiously as reasonably possible, provided that Ms. Critzer timely complies with all reasonable requests for additional information to which the Agency is entitled as a component of the application and licensure process, and provided that Victoria Critzer, and the applications she presented, are qualified for the licenses under all applicable statutes and administrative rules. d. Victoria Critzer will maintain the health care clinic license #HCC6732 currently held by Physicians Medical Center Inc. (PMC), for purposes of billing health care services provided solely at the licensed location, 9826 San Jose Boulevard, Suite B, Jacksonville, Florida. Whereas, Ms. Critzer, through counsel, has advised the Agency of a change of address for the license from 9826 San Jose Boulevard, to 9826 San Jose Boulevard, Suite B, PMC will submit a change of address application to the Agency together with the appropriate fee, within 10 days of execution of this agreement, and prior to resumption by the Agency of processing of the subject licensure applications. The license will be maintained 7. under a different federal employer identification number from any other licenses issued to Victoria Critzer or any entity in which she has a controlling interest. A separate health care clinic license must be obtained for any other location at which any health care services will be provided and third-party reimbursement sought for on behalf of Physicians Medical Centers Inc. e. Physicians Medical Centers, Inc. agrees to pay the sum of thirty thousand and no/100s dollars ($30,000.00) to the Agency, to resolve the Agency's allegations of unlicensed activity, in the interest of expediently resolving these matters and in recognition of the expense and uncertainty of litigation. The sum will be paid in lump sum at the time that the initial licenses referenced in paragraph b., above, are issued, or within 30 days following rendition of a Final Order by the Agency that incorporates this Agreement, whichever occurs first. f. Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit the Agency from denying Petitioner’s application for licensure based upon any statutory and/or regulatory provision, including, but not limited to, the failure of Petitioner to satisfactorily complete a survey reflecting compliance with all statutory and rule provisions as required by law. By executing this Agreement, the Petitioner neither admits nor denies the allegations raised in the Notices of Intent to Deny referenced herein. 8. Upon full execution of this Agreement, the Agency shall enter a Final Order adopting and incorporating this Agreement in its entirety, and closing the above-styled case(s). The cases resident in DOAH, referenced above as DOAH cases numbered 10-3202, 10-3203, 10- 3204 and 10-3205, are currently closed by Order entered in that tribunal on October 7, 2010. The parties hereby further agree that those cases shall remain closed permanently, and each party hereby waives its right to seek to have any of those cases re-opened. 9. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. 10. This Agreement shall become effective on the date upon which it is fully executed by all the parties. 11. The Petitioner for itself and for its related or resulting organizations, its successors or transferees, attorneys, heirs, and executors or administrators, does hereby discharge the Agency and its agents, representatives, and attorneys of all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, damages, losses, and expenses, of any and every nature whatsoever, arising out of or in any way related to this matter and the Agency’s actions, including, but not limited to, any claims that were or may be asserted in any federal or state court or administrative forum, including any claims arising out of this Agreement, by or on behalf of the Petitioner or related or resulting organizations. 12. This Agreement is binding upon all parties herein and those identified as a party, or a beneficiary, of the provisions of this Agreement, and each signatory acknowledges same and the adequacy of consideration therefor. 13. In the event that Petitioner is or was a Medicaid provider, this settlement does not prevent the Agency from seeking Medicaid overpayments or from imposing any sanctions pursuant to Rule 59G-9.070, Florida Administrative Code. This Agreement does not prohibit the Agency from taking action regarding Petitioner’s Medicaid provider status, conditions, requirements or contract. 14. The undersigned have read and understand this Agreement and have authority to bind their respective principals to it. Both parties have been represented by counsel in the negotiation and execution of this Agreement. The Petitioner fully understands that counsel for the Agency represents solely the Agency and Agency counsel has not provided legal advice to or influenced the Petitioner in its decision to enter into this Agreement. 15. This Agreement contains the entire understandings and Agreements of the parties. 16. | This Agreement supersedes any prior oral or written Agreements between the parties. This Agreement may not be amended except in writing. Any attempted assignment of this Agreement shall be void. 17. Venue for any action brought to interpret, challenge or enforce the terms of this Agreement or the Final Order entered pursuant hereto shall lie solely in the Circuit Court in Leon County, Florida. 18. ‘Ifa court of competent jurisdiction finds any part of this Agreement to be void, voidable, or unenforceable, then the remainder of the contract shall remain in full force and effect. 19. All parties agree that a facsimile signature suffices fe 20. The following representatives and beneficiaries hereby ae duly S. to enter into this Agreement. Molly McKéns eputy Secretary {_ panes P. Céhen, Esquire Health Quality ance Cohen & Thurston, P.A. Agency for Health Care Administration 1723 Blanding Boulevard, Suite 102 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3 Jacksonville, Florida 32310 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Counsel to Petitioner DATED: (frolir DATED: 1-1 U~ aye William R. Roberts Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 DATED: /7 [(3l 4 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 DATED: Uf (5) WH Physicians Medical Centers-Jax, Inc. 9826 San Jose Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32257 patep: _})-14~!/ ~~ x. 1 _f- Victoria Critzer as president, sole director and 100% Owner Physicians Medical Center, Inc. 9826-B San Jose Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32257 DATED: _|1- (4-//
The Issue Whether the Certificate of Need (CON) applications filed by Central Florida Regional Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Central Florida Regional Hospital (Central Florida) (CON Application No. 9805) and Oviedo HMA, Inc. (Oviedo HMA) (CON Application No. 9807P) for a new, 60-bed acute care hospital in Seminole County, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency or AHCA) acute care subdistrict 7-4, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria sufficiently to warrant approval; and, if so, which of the two applications best meets the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for approval.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Agency AHCA is the state agency authorized to evaluate and render final determinations on CON applications pursuant to Section 408.034(1), Florida Statutes.2 Oviedo HMA Oviedo HMA, Inc. is a start-up subsidiary of Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA), a national for-profit hospital chain, headquartered in Naples, Florida. Oviedo HMA was formed for the sole purpose of constructing, owning, and operating a hospital in the Oviedo area. HMA traditionally develops hospitals in non-urban markets. It describes itself as a "turnaround specialist for non-urban hospitals," that "acquires and then revitalizes hospitals in growing communities with [population of] 30,000 to 400,000 that have a clear demographic need." HMA focuses on smaller-type hospitals ranging in bed size from 50 to 200 beds. HMA's ownership of hospitals has grown from 16 in 1993 to 59 hospitals in 2005. HMA owns and operates approximately 16 hospitals in Florida, all of which have come under HMA's ownership and operation by acquisition. HMA has not yet opened and constructed a new acute care hospital in Florida. HMA is building a new hospital in Collier County and has recently completed a replacement hospital in Brooksville, Florida. HMA anticipates acquiring an 80 percent interest in St. Cloud Hospital (owned by ORHS) in the greater Orlando area, with ORHS retaining a 20 percent interest. This transaction had not closed as of the final hearing. HMA owned and operated hospitals nationwide are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) and provide high quality of care to their patients. HMA has experienced financial growth in recent years; growing from approximately $250 million in net revenue in 1993 to over $3.6 billion in 2005, and growing from approximately $12 million in net income in 1993 to approximately $350 million in 2005. Its financial strength among for-profit hospitals is strong. For HMA, company-wide, over 15.4 percent of gross revenues were attributable to Medicaid in fiscal year (FY) 2005, with an additional 4.5 percent in charity care. In Florida, 9.7 percent of gross revenues of HMA were attributable to Medicaid (over $324 million) in 2005, with an additional 4.4 percent in charity care (over $147 million). In the SAAR, AHCA conditioned its approval of Oviedo HMA's project with the condition that Oviedo HMA provide "[a] minimum of 7.1 percent of the total annual patient days in the 60-bed facility . . . to Medicaid patients" and "[a] minimum of 2.9 percent of the 60-bed facility's gross revenues . . . to charity patients." OV 99 at 52. AHCA should impose these conditions if the project is approved. Oviedo HMA has committed to provide obstetrical services. In order to perfect its CON application, Oviedo HMA is relying heavily on Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc. (ORHS), a Florida not-for-profit corporation that owns and operates health care facilities in Orange, Seminole, Lake, and Osceola Counties. HMA would not pursue the project without a collaborative clinical and financial arrangement with ORHS. Following the filing of Oviedo HMA's letter of intent, on October 20, 2004, representatives of HMA, Inc. and ORHS, Inc., signed a letter of intent "relating to the possible formation of a joint venture or other business relationship" for the construction of a new hospital in Oviedo." Thereafter, HMA and ORHS agreed in principle that if the CON application were approved and the hospital project proceeded forward, 20 percent of the stock of Oviedo HMA will be owned by ORHS or one of its affiliates. (Stated otherwise, ORHS will contribute 20 percent of the project cost.) Losses and profits will be shared in accordance with percentages of stock ownership. Any written agreement between Oviedo HMA and ORHS is expected to be modeled after the ORHS/HMA St. Cloud Hospital agreement. See Finding of Fact 6. It is anticipated that any such agreement will contain, in part, buy-out and non-compete provisions.3 The entity that files a CON application must be the same entity that licenses and operates the CON approved project, here a hospital. OV 69 at 9-10.4 According to Mr. Gregg, "as of the [legislative] changes of 2004, if a change of ownership occurs, then that new owner acquires the certificates [sic] of need that were [sic] associated with the provider being purchased." Id. at 10. See generally § 408.036(2)(a), Fla. Stat.; Ch. 2004-383, § 6, Laws of Fla. The proposed stock purchase by ORHS does not affect the corporate status of Oviedo HMA, Inc., the applicant/entity.5 The situation would be different if the applicant/entity changed. The persuasive evidence indicates that Oviedo HMA, Inc. will own and operate the new hospital. ORHS has sufficient funds and is committed to expend between $15 and $20 million toward the Oviedo HMA hospital project, but is not willing to finance the entire cost of the project. This is one reason why ORHS did not pursue a CON application for a similar project as it had done in a prior batching cycle. The ORHS hospitals/health care facilities provide high quality of care to their patients. ORHS uses an enterprise-wide health information system which is complemented by other systems. ORHS physicians can access patient clinical information at an ORHS facility or remotely. PACS is a picture, archiving, and communications system. PACS provides the user with the ability to view images digitally, e.g., X-rays can be transmitted electronically and can be viewed remotely. With the design and structural cabling system in place, the PACS system can be used by the Oviedo HMA hospital and OHRS. The anticipated collaboration between the entity systems will afford the ability to tie the computer systems together. This system is available among collaborative hospitals and by credentialed staff who are given access to the system.6 Generally, physicians who do not have privileges at an ORHS facility would not be able to access the information unless given permission, which is not done on a standard basis. Hospital facilities with a "business relationship" with ORHS facilities can access the information. However, federal confidentiality requirements must be followed. Unaffiliated hospitals, such as CFRH, could be provided access to the information. See Endnote 6. Central Florida Central Florida Regional Hospital, Inc. (Central Florida), a for-profit corporation, is an applicant in this proceeding and will own the new hospital proposed in its CON application. If approved, the new hospital will have a separate management team charged with running the day-to-day operations of the new hospital. Central Florida is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HCA Inc. (Health Corporation of America), a national for- profit corporation with hospitals distributed throughout the United States, including the State of Florida, and abroad. HCA's health care services include physician practices, ambulatory surgical centers, community hospitals, and large tertiary referral centers. Central Florida owns and operates Central Florida Regional Hospital (CFRH), a general acute care hospital with 226 licensed beds, consisting of 208 acute care beds and 18 skilled nursing unit beds (a separate unit within the hospital). CFRH is located at 1401 West Seminole Boulevard, Sanford, Florida, and is accredited by the JCAHO. Osceola Regional Medical Center, in Osceola County, Florida, is also an HCA facility in District 7. Central Florida will transfer (and delicense) 60 acute care licensed beds from CFRH to effectuate the CON application. CFRH asserts that it can maintain an appropriate census with the remaining bed complement. If the reduced bed complement is insufficient in number, CFRH can add new acute care beds without obtaining a CON. Ch. 2004-383, § 6, Laws of Fla., amending Section 408.036(1)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes (2003). CFRH's geographic service area is predominantly north Seminole County and west Volusia County. CFRH provides inpatient and outpatient services, including obstetrics, and has the only adult open-heart surgery and interventional cardiology program in Seminole County. CFRH's OB department averages 80 to 100 OB deliveries a month. CFRH does not operate a Level 2 or Level 3 Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital operate these units. CFRH has a history of providing health care services to Medicaid patient and indigent patients. CFRH expects to implement otolaryngology services, as well as a neurosurgery program that will include state-of-the- art "cyberknife" technology, a surgical tool that can also be used in cancer and tumor treatment in areas of the body other than the brain. (CFRH has not offered neurosurgery for some time, but signed a contract with a neurosurgeon that starts March 1, 2006, and is recruiting for a second neurosurgeon.) The hospital will be offering a 64-slice CAT scanner, which is a state-of-the-art imaging system. It is used for ruling out the necessity of a cardiac intervention procedure. CFRH has two OB/GYN physicians in Oviedo who are employed by the hospital. One works part-time. CFRH is recruiting for additional OB physicians for CFRH. CFRH has a reputation for providing high quality of care to its patients. This includes but is not limited to CFRH's cardiovascular and interventional programs. (For calendar year 2004, there were 300 open heart surgery discharges from CFRH. In 2004, CFRH ranked 40 out of 73 Florida hospitals with interventional cardiology programs in the number of open heart surgery discharges.) CFRH uses an electronic medical administration record (eMAR) system, which increases patient safety. Each patient's arm band is coded and can be scanned for, in part, drug compatibility. Nurses are alerted if there are any abnormalities. This particular system is unique to HCA hospitals. CFRH also uses a PACS system to transmit images to other facilities. Central Florida enjoys an excellent reputation as a corporate citizen in the Sanford community and Seminole County generally. Central Florida makes annual monetary contributions to a number of local organizations, including, for example, Seminole Community College for the purpose of expanding their nursing program. ORHS and Florida Hospital also contribute to this project. On September 7, 2004, the City of Oviedo issued a letter of support of Central Florida's application "for a 60 bed satellite facility in Oviedo, Florida."7 On November, 15, 2005, The Greater Oviedo Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution favoring Central Florida's application over Oviedo HMA's application. Until Central Florida filed its CON application, Central Florida had not begun to aggressively consider a greater presence in the Oviedo area. Central Florida expects to recruit in the area (and build a medical office) if its CON application is approved. CFRH has approximately 164 doctors on staff with active privileges (or active provisional) and requires its physicians to be board certified in order to be a part of the medical staff, unless the physician provides a specialty service for a limited period of time. CFRH will support the new hospital and provide any necessary training. CFRH expects to be the referral hospital for the new hospital, as opposed to a Florida Hospital or ORHS facility. Health Services in Orange and Seminole Counties Within District 7 Agency health planning service District 7 consists of Brevard, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole Counties. § 408.032(5), Fla. Stat. For acute care beds, each of the four counties is treated as a separate "subdistrict" by AHCA. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-2.100(3)(g). Both applications were filed to construct a new, acute care hospital in Seminole County, subdistrict 7-4. Specifically, each application proposes a new, 60-bed hospital in Oviedo, in Seminole County. At present, Seminole County has three acute care hospitals: CFRH is located in Sanford, near the Volusia County line in north Seminole County; Florida Hospital-Altamonte, located in Altamonte Springs, in south Seminole County to the west of Oviedo; and ORHS South Seminole Hospital, also located in south Seminole County to the west of Oviedo. For the period January, 2003, through December, 2003, CFRH reported 55.82 percent occupancy in its 208 acute care beds. By comparison, Florida Hospital-Altamonte reported 72.40 percent occupancy in its 258 acute care beds and ORHS South Seminole Hospital reported 53.80 percent occupancy in its 126 acute care beds. See CF 12 at Table 1-20. Florida Hospital-Altamonte and ORHS South Seminole Hospital are each a part of large hospital organizations that collectively dominate the market for hospital services in Seminole County and District 7. Both applicants propose to address the maldistribution of existing licensed acute care beds in Seminole County, with the greater need for acute care beds in south Seminole County. There are approximately 2,470 acute care beds in Orange County and approximately 600 acute care beds in Seminole County. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., owns and operates seven general acute care hospitals under the "Florida Hospital" name in the greater Orlando area: Florida Hospital- Altamonte (258 acute care beds) in Seminole County; Florida Hospital-Orlando (702 acute care beds), Florida Hospital-East Orlando (144 acute care beds), Winter Park Memorial Hospital,8 and Florida Hospital-Apopka (50 acute care beds) in Orange County; and Florida Hospital-Celebration and Florida Hospital- Kissimmee in Osceola County. See Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc. vs. Agency for Health Care Administration, Case Nos. 02-0448CON and 02-0449CON, 24 FALR 714, 720 (DOAH November 18, 2002; AHCA December 31, 2002). In 2001, Florida Hospital and ORHS filed competing CON applications to build a 60-bed hospital in Oviedo, and each was preliminarily denied by AHCA. Both organizations challenged AHCA's determination, and, following an administrative hearing, AHCA awarded the CON to Florida Hospital. See Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc., supra. However, Florida Hospital never implemented its proposal, and the CON lapsed. ORHS is a large tertiary health care system in the greater Orlando area comprised of several health care facilities and one additional facility which will be opening this year, the Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women and Babies (Winnie Palmer), a 273-bed facility. It is anticipated that obstetrical and women services and infant care will relocate from the Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children and Women (Arnold Palmer) to Winnie Palmer in May 2006. ORHS and Florida Hospital offer outstanding cardiovascular services. (For calendar year 2004, Florida Hospital-Orlando and Orlando Regional Medical Center had 1,759 and 898 open heart surgery discharges, respectively, and rank one and four, respectively, among open heart surgery providers statewide.) ORHS owns and operates several general acute care hospitals in the greater Orlando area. South Seminole Hospital in Longwood, Seminole County, is a 206-bed hospital with approximately 126 acute care beds, and 80 psychiatric beds in a detached facility. Several ORHS facilities are located in Orange County. Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC), located in downtown Orlando, is a 600-bed general acute care hospital that provides tertiary care services and serves as a teaching hospital. ORMC is the only Level 1 trauma center in the greater Orlando area. M.D. Anderson Cancer Center is physically attached to ORMC and functions as the medical-surgical and radiation/oncology program for ORMC. Arnold Palmer is a 275-bed specialty hospital that provides subspecialty pediatric care, neonatology, and obstetrics. A $50 million construction project is underway. Lucerne Hospital is a 275-bed general acute care hospital, a few miles away from ORMC. Sand Lake Hospital is a 150-bed general acute care hospital (located near Disney). ORHS previously owned St. Cloud Hospital in Osceola County, but sold an 80 percent interest in St. Cloud to HMA in November, 2005. See Findings of Fact 6 and 13. South Lake Hospital is a smaller, 100-bed general acute care hospital located in Lake County, Florida, that is digitally linked to ORMC. ORHS owns a 50 percent interest in and manages this hospital. The South Lake Hospital District owns the remaining interest. ORHS has approximately 40 physicians who practice or have offices within the Oviedo market. CFRH has one full-time physician practicing within the area. See Finding of Fact 30. Approximately 1,700 physicians have privileges at ORHS facilities. If the Oviedo HMA project is approved, ORHS expects to regain tertiary care referrals now lost to the Florida Hospital system. Florida Hospital and ORHS healthcare facilities dominate the market for hospital services in Orange and Seminole Counties. The Oviedo area: demographics, utilization of existing providers, and applicant service area and occupancy projections The City of Oviedo is located in south Seminole County, east of Longwood (where South Seminole Hospital is located) and Altamonte Springs (where Florida Hospital-Altamonte is located), and approximately 10 to 15 miles from downtown Orlando. The City of Oviedo is included within zip codes 32765 and 32766, although there are other adjacent zip codes to the northeast 32732 (Geneva) and to the west 32708 (Winter Springs). See CF 80. The Oviedo area is growing. In 2004, the total population for the four zip codes was 106,789 and projected to increase 12.6 percent (to 120,227) by 2009. (The population is projected to increase 9.3 percent statewide and 11.2 percent in Seminole County by 2009.) The population in zip code 32765 was 49,985 in 2004, projected to grow to 57,742 in 2009, or 15.9 percent. In zip code 32766, the population was 9,068 in 2004, projected to grow to 11,302 in 2009, or 24.6 percent. Population in the Winter Springs and Geneva areas are projected to increase 7.1 percent and 8.5 percent, respectively, by 2009. The Oviedo area is described as "a young, family oriented suburb of Orlando" or more generally as a suburban community. The parties have stipulated to the need for a new, 60- bed acute care hospital in Oviedo. Oviedo HMA proposes to serve a four zip code area, i.e., zip codes 32765, 32766, 32708, and 32732 and projected that 95 percent of its utilization will come from within these zip codes. OV 27. Oviedo HMA projects occupancy levels to be 57.9 and 75 percent for Years 1 and 2, respectively. (Central Florida's expert opined that Oviedo HMA's occupancy levels for Years 1 and 2 would be 54 and 60 percent, respectively. CF 25-15.) Oviedo HMA's projected occupancy levels for Year 2 may be optimistic for a start-up hospital, but nevertheless appear achievable, in part, in light of the collaborative arrangement. Oviedo HMA excluded from its market area, zip code 32773 because of its proximity to CFRH and zip code 32792 because of its proximity to Florida Hospital-Winter Park Memorial Hospital in Orange County. The southernmost zip codes, 32817, 32826, and 32820 (east of zip code 32792) were excluded because of current patient travel patterns. At present, the Oviedo area is served almost exclusively by either Florida Hospital or ORHS. Oviedo area residents are out-migrating to Orange County for obstetrical and emergency room services. (For calendar year 2003, approximately 44 percent of Seminole County residents received acute care services outside of Seminole County.) Florida Hospital and ORHS serve the majority of the out-migrating residents. In 2004, for the four zip codes of Oviedo HMA's proposed service area (32765, 32766, 32708, and 32732), Florida Hospital facilities had a combined 61.7 percent non-tertiary market share, and ORHS facilities had a combined 30.9 percent non-tertiary market share. Winter Park Memorial Hospital provided the most non-tertiary discharges (1,771 or 20.7 percent), followed by Florida Hospital-Orlando (1,647 or 19.2 percent), Florida Hospital-Altamonte (1,335 or 15.6 percent), and South Seminole Hospital (1,183 or 13.8 percent). CFRH accounted for 309 or 3.6 percent of the discharges. CF 25-6 and 25-9. In 2004, Florida Hospital facilities had a combined 18,701 or 54.1 percent of the "non-tertiary" discharges of patients residing in Seminole County, and ORHS facilities had a combined 9,473 or 27.4 percent of such discharges. By comparison, CFRH had 5,131 or 14.8 percent of such discharges. CFRH 25-2 and 25-3. Central Florida proposes to serve a ten zip code service area. Central Florida's primary service area consists of four zip codes in Seminole County, 32765 (Oviedo), 32766 (Oviedo), 32708 (Winter Springs), 32773, just south of CFRH and northeast of ORHS South Seminole Hospital, and zip code 32792 in Orange County. (Other cases from Seminole County are also included.) OV 23 and 26; CF 12, Table 1-15, at 1-25. Central Florida's secondary service area consists of two Seminole County zip codes 32707, south of zip code 32708 and just east of Florida Hospital-Altamonte, and zip code 32732 (Geneva and in the northeastern portion of Seminole County, and Orange County (bordering Seminole County to the north) zip codes 32817, 32826, and 32820, running west to east from zip code 32792. (Other cases from Orange County are also included.) Id. In five zip codes (out of ten) of Central Florida's proposed primary service area (32708, 32765, 32766, 32773, and 32792, which includes Winter Park Memorial Hospital on the western edge), see OV 27 and CF 12 at 1-28, in 2004, Florida Hospital facilities had a combined 63.9 percent non-tertiary market share and ORHS facilities had a combined 25.0 percent non-tertiary market share. Winter Park provided the most non- tertiary discharges (4,037 or 26.7 percent), followed by Florida Hospital-Orlando (2,961 or 19.6 percent), Florida Hospital- Altamonte (1,938 or 12.8 percent), and ORHS South Seminole Hospital (1,619 or 10.7 percent). CFRH's market share was 9.2 percent or 1,389 discharges. CF 25-7, 25-8, and 25-11. For Years 1 (2008) and 2 (2009), Central Florida projects that it will receive approximately 83 percent of its total cases from its primary service area, including cases from other Seminole County zip codes, of which approximately 75 percent are expected from the five zip codes, and approximately 17 percent from its secondary service area. CF 12 at Table 1- 15. Central Florida's projected occupancy levels for Years 1 and 2 were approximately 60 and 63 percent, respectively, and approximately 75 percent by Year 5 (2012). CF 12, Tables 1-15 and 1-16 at 1-25, 1-26, and 1-28; CF 42. Central Florida also provided adjusted numbers (downward) for Years 1 and 2 to account for the start-up phases of opening the new hospital, which yielded projected occupancy levels of approximately 45 and 55 percent, respectively. Central Florida's revenue projections were based on these adjusted occupancy levels. Central Florida also projected 66.4 percent occupancy for Year 3. Id. See also CF 12, Schedules 5 and 7A and CF 42. (Oviedo HMA's expert projected 61 percent occupancy for Year 5 for Central Florida.) Central Florida's projected occupancy levels for Year 5 appear reasonable. If Oviedo HMA's CON application is approved, the market share for Oviedo HMA's primary service area for the new Oviedo HMA hospital, in conjunction with ORHS facilities for 2009 (Year 2), is projected to be approximately 50 to 54 percent, with Florida Hospital facilities market share reduced to approximately 41 to 45 percent.9 For 2009 (Year 2), if Central Florida's CON application is approved and the five zip codes are used to determine market share, the market shares for Florida Hospital, ORHS, CFRH, Central Florida/Oviedo, and other facilities are projected to be 55.5 percent, 21.4 percent, 6.6 percent, 13.5 percent, and 3.0 percent, respectively. CF 25-13. The Proposals and applicants' commitment Central Florida's proposal Central Florida proposes to build a new, 60-bed hospital in Oviedo (on a purchased site) through the transfer (and delicensure) of 60 acute care beds from its existing hospital. The proposed hospital is modeled after and is an enlarged version of West Marion Community Hospital, a licensed and operational HCA facility in Ocala, Florida. The proposed hospital is made up of 173,335 gross square feet, with a projected construction cost of $36,400,350 or $210 per gross square foot. The total project cost is $93,630,559. The licensed bed complement includes 48 general medical-surgical beds and 12 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds. An obstetrics unit comprised of six labor-delivery-recovery (LDR) rooms will be located on the second floor (LDRs are not licensed beds). The twelve medical-surgical beds adjacent to the LDR rooms are "swing" beds that may be used for either general medical-surgical patients or as post-partum beds, as the need may require. All patient rooms in Central Florida's proposed hospital will be private rooms. In addition to general medical services and obstetrics, the services to be provided by the hospital will include emergency services, imaging, diagnostic cardiac catheterization, mammography, radiology, ultrasound, nuclear medicine, bone density imaging, surgery (including general and orthopedic surgery), and endoscopy. The design accommodates horizontal expansion of departments on the first floor by using "soft space," and the addition of 12 beds on both the second and third floors. The hospital can also be expanded vertically. A medical office building is planned to be phased in during construction. As a condition of its CON, Central Florida agreed to provide 7.8 percent of total patient days to Medicaid patients and 1.74 percent of total patient days to charity patients. Central Florida intends to provide OB services, but not as a condition of approval. Central Florida's proposal has the support of its parent organization, HCA Inc. The project involves a capital expenditure of greater than $10 million and is subject to formal approval by HCA following the award of the CON. However, Chuck Hall, President of HCA's North Florida Division, stated that HCA's senior management understands the Central Florida proposal, and Central Florida can be confident of approval. Oviedo HMA contends that Central Florida did not address in its CON application the impacts (loss of cases or cannibalization) to CFRH if Central Florida's CON application is approved. There is evidence that the loss of 60 beds could require CFRH to add back beds or run in excess of capacity and that the loss of cases, such as OB cases, could have an impact on CFRH. During the hearing, Central Florida persuasively proved that, if its CON application is approved, the overall impact on CFRH would be minimal.10 Oviedo HMA's proposal Oviedo HMA proposes to build a new, 60-bed acute care hospital in Oviedo. The project involves 133,081 square feet at a construction cost of $26,616,200, or $200 per gross square foot. The total project cost is $62,734,334. HMA is committed to fund the project, even if it is as high as $82 million, so long as ORHS provides its financial and collaborative commitment as reflected herein. Oviedo HMA proposes to offer a full range of primary and secondary non-tertiary hospital services, such as medical- surgical care, emergency room case, ambulatory surgical care, cardiac catheterization laboratory services, outpatient services, etc., and expressly agrees to "provide Obstetrical Services." The floor plan for the hospital is taken from the replacement facility for Heart of Florida Regional Medical Center in Haines City, Florida, which HMA constructed in 1997. The design includes 47 medical-surgical beds, eight ICU beds, and five dedicated post-partum beds. The hospital will also have four LDR beds. The project includes 12 emergency treatment rooms and two non-licensed observation beds. All patient rooms will be private rooms. The hospital is designed to be expanded horizontally (for example, expanding the Emergency Department), and to be expanded vertically from three to five floors. While disputed by Central Florida, the proposed hospital, with surface parking, can be constructed on 15 to 20 acres, which can also accommodate future expansion. Additional acreage may be needed to accommodate a full build-out of a five- story hospital and additional surface parking. There are currently no plans for a medical office building on-site and additional acreage would be needed. Oviedo HMA did not propose a specific provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Rather, Oviedo HMA "commits to accept all Medicaid and Indigent [sic] patients that are clinically appropriate for services offered by Oviedo HMA, Inc." Oviedo HMA's proposal does not enjoy the unconditional support of its parent organization. Rather, the proposal is contingent upon a collaborative effort between Oviedo HMA and ORHS, whereby ORHS has agreed to contribute 20 percent of the project cost of Oviedo HMA's proposal and, in turn, receives 20 percent of the profits of the proposed hospital. HMA formed the belief that the Oviedo market cannot be penetrated by a hospital provider not affiliated with either Florida Hospital or ORHS, and HMA would not attempt to enter the Oviedo market on its own. Each applicant's experts found flaws with the competing applicant's plans for their respective hospitals. Each of the flaws can be remedied prior to construction. Land for the proposals Central Florida In June 2005, Central Florida purchased approximately 27 acres for its proposed hospital, at a cost of $7,864,439, within the $8.2 million budgeted for land in its CON application. The site comprises seven contiguous parcels centrally located in the Oviedo area (within zip code 32765), situated between State Road 417 and State Road 426 and between Red Bug Lake Road and Oviedo Marketplace Boulevard (south-to- north). Four of the seven parcels are currently within the City of Oviedo and Central Florida has requested the City of Oviedo to annex the remaining parcels. The proposed site is approximately ten miles from CFRH. While the subject of some criticism by Oviedo HMA, the site does not pose any significant road access issues which can not be reasonably cured. An amendment to the City of Oviedo's comprehensive plan is required before the site can be developed for hospital use. Central Florida filed its application in October, 2005, and a decision is expected in August or September, 2006. Having a hospital on the site proposed by Central Florida would provide the residents of the Oviedo area with a centrally located hospital site. Central Florida's budget for land costs and site preparation are reasonable. Oveido HMA Oviedo HMA budgeted $5.5 million for the acquisition of the hospital site in the Oviedo area. $3.4 million has been allocated for site development. Oviedo HMA does not anticipate purchasing any land for the project unless its CON application is approved. Oviedo HMA's experts reviewed several sites, which may be potentially suitable for the hospital. See OV 17A and 17-1 through 17-10. Mr. Harling, an expert in civil engineering and commercial site development, and Mr. Axel, an expert in commercial real estate sales, were quite familiar with the real estate market and development potential (for the proposed Oviedo HMA hospital) of several parcels in the Oviedo area. They did not perform a formal feasibility study or an estimate of the probable cost of site development for the sites. Mr. Harling was aware of the nature of the project, a 60-bed hospital, and some details regarding the parcels he examined, such as the existence of utilities and drainage outfall systems, but was not aware of the square footage of the proposed hospital and had not reviewed a site or floor plan. Despite challenges for the development of specific sites, such as the existence of wetland areas, and challenges in purchasing a site within the budgeted amount, based upon his review of the sites and assumptions regarding, in part, the amount of impervious coverage required, he opined that one or more of the parcels was suitable for the planned hospital and that $170,000 per acre for 20 acres was reasonable. The uncertainty regarding the location of the hospital site raises some concerns given Oviedo HMA's primary service area. A new hospital centrally located within the Oviedo area would be optimal to meet the needs of those residents. There was persuasive evidence that Oviedo HMA will be able to purchase a suitable hospital site at the cost reflected in the CON application. However, there are reasonable concerns whether a 15 to 20-acre site can accommodate a fully-expanded hospital with five floors, a medical office building, and any required additional parking. (Oviedo HMA does not have plans to build a medical office building on the 15 to 20-acre site. Such a building would require additional acreage.) Central Florida's proposal receives an edge here because it has already purchased a site which is centrally located for a hospital to serve the Oviedo area. Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes - The need for the health services being proposed The parties stipulated to the need for a new, 60-bed acute care hospital in Oviedo, Seminole County, Florida, AHCA District 7, subdistrict 7-4. Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes - The availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the district of the applicant Quality health care services proposed by the applicants are available to the residents of District 7, Seminole County, and in particular, the Oviedo area. As noted herein, the health care market in Orange and Seminole Counties is dominated by Florida Hospital and ORHS. The utilization of existing facilities in Seminole County is acceptable notwithstanding the maldistribution of acute care beds in Seminole County. Seminole County residents will continue to outmigrate from Seminole County to Orange County for tertiary care services if Oviedo HMA's project is approved. This outmigration may continue even if Central Florida's project is approved, although some curtailment would be expected in time. Neither applicant is favored by this criterion. Section 408.035(3), Florida Statutes - The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care Central Florida (specifically CFRH) has a history of providing high quality of care to its patients. CFRH has received awards for its health care services. Central Florida has the ability to provide quality of care should its project be approved. HMA hospitals have also been honored with several awards and recognitions for quality of care. Oviedo HMA, by virtue of its affiliation with HMA-affiliated hospitals and collaboration with ORHS, has the ability to provide high quality of care should its project be approved. Oviedo HMA proposes to develop its hospital through a clinical and financial collaborative effort with ORHS using ORHS as a tertiary care referral partner and incorporating ORHS' resources in developing a quality program. Both applicants expect that any patients needing tertiary care will be sent to ORHS (for Oviedo HMA hospital patients) or to CFRH (for Central Florida patients). It is anticipated that if certain tertiary care services are not offered at CFRH, Central Florida hospital patients would be referred to Florida Hospital or ORHS. The Oviedo HMA/ORHS collaborative effort offers advantages over the Central Florida/CFRH (or elsewhere) referral network. There is some evidence that hospital transfers within affiliated systems may be quicker and easier than from competing systems. Another advantage is the ability of using an integrated IT system among ORHS affiliated hospitals. It is often cumbersome for non-affiliated hospitals to exchange patient data electronically. Conversely, the transfer of patient information to and from CFRH and the new Central Florida hospital, if approved, will facilitate patient care between these hospitals. Certain tertiary services offered by and through ORHS may afford Oviedo residents a greater range of services than those offered by CFRH. This criterion favors Oviedo HMA in light of its collaborative arrangement with ORHS. Section 408.935(4), Florida Statutes - The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation The parties stipulated that the applicants have sufficient funds available for capital and operating expenses, for project accomplishment and operation. Central Florida questioned the reasonableness of Oviedo HMA's land cost projection. The parties also stipulated that the applicants' proposed staffing is adequate and that the proposed average annual salaries are reasonable for their respective hospitals. Oviedo HMA questions whether Central Florida's CON application failed to include the appropriate Schedule 6, whereas Central Florida reserved the right to question whether Oviedo HMA accurately reflected proposed staffing expenses in Schedule 8A. The ability of each applicant to attract the necessary medical and clinical staff necessary to implement their respective hospitals is also is dispute. Both applicants have the ability to recruit and retain nursing and other related medical personnel, including physicians. Oviedo HMA has an edge in recruitment of physicians and nurses by virtue of its collaboration with ORHS and given existing physician referral patterns. Central Florida has identified a need to recruit additional physicians in several practice areas, although they appear to have been recently successful in recruiting physicians for specialty services such as neurosurgery. Both applicants can appropriately manage and operate their respective hospitals. Central Florida's proposed hospital will have its own management team and will be administered separate and apart from CFRH. Oviedo HMA will also operate the proposed hospital notwithstanding the intended collaboration with ORHS. Oviedo HMA's projected land cost is reasonable. Also, Central Florida's Schedule 6 and Oviedo HMA's Schedule 8A are appropriate. By stipulation, the applicants have the ability to fund their respective projects and their construction and equipment costs are reasonable. This criterion is neutral except for Central Florida's purchase of a centrally located site. See Finding of Fact 173. Section 408.035(5), Florida Statutes - The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district The parties stipulated that the hospitals proposed by the applicants will enhance health care for residents of the Oviedo area. At issue was which hospital project will better enhance such access. Both applicants proposed similar health care services, which are needed in the Oviedo community. As noted elsewhere in this Recommended Order, approval of the Central Florida proposal would afford patients and physicians with another choice of health care provider. It is expected that patients receiving health care services at a Central Florida hospital in Oviedo will be able to access certain tertiary care services (such as open heart surgery) at CFRH, and other tertiary care facilities. On the other hand, the Oviedo HMA proposal does not afford another choice to patients and physicians in the area in any meaningful way, given the current market share of ORHS in the Oviedo area and the expected collaborative effort. This negative is out-weighed by the prospect that patients accessing an Oviedo HMA hospital would be expected to access a full array of tertiary care services at ORHS facilities given the collaborative nature of the relationship. Both proposals would enhance access to health care for residents of the Oviedo area. But the Oviedo HMA project has a significant comparative edge, and it is this edge which ultimately favors approval of the Oviedo HMA project when all statutory and rule criteria are considered. Section 408.035(6), Florida Statutes - The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposals Immediate or Short-term financial feasibility 129. Generally, immediate or short-term financial feasibility refers to the ability of the applicants to fund construction and start up of the proposed project. Each applicant has this ability. Long-term financial feasibility Long-term financial feasibility refers to the ability of the project to break even or show a profit within a reasonable period in the future. There is no AHCA rule that states profitability must be shown within a specific period of years. Generally, applicants project financial feasibility within two years of operation. This may be due, in part, because AHCA requires detailed financial projections, including a statement of the projected revenue and expenses for the first two years of operation after completion of the proposed project. See § 408.037(1)(b)3., Fla. Stat. CON applicants define their financial projections within these general parameters. Where there are two or more competing applicants and one demonstrates financial feasibility within two years and the others do not demonstrate financial feasibility until subsequent years, the competitive advantage often goes to the applicant showing a profit in year two, although AHCA has approved CON applications which projected profitability in later years. OV 69 at 34; CF 84 at 25. The financial projections of each applicant were based upon the hospital utilization projections discussed previously. To the extent the utilization projections were overstated, this would of course effect the financial projections. Each applicant presented evidence to demonstrate the reasonableness of their own financial projections, and offered criticism of the financial projections of the other applicant. A. Oviedo HMA Projections Oviedo HMA projects that it will achieve a net profit in Year 1 of operation of $82,000 (after taxes) and a net profit in Year 2 of $2.4 million (after taxes). The payor mix assumptions in Schedule 7A were derived from existing (historical) discharges generated from the zip codes in the primary service area. Oviedo HMA used three HMA hospitals in Florida, i.e., Brooksville Regional Hospital, Pasco Regional Medical Center (120-bed, excluding newborn nursery, hospital), and Sebastian Hospital, as proxy or target hospitals for the basis of the expense projections in the financial pro formas. (Brooksville and Spring Hill report on a consolidated basis.) Fiscal year 2003 financial data on these proxy hospitals was taken from AHCA Prior Year Actual Reports. See Ov 38. This was the most recent data available to Oviedo HMA's expert at the time the financial portions of the CON application were prepared. These reports are a detailed source of data submitted to AHCA and certified as accurate.11 Each of the three hospitals was profitable for the reporting fiscal year. A hospital's occupancy refers to the average head county divided by the number of days. Average daily census refers to the average number of patients in the facility over the year on average, generally a year. The projected occupancy for the Oviedo facility is 57.9 percent in Year 1 (2008) and 75.1 percent in Year 2 (2009). The average occupancy for the three proxy hospitals was between 55 and 59 percent. Central Florida's expert estimated occupancy levels (for the Oviedo HMA project) of 54 and 69 percent for Years 1 and 2. Compare OV 12, Schedule 5 - Projected Utilization Assumptions with CFRH 25-15. (In Year 2, the occupancy for the Oviedo HMA hospital is projected to be higher than the three proxy hospitals.)12 Central Florida criticized the use of the three proxy hospitals as not appropriate, in part, because one of the hospitals did not include a cardiac catheterization lab, and another did not have an OB program, which are services that will be available at the Oviedo HMA hospital. However, the evidence demonstrates that the three proxy hospitals were reasonable, as these hospitals included one hospital (Pasco Regional Medical Center) which was at the highest end of HMA's cost experience, and two hospitals that were in the middle of HMA's overall cost experience. It does not appear that HMA attempted to choose hospitals with lower- cost experience in an effort to overstate the expected profits. Use of "proxy hospitals" for cost experience is a common methodology, and the hospitals selected appear reasonable. Central Florida also claimed that Oviedo HMA's projected costs were understated because there was not a specific allocation for "fringe benefits" (estimated at 22 percent of salaries) added to the salary costs extrapolated from the FTE and salary projections in Schedule 6.13 Oviedo HMA's financial planner agreed that the financial model he utilized did not make a "straight line" mapping of the Schedule 6 FTEs and salary projections into Schedule 8A statement of expenses. However, an accounting of all salary and wages, as well as fringe benefits, was included in Oviedo HMA's Schedule 8A, based on the actual experience of the three proxy hospitals as reflected in the Prior Year Actual Reports. Each of the proxy hospitals is required to report all of its hospital costs, including salaries and fringe benefits, in the Prior Year Actual Reports, and all costs from these proxy hospitals were included in Oviedo HMA's financial model. Although the Prior Year Actual Reports do not have a specific "fringe benefits" line item, these expenses are included in the reports either under the columns for "salary and wages" or for "other" expenses. All of the costs were carried over into the financial model. The applicant also conducted a reasonableness test when the financial model and Schedule 8A were prepared, by comparing the total salaries and wages from the three proxy hospitals ($15.7 million) versus the extrapolation of total salary and wages from Schedule 6 ($15 million). The amount allocated in the model and placed on Schedule 8A for salaries and wages was more than sufficient to cover all salaries and wages on Schedule 6. Additional allocation for fringe benefits was included within the "other" cost centers in the Prior Year Actual Reports which also carried over to Schedule 8A. Oviedo HMA's expert also conducted a series of other "sensitivity analysis" verifying that the costs included on Schedule 8A for salaries and wages and fringe benefits, and other expenses were reasonable. Central Florida criticized the "sensitivity analysis" claiming one year of inflation for expenses was omitted in the analysis. However, even if accepted as true, applying an inflation adjustment of 3.5 percent for one additional year of expenses, does not materially change any of the sensitivity analysis, because revenues would also have to be inflated forward for the additional year. Further, Oviedo HMA's Schedule 8A included $15.7 million for salary and wage expenses, and included additional costs for fringe benefits in other line items. Central Florida also criticized Oviedo HMA for not including any interest expense to account for financing the proposed project. However, no interest is anticipated, as the project will be funded by the parent company through cash on hand and operating cash flow without borrowing; the company does not charge interest to its affiliates (even though for tax accounting and external audit reports it may impute interest to the affiliates). Moreover, to the extent any interest would be hypothetically imputed to the project as overall corporate overhead, it is captured in the financial pro formas through the management fee which was allocated as an expense in the pro formas. Moreover, even if Central Florida's claims of over $1 million in omitted expenses are accepted as valid, the project is likely to show a profit in the second year of operation. In sum, the financial model utilized by Oviedo HMA was a reasonable approach to financial forecasting. Given the Oviedo HMA's occupancy projections, the hospital is likely to be financially feasible in the long-term and likely show a profit by the second year of operation. B. Central Florida's Projections The revenues and expenses projected for the proposed hospital are based on the experience of CFRH's existing facility, with adjustments made to reflect the service lines and payor mix of the proposed hospital. Based on this record, in the past, it appears that CON applicants for a new hospital generally have projected financial feasibility by the first two or three years of operation. This does not necessarily mean that they have been successful at achieving these projections, only that the projections have been made. Central Florida projected that the proposed hospital, before taxes, will have net income losses before taxes of: $8,978,068 in Year 1; $6,641,454 in Year 2; $3,318,963 in Year 3; and $1,140,062 in Year 4 of operation. In Year 5, Central Florida projects a profit (net income before taxes) of $1,970,340 and a profit (net income after taxes) of $1,162,501 at 75 percent occupancy. CF 12 at Table 8A-2. (Central Florida projected profitable years (Years 1 through 5) on an EBDITA (earnings before depreciation, interest, taxes, and amortization) basis. Id.) Despite the projected losses for the first four years of operation of the project, HCA, by its representatives, considers the project to be financially feasible in the long- term and is committed to the project. The assumptions made for the revenue and expense projections are reasonable, notwithstanding criticisms by Oviedo HMA which have been considered. It is concluded that Central Florida's proposed hospital is likely to be financially feasible in the long-term and by Year 5.14 This criterion is neutral. Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes - The extent that the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost- effectiveness The greater Orlando area is a competitive market. Nevertheless, Mr. Gregg, for AHCA, stated that he would want to see more diversity in the greater Orlando market. ORHS and Florida Hospital are large health care provider systems. Notwithstanding the potential improvement of the delivery of health care services to the residents of the Oviedo area, the net impact of a 60-bed acute care hospital is going to be minimal when compared to these systems. Currently ORHS, Florida Hospital, and to a much lesser extent CFRH compete for patients from the Oviedo area. ORHS and Florida Hospital are the dominant providers. If Oviedo HMA were sponsoring the project alone, it could be said that approval of its project would bring a new provider to the market. However, this is not the case. Notwithstanding the day-to-day management of the new hospital by Oviedo HMA, the expected collaborative arrangement between Oviedo HMA and ORHS, discussed in Oviedo HMA's CON application and presented as a significant feature at the final hearing, negates the suggestion that Oviedo HMA will be a new provider. This is especially so given the expected referrals to ORHS. Central Florida argues that its proposal would release the strangle-hold of Florida Hospital and ORHS on the greater Orlando area, including the Oviedo area. The presence of Central Florida would give the Oviedo area residents (and physicians) another choice for acute care related health care services and, in time, could be expected to cause a re-direction of patients needing certain tertiary care services away from ORHS and Florida Hospital, to CFRH. Nevertheless, the applicable statutory review criteria specifically states that it applies to competition that promotes "quality" and "cost effectiveness." ORHS and Florida Hospital provide high quality of care. No persuasive evidence was presented that either Oviedo HMA's or Central Florida's proposal will foster competition that will promote quality of care to any significant degree. As to cost-effectiveness, while there is an argument that having additional choices will enhance cost-effectiveness, it was not demonstrated by either applicant in this case. There was no persuasive analysis offered of the current costs of healthcare in the Oviedo area and what impact, if any, the addition of Oviedo HMA or Central Florida would have on those costs. The best that can be said about enhancement in competition is that another provider might have some impact on managed care rates. Without specific detailed analysis, this evidence can be given very little weight. Also, there is insufficient evidence to say which applicant would more likely impact managed care rates. In light of the statutory criterion, Central Florida and Oviedo HMA did not demonstrate that their proposals should be given any advantage under this criterion. Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes - The costs and methods of proposed construction, including the costs and construction of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction The parties stipulated that each party meets this criterion and that costs are not in dispute in this proceeding. However, each party reserved the right to argue their design was better and the impact of cost on financial feasibility. Central Florida also reserved the right to argue that its proposal should be more favorably reviewed comparatively because it has purchased land in the Oviedo area and because Oviedo HMA cannot purchase enough land in the Oviedo area at the price reflected in the CON Application. Both applicants project reasonable costs and methods of construction and satisfy this criterion. Regarding this criterion, despite some criticism, Central Florida should receive an edge because it has purchased a desirable site, which is centrally located in the Oviedo area. Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes: Applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent The parties stipulated that HMA's Florida hospitals and Central Florida have historically provided significant health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Central Florida proposes to provide 7.8 percent of total patient days to Medicaid patients and 1.74 percent of total patient days to charity patients, as a condition of its CON. By comparison, Oviedo HMA did not propose a specific percentage of patient days dedicated to Medicaid or charity patients. Rather, Oviedo HMA commits to accept all Medicaid and indigent patients that are clinically appropriate for services offered by Oviedo HMA. Central Florida should receive a comparative edge regarding this criterion. Section 408.035(10), Florida Statutes - The applicant's designation as a Gold Seal Program nursing facility pursuant to Section 400.235, Florida Statutes, when the applicant is requesting additional nursing home beds at that facility The parties stipulated that this criterion is not applicable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order approving Oviedo HMA, Inc.'s CON application No. 9807P and denying Central Florida Regional Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Central Florida Regional Hospital's CON application No. 9805. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Patricia Major, M.D., graduated from Harvard undergraduate school with honors; graduated with honors from New York University School of Medicine; served her internship at Yale New Haven Hospital, as well as completing a residency program and fellowship program in pulmonary diseases at Yale in 1974. She was certified in 1974 by the American Board of Internal Medicine. She was a teaching fellow at Yale during her pulmonary fellowship and had a faculty appointment thereafter at that same school. She was Assistant Director and Educational Coordinator at the Family Practices Residency Program for the University of Connecticut and from 1974 through 1976 had teaching appointments there. In 1976, she left New England and returned to Florida to practice internal medicine in Key West where she had grown up. During the period from 1976 to 1980, when she practiced medicine in Key West, she also worked with Emory University and the University of Miami as a clinician teaching medical students who were placed in Key West on rotating clerkships. She served as an emergency room physician at Florida Keys Memorial Hospital and was an admitting physician on the staff. In 1978 she was selected as one of five physicians to become the first civilians to go through the Navy's Diving Medical Officers Training Program and served as a civilian diving medical officer for the Navy in Key West. In 1980, the Board of Medical Examiners of the State of Florida brought charges against Respondent that resulted in a stipulation being entered into between Respondent and the Board that she would voluntarily cease practicing in Florida and relinquish her Florida license. The stipulation was signed in December, 1981, and her license was relinquished by Order of the Board in February, 1982. The charges that resulted in the initial suspension of Respondent's license and in the stipulation between the Respondent and the Board dealt with charges based on impairment due to drugs and alcohol. Respondent moved to Massachusetts where she practiced medicine under a temporary license and voluntarily participated in the Impaired Professionals Program for two years. From 1982 to 1984 she had twice-weekly urine screens under her contract between the assigned Massachusetts monitoring physician and herself. In no instance was there evidence of impairment or a positive urine screen during her Massachusetts stay. In 1984, Respondent returned to Florida and applied to the Board of Medical Examiners for permission to return to practice. On March 14, 1984, the Board of Medical Examiners entered an order reinstating Respondent's medical license for the State of Florida, placing her on probation for a period of three years and setting up a monitoring agreement under which Dr. John Buckner of the Island Clinic would serve as supervising physician for Respondent. From March, 1984, until April, 1986, Respondent worked at the Island Clinic with Dr. Buckner, seeing 15 to 25 patients a day. During that period of time, she only missed one working day, in September, 1985, when she was moving from one house to another and during the period of time immediately before and during her October, 1985 stay at South Miami Hospital. Respondent, and all of the witnesses who had personal knowledge of her contact with patients, denied that she ever treated or dealt with patients while under the influence of drugs or alcohol from 1984 until the current time. Iris Carleen Cervantes, who served as secretary to Dr. Buckner and is currently on the staff of Dr. Davidson, Respondent's current monitoring physician, has had the opportunity over two and one-half years to observe Respondent on a regular basis in her dealings with patients. She has been with Respondent socially as well. She has never seen Respondent drink alcoholic beverages. She uses Respondent as her personal physician and for all other members of her family. She is aware of the Respondent's regular visits to her psychiatrist, Dr. Jerrold Weinstock, and takes those into account in doing the scheduling for Dr. Major. She is similarly aware of Respondent's regular attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, has never heard Respondent disparage A.A.; and in fact, has a brother whom Respondent helped get into A.A. At no time has Cervantes ever seen any indication, even when Respondent has returned to the office late at night, of any use of drugs or alcohol. Linda Susan Park, a counselor at the Delphus Drug and Alcohol Treatment Center at Florida Keys Memorial Hospital for the last three and one-half years, knows Respondent both personally and professionally. She has never seen Respondent under the influence of any mood-altering chemicals. Although they go out socially together, she has never seen Respondent order an alcoholic beverage. When they are together, they talk program, i.e., A.A. steps. Parks has regularly seen Respondent at A.A. meetings, and they attend a number of the same groups including a Wednesday night women's group called The New Beginnings Group. Parks is aware of the interest Respondent has shown in drug and alcohol-impaired nurses at Keys Memorial and of her attendance at the impaired nurses Caducues meetings. Respondent has worked with the Delphus Program at Florida Keys Memorial Hospital referring a number of patients to the program. Park has seen the Respondent under extremely stressful situations, particularly in the past year; and has seen her act only appropriately. With the Board's approval, Respondent has also worked with indigent patients at the Health Care Center at Florida Keys Memorial Hospital since August, 1986. The Director of that program, Thomas C. Puroff, testified regarding her employment there. Respondent was originally hired on a temporary basis to cover for the primary care physician for three weeks. The Director's assessment of her initial period of employment at the Health Care Center is as follows: The staff was very, very pleased with her performance, and I was very pleased with her performance. The staff felt that they were learning a lot from her, that she was an exemplary doctor who explained why she was doing things with patients and it became a learning process for our nurse practitioners and nurses. Her interaction with the receptionist, administrative assistant was very high level, very positive, and the patients loved her. And both--well, later on when we did hire her on a one day per week basis to fill in when the regular doctor could not be there, a lot of patients would call and specifically request an appointment when she was going to be there. (Transcript, P. 199) The Health Care Center ultimately hired the Respondent for one to two days a week when the other physician was not there. She works the longest day of the stretch, which is a ten-hour day. The Director describes the job as a high stress one in which he has seen no difficulty in handling stress on Respondent's part. He has never seen any indication of impairment of faculties or inability to handle her job in any fashion on Respondent's part. When he hired Respondent, Puroff had full knowledge that she had problems with the Board of Medical Examiners, had been assigned a monitoring physician, had been brought in restraints to the emergency room at Florida Keys Memorial Hospital and had been committed under the Baker Act in September of 1985, that she was an alcoholic who attended A.A., and that she regularly visited a psychiatrist. None of these matters were kept secret from him. Karl Michael Davidson, M.D., who became Respondent's monitoring physician after Dr. Buckner abruptly left town in April, 1986, has similarly seen no sign of any kind of impairment during the time he has worked with her. He has never seen her indulge in any drugs or alcohol. He knows that she regularly sees her psychiatrist. He has received no complaints from anyone in the medical community, the patient community, or the general community of Key West with regard to Respondent since he has served in a monitoring capacity for her. Even Sally Parr who testified on behalf of the Petitioner denied that Respondent ever used alcohol when she was in a situation in any way connected with patients. Regarding the change of monitoring physicians in April, 1986, the testimony of Respondent and her witnesses was consistent and uncontradicted, with Petitioner presenting no facts other than those stipulated. The individual having the most knowledge regarding the circumstances under which Dr. Buckner left Key West, was his secretary, Iris Cervantes. She, like the other witnesses, was aware that he had gone to look at a number of schools and other medical positions. He would say he was going to leave, but he always came back. On April 6, 1986, Buckner's wife told Respondent the Island Clinic was being closed and Buckner was leaving. On April 7, the locks on the doors to the Island Clinic were changed. Cervantes was one of two people to have a new key; Respondent and the other doctors practicing with Dr. Buckner were not given keys. This left Respondent in a position where she could not write some pharmaceutical prescriptions, all appointments had to be cancelled, and there was no way to treat ongoing patients who were ill at the time. When the locksmiths changed the locks, Respondent contacted Buckner to ask if he knew what he was doing and if he were going to be gone permanently. He indicated that he had started working in California, but he did not know whether it would be permanent. He said that he had spoken with Dr. Davidson and asked him to act as a temporary supervising physician in addition to himself. Respondent spoke with Dr. Davidson who said that she was welcome to see patients at his office and that he would monitor until Buckner decided what he was doing. They spoke about immediately notifying the Board of the change in her office location. It was her impression that Dr. Davidson had actually notified the Board with a handwritten memo the first day she was there and that was how the investigator from the Department knew how to find her when the investigator came to see Respondent at Davidson's office on April 18, 1986. On that date Davidson also discussed with the investigator Buckner's abrupt departure which might be permanent. Respondent ultimately wrote the Board herself. That correspondence dated April 22, 1986, was received by the Department of Professional Regulation on April 28, 1986, the same day on which the Department received from Davidson his notification letter dated April 17, 1986. Four to six weeks after that letter, Dr. Davidson and Respondent were advised that the Board had received the information and would consider Dr. Davidson as her supervisor. On August 2, 1986 Davidson and Respondent appeared before the Board of Medical Examiners and received formal approval. The remaining allegations involve two separate incidents occurring during the week of September 16, 1985. At that time, and since January of that year, Respondent was living in the home of Sally Parr, an Assistant State Attorney for Monroe County. It was Parr's testimony that several months after Respondent moved in, Respondent began to drink wine on a regular basis sometimes to the point of intoxication. Parr is the sole person to testify to having seen Respondent drink alcoholic beverages. Other witnesses testified to Parr's own problems with alcohol. The emotional relationship between Parr and Respondent from March, 1985, until September, 1985, was "stormy" and "tremendously emotional." The two of them attended therapy with Dr. Jerrold Weinstock. On September 16-17, 1985, all of this emotionalism culminated in Parr calling the emergency number 911. During the evening of Monday, September 16, Parr's sister arrived in town. There were highly controverted scenes which both Parr and Respondent described. The two participants were clearly emotionally charged, angry, and upset. It was Parr's testimony that Respondent walked into the back bedroom and with a syringe in her hand with a pale yellow fluid in it, lifted her shirt and injected that material into her chest under her left breast Saying she was going to kill herself. According to Parr, Respondent said the fluid was 100 percent xylccaine and she would die in one minute. Parr then called 911, Respondent told her she was a fool to believe that, and Respondent left the house and drove away. Parr also confusedly describes a later scene that night with Respondent and another syringe and more light yellow fluid. Officer Cynthia Tingley responded to that call from Parr. The report was treated as one for an "attempted suicide". At no time did Ms. Parr tell the officer that Respondent was not in danger or that Respondent had told Parr that she was "a fool" to believe that this was a way to kill oneself. In the opinion of the investigating officer, Parr had an odor of alcoholic beverage on her breath. The officer had no personal knowledge that Respondent had administered the legend drug to herself. She did note an empty bottle of xylocaine in the room but no syringe was found. Later the officer was called to where another officer had stopped Respondent and had given her a citation for careless driving. Respondent was cooperative and did not seem to be having health problems, although she did appear to be under a lot of stress and appeared anxious. Neither officer made any attempt to detain Respondent after the stopping. Under Parr's version of this event, it ended with Respondent refusing to go to sleep in the back bedroom and only agreeing to go to sleep if she could sleep in Parr's room. That occurred and ended the evening. Respondent continued to live at the house, and on Thursday Parr and her sister left for a short vacation. Parr testified that she called from out-of-town to tell Respondent that she was not coming back to the house unless Respondent had moved out. Respondent agrees that Parr called and told her that but adds that Parr had promised to go on vacation with Respondent and told Respondent to arrange that vacation while Parr and her sister were gone. Respondent specifically denies that she made a suicide attempt or attempted to give the impression she was trying to commit suicide on September 16-17, 1985, or any other time. She denies that the events described by Parr occurred but agrees that it was a very confusing, emotional night. She denies that there was any further incident when she returned that night and only recalls them both being pretty tired and having gone to bed. Dr. Jerrold Weinstock, Respondent's treating psychiatrist and the individual to whom Parr and Respondent had gone for counselling, testified that the only description of the xylocaine/suicide incident he received came from Parr, not from Respondent. No information that Weinstock gained from his psychotherapy of Respondent indicated that Respondent's version of the event (or non-event) was incorrect. It is specifically found based upon the credibility of the witnesses that Respondent did not inject herself or attempt to inject herself with anything and specifically not with xylocaine. The second incident of that week occurred on Friday evening, September 20-21, 1985. This was the evening when Parr called Respondent and told her to move out of the house. Respondent describes that scene as follows. She [Parr] called. We had arranged that she would call at that time. I had seen my last patient about 5:30 or 5:45 and I was waiting at home for her call . . . She started screaming at me to get out of her home, that she did not want me there when she got back. I was stunned because I was making arrangements for vacation. I said, "What about the vacation?" She said, "I lied to get out." And I said, "Well, what will you do." "Call the police," she said. "I know people on the police force and I won't hesitate to use them." And then she hung up on me. (Transcript, P. 248) Respondent had taken steps during the day to arrange a trip to New York and Connecticut because Parr had never been to New York. An acquaintance came by while Respondent was still sitting stunned and asked her if she wanted to go to the Black Angus and have a drink. Respondent went with this individual to the Black Angus and had three very strong drinks there. She realized that she was feeling intoxicated after the third drink. She asked the woman, who was driving, to drop her off at Sally's house, but the woman wanted to go downtown to a few more bars. Respondent pleaded to be dropped off, and her companion became belligerent. Ultimately, the acquaintance assaulted Respondent tearing her shirt off, punching her in the face, hitting her about the head, grabbing her purse and pulling it away from her. During the scuffle, Respondent even lost her sandals. Petitioner has not controverted this account. Cervantes and Buckner both confirmed the bruises and scratches from the fight. Cervantes also described an incident a few days later whereby the same woman came into the Clinic, gave Cervantes some earrings she said she had taken out of Respondent's purse, and slashed the tires on Respondent's car on her way out. Respondent was left intoxicated, running, frightened, with no top on and three miles from Parr's house. She did not have her keys which had been in her purse and could not get into the clinic but felt she could get into Parr's house if she could get there. She felt intoxicated and becoming more so, uncertain whether it was the alcohol or being beaten that was affecting her. She was disoriented and embarrassed to be running down the street wearing only a pair of shorts. She crawled under a garage on the side of the road to sleep to clear her head to find a solution to her predicament. She was awakened by police officers but said nothing in response to questioning. Respondent was taken by the police to Florida Keys Memorial Hospital. When the police officers tried to transport Respondent, she became physically violent, kicking at the officers and attempting to kick out the windows of the patrol car. When she arrived at the hospital, she was physically restrained with arm and leg restraints. A drug analysis performed on Respondent at the hospital showed her blood alcohol level to be 0.235 percent. Respondent was next transported to Marc House in Marathon, Florida. She was involuntarily committed under the Baker Act for that one night. The next morning, Dr. Jesse Sewell, Director of Marc House, spoke with Respondent, determined there was absolutely no reason for Respondent to be there, and called Buckner to pick up Respondent and transport her back to Key West. Dr. Buckner did and took Respondent to Parr's house so she could move out her belongings. Respondent and Buckner discussed the episode at great length and she got in touch with Dr. Weinstock. Buckner and Respondent called her probation officer with the Department of Professional Regulation, a Diane Robie, who advised them to contact Dr. Roger Goetz, head of the Florida Impaired Physicians Program. Buckner called Goetz and described the incident that resulted in Respondent being committed overnight. He told Goetz that Respondent had moved out of the place where she had been living which seemed to have precipitated the disturbance; that she was in daily contact with her psychiatrist; that she had started attending A.A. meetings daily as recommended to someone who has had an episode of drinking; and that she would bring her support systems together. Goetz suggested going for evaluation at South Miami Hospital with Dr. Lynn Hankes. When Respondent was evaluated by Hankes, he recommended entry into South Miami's treatment program. Respondent went back to Key West and conferred with Buckner, Weinstock, and Goetz. Although Weinstock believed the inpatient program at South Miami would be therapeutically counterproductive, Respondent followed the recommendations of Goetz and Hankes and entered the treatment program on October 6, 1985. Buckner (whose deposition was taken prior to his departure from Key West in April, 1986) considers Respondent the best internal medicine doctor in Monroe County. Since he had noticed nothing wrong with Respondent through Friday afternoon, September 20, 1985, he was surprised by the telephone call from Dr. Sewell at Marc House on Saturday morning. When Buckner spoke with Weinstock that day, Weinstock explained that Respondent completely removes her emotional problems from her professional self. After the Friday/Saturday Marc House incident, Respondent finished her weekend move from Parr's house on Monday and came back to work on Tuesday. From Tuesday until she entered South Miami's treatment program, her performance as a practicing physician remained exemplary, analytical and calm. Respondent entered the program committed to making the program work and seeking insights into the nature of her disastrous interpersonal relationships as well as the episode that led to her admission to Marc House. Dr. Lynn Hankes testified that Respondent is a chronic alcoholic who will always be an impaired physician. He described in detail the South Miami Treatment Program beginning with the first phase of detox and assessment. He admitted that Respondent did not require detoxification and that she suffered no abstinence syndrome or withdrawal syndrome. She became immediately oriented to the program and began interacting with her counselor. However, Dr. Hankes believes that Respondent only intellectually admitted to the problem and that she was preoccupied with only interacting with the other medical professionals on the unit. He described at some length Respondent's "negative limit testing" and her preoccupation with the medical professionals on the unit. He regarded her as "sabotaging her own treatment". For example, Respondent did not initially tell program personnel that she sometimes had a glass of wine at dinner over the last several months or that she shared a marijuana cigarette on her way from Key West to admit herself into South Miami Hospital although she did disclose that information during her stay in the program. It is his opinion that there is a clear medical indication for extended treatment in a secondary facility for many reasons. Basically, in his opinion, it was a bottom line of an intellectual admission of the disease with only minimal acceptance. He administratively discharged Respondent from the program on October 31, 1985 just prior to her completing the program because she refused to accept his recommendation for extended care for an indefinite period of time. Dr. Hankes did not see Respondent after October 31, 1985 in any capacity. All of his testimony was based on information which he had prior to October 31, 1985. Dr. Hankes admitted that the only limit testing, rule breaking that Respondent had engaged in was that she spoke to other medical professionals, she spoke to male patients in their room while she stood at the door, and she walked a friend to the lobby of the hospital but did not leave the premises. He also observed isolation tendencies on her part. His dire predictions of doom have not proven accurate. In the subsequent year and a quarter Respondent has stayed sober and practiced medicine successfully with no further incident. It was Buckner's impression that the major reason Respondent was being required to go into the hospital for the inpatient treatment was because other impaired physicians in the Key West area had had to go through the program, and they were unhappy that she had somehow missed it. Buckner encouraged Respondent to enter the treatment program, even against the advice of her psychiatrist, so that the Board would be on her side after she "completed the drill." Buckner spoke with her counselor and therapist regularly during the time she was at South Miami Hospital and got indications that everything was progressing well and that she would be back to Key West to practice at the scheduled time. Buckner went to South Miami Hospital three weeks after Respondent's admission to meet with Dr. Hankes on a Saturday. Hankes did not show up for the appointment, but Buckner later reached him by phone. Hankes told Buckner that Respondent was progressing fine, although she still had some problems. Hankes said Respondent would be back in Key West practicing the next week and could have outpatient treatment with Dr. Weinstock. Buckner returned to Key West and told his staff to schedule Respondent for patients the next week when she would return. On Monday Respondent telephoned to tell him that Hankes had changed his mind, that they were not going to release her, and that she was going to have to sign herself out. No explanation has been offered as to why Hankes changed his mind between Saturday and Monday so radically from outpatient treatment with Respondent's treating psychiatrist to indefinite inpatient hospitalization. Buckner and Weinstock agreed the best treatment for Respondent was to get her back practicing medicine. Buckner contacted Cecilia Bradley, the attorney representing the Department and the Board, asking for direction. Bradley advised Buckner that he would have to personally decide whether Respondent was a threat to the community. He saw no such threat. Respondent returned to the Island Clinic and resumed her practice. Buckner saw her there on a daily basis, and her performance was, in his opinion, the same as before, "absolutely flawless." When Respondent did not accept Hankes' recommendation of indefinite long-term treatment in Mississippi, she became, in Dr. Goetz's opinion, in noncompliance with the Florida statute on impaired physicians. Dr. Goetz subsequently reported her to the Department of Professional Regulation for her failure to continue satisfactorily in the program. Goetz admitted that his role as Director of the program was one of an administrative officer, and he has offered no opinion as to whether Respondent is in fact impaired. Goetz has received no information that Respondent's impairment, if any, has in any way affected her practice or patient contact. All the information that Goetz relies on is information prior to Respondent's discharge from South Miami Hospital on October 31, 1985. It was Buckner's understanding, and that of Respondent, that she had not violated the Order of the Board in having an instance where she "slipped" with regard to drinking. Dr. Goetz agreed with that assessment a "slip" can be a part of a rehabilitation program. Linda Parks, Diane Robie, and Dr. Weinstock agree with that assessment. Respondent could not have financially afforded the Mississippi program. Despite the testimony of Hankes and Goetz that Respondent could have gone there for free, Goetz did not tell her that, Hankes did not know what the financial arrangement was, and the Director of that program whom Respondent personally contacted regarding the program did not mention such a possibility. Jerrold Weinstock has been Respondent's treating psychiatrist since 1984. His opinion is that there is no basis for the allegation that Respondent be considered an impaired physician incapable of rendering safe, quality, and competent services to her patients. In fact, Weinstock refers members of his own family to her. That opinion is shared by two independent psychiatrists, Stanley I. Holzberg, M.D., and Milton Burglass, M.D. Dr. Holzberg examined Respondent initially on behalf of the Florida Impaired Physicians Program in 1983; reexamined her at the request of the Department in February, 1984; and saw her for a third time at her own request in November, 1985, following Respondent's discharge from South Miami Hospital. On all of the occasions when he examined Respondent, Holzberg opined that she could practice medicine with skill and safety with the conditions that she have treatment and monitoring. Holzberg considers the treatment she is receiving from Weinstock, including the prescription of an antidepressant, as appropriate long-term treatment. He agrees with Weinstock and Buckner that long-term inpatient hospitalization would not be helpful to Respondent. Holzberg further agrees with Weinstock that Respondent's major illness is chronic depression, the affective disorder. Dr. Milton Burglass evaluated Respondent on March 25 and April 2, 1986, and reached the same conclusion. Burglass administered a full series of psychological tests to Respondent, including the Minnesota Multi-Phasic' Personality Inventory; the Beck Depression Inventory; the Cattell Use for Tension and Anxiety Survey Schedule; the Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank; the Cattell Assertive Behavior Survey Schedule; the Cattell Thought Stopping Survey Schedule; and the Standardized Medical and Personal History Form. He spent, in addition, a total of five hours interviewing Respondent, and he went over all the records from other psychiatric and related medical evaluations that she had had from 1980 forward. Burglass found nothing to suggest that Respondent is incapable of practicing medicine with skill and safety. Burglass believes that people can, in fact, function normally and be able to perform professionally in their chosen profession after recovering from a chemical dependency, be it drug or alcohol. Burglass specifically opined that Respondent is not impaired.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: Dismissing with prejudice the complaint filed against Respondent in DOAH Case NO. 86-0469; Finding Respondent guilty of the allegation contained in the Administrative Complaint filed in Case No. 86-2065 but taking no disciplinary action against her, and Allowing Respondent to continue to practice medicine under reasonable monitoring conditions until the period of her probation has been completed on March 15, 1987. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH Case Nos. 86- 0469 and 86-2065 Rulings are made as to each of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact as follows: 1-2. Adopted. 3. Rejected as irrelevant. 4-5. Adopted. 6-7. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Rejected as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Adopted. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Adopted. Rejected as being a statement taken totally out of context. Adopted. Rejected as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. 15-17. Adopted. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Adopted. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. First two sentences adopted; third sentence rejected as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. 22-23. Adopted. Rejected as being secondary. Adopted. First sentence rejected as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Second sentence adopted. Rejected as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. 28-29. Adopted. 30-32. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. Rejected as being secondary. Rejected as being contrary. Rejected as being irrelevant. Rejected as being secondary. Adopted. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. Rejected as being irrelevant. 40-45. Adopted. Rejected as being irrelevant. Adopted. Rulings are made as to each of Respondent's proposed findings of fact as follows: 1-27. Adopted. 28. Rejected as being redundant. 29-32. Adopted. 33. Rejected as being redundant. 34-39. Adopted. 40-41. Rejected as being unnecessary. 42-43. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Leslie Brookmeyer, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Elizabeth Du Fresne, Esquire 2950 S.W. 27th Avenue, Suite 10 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Nathan Eden, Esquire 417 Eaton Street Key West, Florida 33040 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On July 31, 1987, DOA mailed a Request for Proposal, (RFP), to various Health Maintenance Organizations, (HMOs), soliciting proposals for the providing of HMO services in the Orlando service area. Petitioner, Cigna, and the various Intervenors herein, submitted proposals which were opened by DOA on August 28, 1987, with a contemplated date of award of September 14, 1987 and an effective date of contract on January 1, 1988. Section 2 of the RFP defined the general purposes of the procurement as being to meet benefit objectives of DOA and to provide high quality benefits and services to state employees. Specifically, the objectives of the RFP were: A proactive approach to cost containment, including an emphasis on aggressive claims management, utilization review, and superior statistical reporting. Quality medical care which encourages health promotion, disease prevention, early diagnosis and treatment. Stability in the financial structure of offered health plans. Professional, high quality service in all administrative areas including claims processing, enrollment, membership services, grievances, and communications. Competitive premium rates which take into account the demographics and, if appropriate, the claims experience of state employees. Other stated objectives included: Have each county or contiguous group of counties be considered one service area. Award no more than two contracts per service area; however, the awards will be based on the HMO's ability to respond to the needs of employees and on accessibility by employees. Have reciprocal agreements between locations, if an HMO has multiple service areas. Enter into a two year, non-experience rates contract. A provision will be included tying renewal action at each of the two renewals to the consumer price index, (CPI), for medical care services. In order to be considered as a "qualified" proposer, an organization had to be licensed by the Department of Insurance pursuant to Part II, Chapter 641, Florida Statutes. Section IX of the RFP listed five major criteria for evaluation of the proposals. They were: Premium Cost Extensiveness of service area - by county and/or contiguous counties. Plan Benefits as follows: Covered services Limitations and exclusions Co-payments, deductibles, and coinsurance features Range of providers including specialists and numbers of hospitals D. Out of service area coverage F. Grievance procedures Accessibility as follows: Reciprocal agreements Provider locations Number of primary care physicians and specialists, in relation to membership Completeness of proposals The first four of the above objectives were called for by the Legislative action providing for these procurements to be effective January 1, 1988. The fifth, completeness of proposals, was not identified by the Legislature but was added by DOA. The Department reviewed and evaluated all the proposals submitted by Petitioner and the various Intervenors. Each proposer was evaluated by three individual evaluators. Two separate sets of evaluations were performed; the second coming upon the direction of the Secretary who, after the first evaluation and recommendation of award, concluded the standards for evaluation had been too subjective and directed a second evaluation utilizing more objective standards. During this second evaluation process, after the actual evaluations had been done but before the recommendation was forwarded to the Secretary, several computer treatments of the raw scores were accomplished by Mr. Nye because of additional unidentified factors brought to his attention. The final computer run identified that Central Florida Physicians, not a party to this action, received the highest point total followed by Health Options, Pru-Care, and Petitioner, Cigna. Mr. Nye, who had designed and supervised the evaluation process, recommended to the Secretary that Central Florida Physicians, Health Options, and Pru-Care receive the award even though the guidelines called for only two recommendees. Central Florida Physicians was recognized to be in financial difficulties though it received the highest rating, and in order to provide two viable candidates in the event that provider should be disqualified, Health Options and Pru-Care were added. Central Florida Physicians was, in fact, subsequently disqualified due to financial insolvency. This left Health Options and Pru-Care as the two providers with the highest evaluations and the Secretary made the award to them. At the final count, Health Options received a point total of 64.635; Pru-Care, 57.415; and Cigna, 56.83, or a difference of .585 between Pru-Care and Cigna. According to Mr. Black, an administrator with the Department of Insurance and responsible for the licensing of HMOs and other health care facilities, as of January 12, 1988, Pru- Care was not licensed in Volusia or Lake Counties and department records show that Pru-Care has never been or requested to be licensed in those counties. Mr. Beckerink, the Director of Planning for Cigna of Florida, who oversaw Cigna's proposal for the Orlando area and who reviewed DOA's evaluation of the various proposals submitted, carefully examined the evaluation forms for both Cigna and Pru- Care and concentrated on scores relating to costs, benefits, accessibility, service area, and completeness. He noted that Pru-Care received 10 points for proposing service in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Lake, and Volusia Counties though it is not licensed in the latter two, whereas Cigna received only 4 points for Orange and Seminole Counties. Cigna is licensed in all five counties and has hospitals and physicians in Seminole, Osceola, and Orange Counties. He contends Pru-Care received credit by the evaluators for five counties when it is licensed only in three, an unearned award of 4 points, and Cigna was awarded credit for only two counties when it is licensed in five, an improper denial of 6 points. According to Mr. Nye, the award to Pru-Care was based on its representation it would provide service in five counties. The Department of Insurance could not tell him, at the time, in which counties Pru-Care was licensed. As a result, he took the proposal, which indicated the five counties, at face value. Credit was given only for full counties to be served and Cigna's proposal indicated it would deliver service to two full counties and to only portions of three counties. The evidence indicates that Pru-Care's facilities are primarily in Orange and Seminole Counties with some service offered in the extreme northern portion of Osceola County, too far away for those individuals living in the southern portion of that county reasonably to take advantage of it. Mr. Nye indicates that driving time, which would be the problem here, is not a consideration in assessing accessibility, but merely a factor in quality of service. The department is not concerned with whether it is convenient for the employee to get to the service but merely whether the service will be offered to anyone residing in the county. For this reason, Pru-Care was awarded credit for Osceola county since it proposed to enroll any eligible employee living in the county whether service was convenient to that party or not, whereas Cigna, which limited it's enrollment in certain counties to those personnel living in only a part of the county, was not given any credit for those partially served counties. Mr. Nye admits that had he known Pru-Care was not fully licensed, he would have deferred to legal counsel, but would most likely not award points if a provider is not licensed in a county for which it proposes service. Mr. Breckerink identified additional areas in the evaluation wherein he believes errors were made, the correction of which would result in an adjustment of the award of points. For example, in evaluating plan benefits, the evaluator gave Pru- Care 20 points when only 10 points are available for award without a demonstration of additional services. For emergency room availability, Cigna was awarded 5 points when it should have received 10. In the area of co- payments, Cigna was awarded points and should have received 23. Concerning range of providers, Cigna's proposal lists seven hospitals yet the evaluation form only reflects six, resulting in a shortage of 10 points. As to turnaround time, Cigna indicated it would accomplish payment in 60 days whereas Pru-Care indicated it would in "an average" of two weeks. As a result, Mr. Breckerink, who points out Cigna's actual time is 30 days and it therefore should have been given 30 points, contends there is no opportunity for a valid comparison here since Pru-Care's answer is not responsive to the RFP's call for" an "expected" time. His point is well taken. With regard to accessibility, Mr. Breckerink states that Cigna got only 20 points for its two allowed counties but should have received 30 points since it has hospitals in three counties in the service area. DOA's rationale on this point is identical to that on the issue of full counties served. He also alleges that Cigna was shortchanged by at least 2 points on the number of counties in which specialty providers are represented and by at least 1 point on the number of providers. Mr. Nye admits Pru-Care should have received 5 points instead of 10 for benefits. This would reduce its' raw score in this area from 258 to 253 points. Nye contends, however, that the points awarded Pru-Care for its' turnaround time were correct. He does not consider the question to be a bad one since it was asked equally of all providers and each responded as it saw fit realizing that its response might become a part of a contractual obligation. This reasoning is specious at best and does not address the real question of the fairness and appropriateness of the question asked. Further, Mr. Nye also admitted that under certain circumstances, if Pru-Care were to lose credit for those two counties in which it was not shown to be licensed, the change could result in a difference sufficient to reverse the relative standings of Pru-Care and Cigna. Mr. Breckerink alleges, and Mr. Nye admits that multiple computer runs were made utilizing the raw scores developed by the evaluators before the recommendation as to award was forwarded to the Secretary. On the first run for the second evaluation, Cigna was in second place with a point total of 71.1 and Pru-Care was third with 65.86 points. On the second run, which Nye contends was done to make the computer run consistent with what had been said at the pre-bid conference and in the RFP, Cigna dropped from second place to third with 58. 2 points and Pru-Care went from third to fourth with 57.195 points. In the third run, which ultimately formed the basis for the award, the positions of Cigna and Pru-Care reversed with Cigna dropping to 56.83 points and Pru-Care rising to 57.415. Central Florida Physicians remained in first and Health Options in second. When Central Florida Physicians dropped out due to insolvency, Health Options became number one and the other two each went up one place in the standings without changing relative positions. According to Mr. Breckerink when the mistakes were identified and changes made in the raw scores, Cigna got a total of 23 more points but Pru-Care still got 16 more points than it should have. He contends that if the mistakes were accurately corrected, if Cigna were to get all the points it should and Pru- Care lose all it should not legitimately have, Cigna would come out higher in the overall ranking than Pru-Care. However, he admits there are factors involved about which he does not know which may affect the standings. What is clear is that while Mr. Breckerink could not clearly follow the evaluation procedure, neither can others charged with evaluating it. What is more, notwithstanding the direction given in the objectives of the procurement that only two providers be awarded contracts, the department continuously has been unable to abide by this guideline. In its September 11, 1987 recommendation after the first evaluation sequence, Mr. Nye recommended, for the Orlando service area, awards to Central Florida Physicians, Cigna, and Pru-Care for a part of the service area and an additional award to Health Options and Florida Health Care for other counties in the service area. When the Secretary directed the objective second evaluation, no change was made to the number of providers to be recommended (two), but again, on October 6, 1987, Mr. Nye recommended three providers, Central Florida Physicians, Health Options, and Cigna. No evidence was presented as to why this recommendation was not implemented, but it is seen that on October 26, 1987, Mr. Nye submitted his third set of recommendations to the Secretary, this time recommending only Central Florida Physicians, and Health Options. Being still unable to finalize the process, on October 30, 1987, Mr. Nye submitted his fourth set of recommendations to the Secretary recommending, for the most part, three providers, but specifically recommending Pru-Care for award in Lake and Volusia Counties, where it was arguably not even licensed. No justification or explanation for this vacillation was forthcoming from the Department and the exercise appears to have been clearly capricious.
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration issue a Final Order rejecting all proposals submitted for the Orlando service area and readvertise for new proposals if deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of April, 1988 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 19th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5525BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By Petitioner Cigna: 1 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence not a Finding of Fact. Second sentence accepted except for conclusion as to legal license status of Pru-Care. Rejected as a restatement of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. First three sentences rejected as restatements of testimony. Balance accepted with the assumption that "those counties" indicates Lake and Volusia counties. First and second sentences rejected as restatements of testimony. Third sentence accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. First and second sentences rejected as restatements of testimony. Third sentence accepted as a possibility and, not a fact. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence rejected. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted except for use of word "awarded" in last sentence. Award is a function of the Secretary. A better word would be "recommended". Accepted. Reject Accepted. Rejected. Accepted except for word "significantly". First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as not being a proper Finding of Fact. For Respondent, DHRS: 1 - 14. Accepted and incorporated as appropriate. 15 - 16. Accepted. 17 - 19. Accepted. First, second, and fourth sentences accepted. Third sentence rejected as not supported by the evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted except for the last three sub-paragraphs which are not supported by the evidence. Absent. 25 - 26. Accepted except for last sub-paragraph which is rejected as a conclusion. 27. Absent. 28 - 29. Accepted. 30. Accepted. 31 - 37. Absent. 38. Accepted. For Intervenor, Pru-Care: 1 & 2. 3. Rejected as a restatement of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 4 - 5. Accepted. 6 - 7. Rejected as not being a Finding of Fact. 8 - 10. Accepted. 11. Accepted. 12. Rejected as not being a Finding of Fact. 13 - 14. Accepted. 15. Rejected as not being a Finding of Fact except for 16 - 17. last sentence which is accepted. Accepted. 18. Accepted. For Intervenor, Health Options: 1 - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4 - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. Accepted except for the seventh sentence which is rejected. 12 - 13. Accepted. 14. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 15 - 16. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: David Yon, Esquire 315 South Calhoun Street Suite 800 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 John Buchanan, Esquire 118 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jann Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Stanley Chapman, Esquire Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom, & Kitchen Post Office Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry Carnes, Esquire 515 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent, Florida State Hospital, is an "employer" as statutorily defined at Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Behavioral Health Solutions LLC is a private business entity (BHS). The Petitioner was employed by BHS as a clerk- typist beginning on October 6, 2006, and until February 6, 2007, when she was terminated. BHS and the Department of Children and Family Services/Florida State Hospital entered into a contract on September 16, 2006, whereby BHS was to be responsible for providing staff for various positions for the provision of services to residents of Florida State Hospital. One of those positions was that occupied by the Petitioner, at times pertinent to this proceeding. The contract provided that BHS would be responsible for hiring, transferring, promoting, discipline, and discharge/termination of BHS staff. BHS was also responsible for providing its staff with salaries, benefits, compensation packages and training. BHS has its own organizational structure which was not integrated into that of the Respondent Florida State Hospital's organizational structure. The Respondent Florida State Hospital was charged with supervising BHS's staff and with recommendations where required, for disciplinary action or removal from the work site. BHS had the final authority to reassign, discipline or terminate BHS staff, however, by the terms of the contract. The Petitioner was hired by BHS as of October 6, 2006. The offer of employment which she accepted came from BHS. The Petitioner was told later that she was terminated in February 2007 by Angie Burge, the BHS Human Resources Manager. The Petitioner's date of employment were October 6, 2006, through February 6, 2007. The testimony of Angie Burge and Amy Bryant establishes that BHS employees such as the Petitioner, were trained by BHS. Ms. Bryant established through her testimony, as the Operations and Management Consultant for the Department of Children and Families (Department) that neither the Department nor Florida State Hospital had controlling responsibility over employee relations matters regarding BHS's staff/employees, such as the Petitioner. Although she and Florida State Hospital worked in conjunction with Ms. Burge and BHS on employee training requirements, BHS employees, including the Petitioner, were trained by BHS and its staff. BHS and the Respondent Florida State Hospital had a contract for BHS to provide staff for the forensic unit at Florida State Hospital, where the Petitioner was employed by BHS and the contract included the requirement that BHS operate that unit. At orientation, BHS provided its employees or new hires, including the Petitioner, all polices and procedures of BHS and trained them as to such policies and procedures. Ms. Burge, a BHS staff member, provided that training. BHS had authority to hire employees or to terminate them or discipline them and to make final decisions on the performance of the duties of the staff it hired, including the Petitioner. Florida State Hospital and the Department did not have final authority on such matters but could only recommend to BHS. The salary and benefits plan of BHS was very different from that of Florida State Hospital. It was based upon the parent company's pay and benefits scheme, the parent company being Lakeview Center, Inc. The administrators of Florida State Hospital did not have any decision-making authority in employee regulation, discipline, hiring, and termination decisions. Ms. Burge, the BHS Human Resources Manager, made the decision and informed the Petitioner of her termination. The Petitioner has not presented persuasive evidence that Florida State Hospital had sufficient control over the terms and conditions of the Petitioner's employment, or the employment of other BHS staff members, so that such staff members, including the Petitioner, could be deemed employees of the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and the arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety due to lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 5th day of March, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Corrine Hamilton 440 South Cone Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Jacqueline H. Smith, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 1000 Chattahoochee, Florida 32324-1000
The Issue Whether Florida Hospital Medical Center is entitled to reimbursement in the amount preliminarily determined by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, in a reimbursement dispute regarding bills submitted by Florida Hospital Medical Center to Macy’s Claims Services and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company for medical services provided to two individuals involved in work-related accidents; and Whether Macy’s Claims Services and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company properly adjusted those bills of Florida Hospital Medical Center in accordance with the requirements of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation law and applicable rules.
Findings Of Fact Florida Hospital is a full-service, not-for-profit hospital system located in Orlando, Florida, that operates a smaller satellite hospital in Winter Park, Florida. Florida Hospital is a “health care provider” within the meaning of Section 440.13(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Macy’s and Amerisure are “carriers” within the meaning of Sections 440.02(4) and 440.02(38), Florida Statutes. The Department has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve disputes between carriers and health care providers regarding payments for services rendered to injured workers, pursuant to Sections 440.13(7) and 440.13(11)(c), Florida Statutes. Qmedtrix is a medical bill review company.3/ Case No. 09-6871 R. P., an employee of Macy’s, slipped and fell at work on May 20, 2009, and presented to Florida Hospital Winter Park for evaluation and treatment where medical personnel documented vomiting, brain attack, and brain trauma. After evaluation and treatment, patient R. P. was diagnosed with a bruise to the head and released the same day. On September 16, 2009, Florida Hospital submitted its bill for services provided to R. P. totaling $5,547.20 to Macy’s for payment, utilizing Form DFS-F5-DWC-90, also known as UB-04 CMS-1450, identifying the charges billed for each line item by revenue code and HCPS or CPT codes. Macy’s forwarded the bill to its workers’ compensation medical bill review agent, Qmedtrix. Qmedtrix reviewed the bill by comparing the procedure codes and diagnosis codes reported by Florida Hospital with examples in the CPT book for billing of emergency department services. Florida Hospital reported ICD diagnosis code 920, which reads “contusion of face, scalp, or neck.” Use of this code means R. P. presented with a bruise or hematoma, but not a concussion. Florida Hospital also reported ICD diagnosis code 959.01 (“head injury, unspecified”) which also means that R. P. did not present with a concussion, loss of consciousness, or intracranial injuries. Florida Hospital’s bill included a charge of $2,417 with CPT code 99285 for emergency department services. The bill also included separate charges for a head CT, and various lab tests, drugs, and IV solutions. According to Mr. von Sydow, the bill was sent through Qmedtrix’s computer program for review, and was flagged for review by a physician. Mr. von Sydow further testified that one of Qmedtrix’s medical director’s suggested that the CPT code of 99285 be reduced. The medical director, who Mr. von Sydow said reviewed the bill, however, did not testify and no documentation of his recommendation was submitted at the final hearing. Qmedtrix determined that Florida Hospital should have used CPT code 99284 when billing for the emergency services rendered instead of CPT code 99285. Qmedtrix found that, while the hospital billed $2,417 with CPT code 99285, its usual charge for an emergency department visit billed with CPT code 99284 is $1,354. Macy’s paid Florida Hospital a total of $2,683.55, which amount included $1,010.24 for the emergency department visit based on [approximately] 75 percent of Florida Hospital’s usual charge for CPT code 99284. The payment was accompanied by an EOBR. The EOBR Macy’s (or its designated entity)4/ issued to Florida Hospital for services rendered to R. P. identifies the amount billed by Florida Hospital as to each line item in a column designated “Billed,” and has columns designated as “BR Red,” “PPO Red,” “Other Red,” and “Allowance,” each containing an amount for each line item in the “Billed” column. There is also a column entitled “Reason Code” which sets forth codes, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(5)(o)3., that are supposed to explain the reason for adjustment of any line item.5/ The “reason code” set forth adjacent to the $2,417.00 billed by Florida Hospital for emergency department services is “82,” which means “Payment adjusted: payment modified pursuant to carrier charge analysis.” There is also another code, “P506” listed in the “Reason Code” column adjacent to the same line item, which, according to the key provided on the EOBR, means “[a]ny questions regarding this Qmedtrix review, please call (800)-833-1993.” “P506,” however, is not a “reason code” listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 68L- 7.602(5)(o)3. The EOBR does not advise that the bill was adjusted because of a determination that Florida Hospital should have used CPT code 99284 when billing for the emergency services rendered instead of CPT code 99285 as originally billed. Upon receipt of the payment and the EOBR, Florida Hospital timely filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute with the Department pursuant to Section 440.13(7)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Rule 69L-31, contending that payment should be at 75 percent of its total charges, and citing the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Qmedtrix timely filed a response to Florida Hospital’s petition on behalf of Macy’s pursuant to Section 440.13(7)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-31, asserting that correct payment should be determined based on, first, whether the hospital in fact billed its usual charge for the services and, second, whether the hospital’s charges are in line with the charges of other hospitals in the same community, citing One Beacon Insurance v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 958 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) for the proposition that “SB-50 amended section 440.13 . . . [revealing] legislative intent to eliminate calculation of a “usual and customary charge” based on the fees of any one provider in favor of a calculation based on average fees of all providers in a given geographic area.” Qmedtrix’s response on behalf of Macy’s also contended that “upcoding” and “unbundling” were additional grounds for adjustment or disallowance that were not identified on the EOBR. The response explained that “upcoding” refers to billing with a procedure code that exaggerates the complexity of the service actually provided; that CPT codes 99281 through 99285 describe emergency department services; that the CPT book includes examples of proper billing with these codes; that the hospital billed $2,417 with CPT code 99285; and that the CPT book describes an “emergency department visit for a healthy, young adult patient who sustained a blunt head injury with local swelling and bruising without subsequent confusion, loss of consciousness or memory deficit” as an example of proper billing with CPT code 99283. The response requested a determination by the Department that Macy’s payment equaled or exceeded the amount usual and customary for CPT code 99283. On November 13, 2009, the Department, through its Office of Medical Services (OMS) issued a determination (Determination in 09-6871) which found, in pertinent part: The petitioner asserts that services provided by Florida Hospital Medical Center to the above-referenced injured employee on May 20, 2009, were incorrectly reimbursed. Florida Hospital Medical Center billed $5,547.20 and the carrier reimbursed $2,683.55. The petition does not address a contract and does not reflect a contract discount in the calculation of requested reimbursement. The Carrier Response to Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute disputes the reasonableness of the hospital’s “usual and customary charges”, maintains the petitioners’ charges should be based on the average fee of other hospitals in the same geographic area, references a manual not incorporated by rule, and provides CPT codes that the respondent alleges are correct. There are no rules or regulations within Florida’s Workers’ Compensation program prohibiting a provider from separately billing for individual revenue codes. The carrier did not dispute that the charges listed on the Form DFS-F5-DWC-90 (UB-92) or the charges listed on the itemized statement did not conform to the hospital’s Charge Master. Nor did the carrier submit the hospital’s Charge Master in the response or assert that the carrier performed an audit of the Charge Master to verify the accuracy of the billed charges. Therefore, since no evidence was presented to dispute the accuracy of the Form DFS-F5-DWC-90 or the itemized statement as not being representative of the Charge Master, the OMS finds that the charges billed by the hospital are the hospital’s usual and customary charges. Rule 69L-7.602, F.A.C., stipulates the appropriate EOBR codes that must be utilized when explaining to the provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment. The EOBR submitted with the petition conforms to the EOBR code requirements of Rule 69L-7.602(5)(q), F.A.C. Only through an EOBR is the carrier to communicate to the health care provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment of the provider’s bill. Pursuant to s. 440.13(12), F.S., a three member panel was established to determine statewide reimbursement allowances for treatment and care of injured workers. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the applicable reimbursement schedule created by the panel. Section 440.13(7)(c), F.S., requires the OMS to utilize this schedule in rendering its determination for this reimbursement dispute. No established authority exists to permit alternative schedules or other methodologies to be utilized for hospital reimbursement other than those adopted by Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., unless the provider and the carrier have entered into a mutually agreeable contract. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Since the carrier failed to indicate any of the services are not medically necessary, the OMS determined proper reimbursement applying the above referenced reimbursement guidelines. Therefore, the OMS has determined that the carrier improperly adjusted reimbursement to Florida Medical Center for services rendered to the above- referenced injured employee on May 20, 2009. Based on the above analysis, the OMS has determined that correct reimbursement equals $4,160.40 ($5,547.20 x 75% [Hospital Manual]=$4,160.40). The carrier shall reimburse Florida Hospital Medical Center $4,160.40 for services rendered to the above-referenced employee; and submit proof of reimbursement of the amount determined by the OMS within thirty days of the date the Determination is received. . . . The difference between what Petitioner Macy’s paid Florida Hospital for services rendered to R. P., and the amount the Department determined that Petitioner Macy’s is required to pay for such services, equals $1,476.85. The Determination in 09-6871 did not directly address Macy’s allegation of the alleged billing error of “upcoding.” The Determination in 09-6871 provided a 21-day notice for request of an administrative hearing and, as noted in the Preliminary Statement above, Macy’s timely requested a hearing. Case No. 09-6872 J. L., an employee of Major League Aluminum, was injured in a work-related accident on the evening of May 3, 2009, and visited the emergency department of Florida Hospital Orlando. After evaluation and treatment, J. L. was diagnosed with a bruise to the knee and released the next morning. On September 23, 2009, Florida Hospital submitted its bill for services provided to J. L. totaling $2,851 to Amerisure, Major League Aluminum’s workers’ compensation insurer, for payment, utilizing Form DFS-F5-DWC-90, also known as UB-04 CMS-1450, identifying the charges billed for each line item by revenue code and HCPS or CPT codes. Amerisure forwarded the hospital bill to its medical bill review agent, Qmedtrix for review. Qmedtrix’s medical bill review in this case, as in the companion case, entailed comparing the procedure codes and diagnosis codes reported by the hospital with examples in the CPT book. The hospital reported ICD diagnosis code 924.11, which reads “contusion of . . . knee.” The hospital also reported ICD diagnosis codes 724.2 (“lumbago”), E888.1 (“fall on or from ladders or scaffolding”) and 959.7 (“injury, other and unspecified . . . knee, leg, ankle, and foot.”). Florida Hospital billed $1,354 with CPT code 9924 for emergency department services and also billed for X-rays and various drugs and IV solutions. Comparing procedure codes and diagnosis codes reported by the hospital with examples in the CPT book, Qmedtrix concluded that billing with CPT code 99284 was not appropriate, but that billing with CPT code 99282 was. Qmedtrix also found that, while the hospital billed $1,354 with CPT code 99284, the average charge in the community for a visit to the emergency department billed with CPT code 99282 is $721. Qmedtrix determined the “usual and customary charge” in the community from its own database compiled by entering all of particular hospital bills into Qmedtrix’s database, along with data from the American Hospital Directory. Qmedtrix derives the average charge in the community based upon zip codes of the hospitals. Amerisure paid Florida Hospital a total of $1,257.15, which amount included $524.70 for the emergency department visit codes based on 75 percent of what Qmedtrix determined to be the average charge in the community for CPT code 99282. The payment was accompanied by an EOBR. The EOBR Petitioner Amerisure (or its designated entity)6/ issued to Florida Hospital for services rendered to J. L. identifies the amount billed by Florida Hospital as to each line item in a column designated “Billed Charges,” and has columns designated as “FS/UCR Reductions,” “Audit Reductions,” “Network Reductions,” and “Allowance,” each containing an amount for each line item in the “Billed Charges” column. There is also a column entitled “Qualify Code” which sets forth reason codes that are supposed to explain the reason for adjustment of any line item.7/ The code set forth adjacent to the $1,354.00 billed by Florida Hospital for emergency department services is “82,” which means “Payment adjusted: payment modified pursuant to carrier charge analysis.” The EOBR does not advise that the bill was adjusted because of a determination that Florida Hospital should have used CPT code 99282 when billing for the emergency services rendered instead of CPT code 99284 as originally billed. Upon receipt of the payment and the EOBR, Florida Hospital timely filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute with the Department pursuant to Section 440.13(7)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-31, contending that payment should be at 75 percent of its total charges, and citing the Hospital Manual. Qmedtrix timely filed a response to Florida Hospital’s petition on behalf of Amerisure pursuant to Section 440.13(7)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-31, asserting that correct payment should be determined based on, first, whether the hospital, in fact, billed its usual charge for the services and, second, whether the hospital’s charges are in line with the charges of other hospitals in the same community, citing One Beacon, supra. Qmedtrix’s response on behalf of Amerisure contended “upcoding” as an additional ground for adjustment or disallowance that was not identified on the EOBR. As in the companion case, the response explained “upcoding,” that CPT codes 99281 through 99285 describe emergency department services, and that the CPT book includes examples of proper billing with these codes. The response further stated that the hospital billed $1,354 with CPT code 99284, and that the CPT book describes an “emergency department visit for a patient with a minor traumatic injury of an extremity with localized pain, swelling, and bruising” as an example of proper billing with CPT code 99282. The response requested a determination by the Department that Amerisure’s payment equaled or exceeded the usual and customary charge for CPT code 99282. On October 20, 2009, the Department’s OMS issued a determination (Determination in 09-6872) which found, in pertinent part: The petitioner asserts that services provided by Florida Hospital Medical Center to the above-referenced injured employee on May 3, 2009, and May 4, 2009, were incorrectly reimbursed. Florida Hospital Medical Center billed $2,851.00 and the carrier reimbursed $1,257.15. The petition does not address a contract and does not reflect a contract discount in the calculation of requested reimbursement. The Carrier Response to Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute disputes the reasonableness of the hospital’s “usual and customary charges”, maintains the petitioners’ charges should be based on the average fee of other hospitals in the same geographic area, and references a manual not incorporated by rule. There are no rules or regulations within Florida’s Workers’ Compensation program prohibiting a provider from separately billing for individual revenue codes. Therefore, the charges, as billed by the hospital, did not constitute billing errors. The carrier did not dispute that the charges listed on the Form DFS-F5- DWC-90 (UB-92) or the charges listed on the itemized statement did not conform to the hospital’s Charge Master. Nor did the carrier submit the hospital’s Charge Master in the response or assert that the carrier performed an audit of the Charge Master to verify the accuracy of the billed charges. Therefore, since no evidence was presented to dispute the accuracy of the Form DFS-F5- DWC-90 or the itemized statement as not being representative of the Charge Master, the OMS finds that the charges billed by the hospital are the hospital’s usual and customary charges. Rule 69L-7.602, F.A.C., stipulates the appropriate EOBR codes that must be utilized when explaining to the provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment. The EOBR submitted with the petition conforms to the EOBR code requirements of Rule 69L-7.602(5)(q), F.A.C. Only through an EOBR is the carrier to communicate to the health care provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment of the provider’s bill. Pursuant to s. 440.13(12), F.S., a three member panel was established to determine statewide reimbursement allowances for treatment and care of injured workers. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the applicable reimbursement schedule created by the panel. Section 440.13(7)(c), F.S., requires the OMS to utilize this schedule in rendering its determination for this reimbursement dispute. No established authority exists to permit alternative schedules or other methodologies to be utilized for hospital reimbursement other than those adopted by Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., unless the provider and the carrier have entered into a mutually agreeable contract. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Since the carrier failed to indicate any of the services are not medically necessary, the OMS determined proper reimbursement applying the above referenced reimbursement guidelines. Therefore, the OMS has determined that the carrier improperly adjusted reimbursement to Florida Medical Center for services rendered to the above- referenced injured employee on May 3, 2009, and May 4, 2009. Based on the above analysis, the OMS has determined that correct reimbursement equals $2,138.25 ($2,851.00 x 75% [Hospital Manual]=$2,138.25). The carrier shall reimburse Florida Hospital Medical Center $2,138.25 for services rendered to the above-referenced employee; and submit proof of reimbursement of the amount determined by the OMS within thirty days of the date the Determination is received. . . . The difference between what Petitioner Amerisure paid Florida Hospital for services rendered to J. L. and the amount the Department determined that Petitioner Amerisure is required to pay for such services equals $881.10. The Determination in 09-6872 did not directly address Amerisure’s allegation of the alleged billing error of “upcoding.” The Determination in 09-6872 provided a 21-day notice for request of an administrative hearing and, as noted in the Preliminary Statement above, Amerisure timely requested a hearing. Alleged “Upcoding” for Emergency Department Services The Petitioners’ responses in both cases allege that Florida Hospital “upcoded” its bill for emergency department evaluation and management services. Neither EOBR submitted to Florida Hospital, however, reported alleged “upcoding” as an explanation for the Petitioners’ adjustment or disallowance of reimbursement. While the Dispute Determinations by the Department do not directly address the carrier’s allegation of the alleged billing error of “upcoding” raised in the Petitioners’ responses, they found that “Rule 69L-7.602, F.A.C., stipulates the appropriate EOBR codes that must be utilized when explaining to the provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment[, and that] [o]nly through an EOBR is the carrier to communicate to the health care provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment of the provider’s bill.” According to Mr. von Sydow, who was offered by Petitioners as an expert in billing, coding, reimbursement, and payment issues,8/ the “reason codes” that workers’ compensation carriers are to use pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602, do not mention “upcoding,” and therefore an EOBR could not be generated with a reason code explaining reduction or disallowance based on “upcoding.” The following reason codes, however, are included in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602: 23 – Payment disallowed: medical necessity: diagnosis does not support the services rendered. – Payment disallowed: insufficient documentation: documentation does not substantiate the service billed was rendered. – Payment disallowed: insufficient documentation: level of evaluation and management service not supported by documentation. Neither EOBR submitted to Florida Hospital includes reason code 23, 40, or 41. And neither EOBR explains or otherwise suggests that that Florida Hospital’s level of billing was not supported by medical necessity, services rendered, or sufficient documentation. In fact, Petitioners did not disallow reimbursement and do not contend that reimbursement should be denied for any services rendered by Florida Hospital to R. P. and J. L. on the grounds that the billed services were not medically necessary for the injured employees’ compensable injuries. In addition, Petitioners did not adjust or disallow payment for any of the billed procedures on the grounds that the procedures were not provided. In sum, the EOBR’s did not give Florida Hospital notice that alleged “upcoding” was an issue. Even if Petitioner’s EOBR’s gave Florida Hospital notice that it was asserting “upcoding” as a reason to reduce or adjust the hospital’s bill, the evidence does not support a finding that Florida Hospital utilized the wrong code in its billing for emergency department evaluation and management services. The CPT® 2009 Current Procedural Terminology Professional Edition, (Copyright 2008), (CPT book), is adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(3)(d) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 60L-7.020(2). The CPT book sets forth the procedure codes for billing and reporting by hospitals and physicians. The CPT book sets forth CPT codes ranging from 99281 through 99285 used to report evaluation and management services provided in a hospital’s emergency department, described as follows: 99281: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A problem focused history; A problem focused examination; and Straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are self limited or minor. 99282: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: An expanded problem focused history; An expanded problem focused examination; and Medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of low to moderate severity. 99283: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: An expanded problem focused history; An expanded problem focused examination; and Medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate severity. 99284: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A detailed history; A detailed examination; and Medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of high severity, and require urgent evaluation by the physician but do not pose an immediate significant threat to life or physiologic function. 99285: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A comprehensive history; A comprehensive examination; and Medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of high severity and pose an immediate significant threat to life or physiologic function. Mr. von Sydow testified that a Qmedtrix “medical director,” reviewed Florida Hospital’s bill for services rendered to R. P., but not the medical records, and recommended that the hospital’s charge for emergency department services under CPT 99285 be “re-priced” to Qmedtrix’s determination of the “usual and customary charge” for CPT 99284. Mr. von Sydow acknowledged the need for physician review for some cases (as opposed to review by non-physician coders) by testifying, “The more complicated the medicine, the more likely it is that he [a medical director at Qmedtrix] wants to see it.” Despite Qmedtrix’s original determination to “reprice” the bill from CPT code 99285 to CPT code 99284 (reflected in the reduced payment but not explained in the EOBR), Mr. von Sydow opined that the correct CPT code for emergency department services provided to patient R. P. was 99283, as opposed to 99285 billed by the hospital. Mr. von Sydow testified that his opinion was based upon his own review of the medical records, without the assistance of a medical director or medical expert, and review of examples for the CPT codes for emergency department services from the CPT book, and various provisions of ICD-9 and CPT book coding resources. Aside from the fact that Mr. von Sydow’s opinion differed from the purported recommendation of a Qmedtrix “medical director,” Mr. von Sydow is not a physician. Moreover, Qmedtrix failed to provide the testimony of the medical director, or anyone else with medical expertise to evaluate the medical records and services provided or to validate either the opinion of Mr. von Sydow or the original recommendation to “re- price” Florida Hospital’s use of CPT Code 99285 in its bill for emergency department services rendered to patient R. P. Mr. von Sydow offered similar testimony and examples to explain Qmedtrix’s “re-pricing” of Florida Hospital’s bill from CPT code 99284 to CPT code 99282 for emergency services rendered to patient J. L. on behalf of Amerisure. According to Mr. von Sydow, an internal Qmedtrix coder (not a medical director) reviewed the bill for emergency services rendered to J. L. and determined it should be re-priced to the usual and customary charge, as determined by Qmedtrix, using that CPT code 99282. While knowledgeable of the various codes and their uses, given the manner in which preliminary diagnostics under emergency circumstances drives Florida Hospital’s determination of the appropriate CPT code for billing emergency department services, without the testimony of a medical expert familiar with the medical records generated in these cases in light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the emergency care rendered to patients R. P. and J. L., Mr. von Sydow’s testimony was unpersuasive. Ross Edmundson, M.D., an employee, vice-president, and medical manager for Florida Hospital, explained that, unlike other settings, hospitals generally do not have the medical histories of patients presenting for emergency hospital services. When a patient comes to Florida Hospital for emergency services, they are triaged by a nurse to determine the level of urgency, then a doctor sees the patient, conducts a differential diagnosis to rule out possible causes, obtains the patient’s history, and then performs a physical examination. While emergency room physicians at Florida Hospital do not decide which CPT code is utilized for the evaluation and management services provided by its emergency department, the various tests and procedures they undertake to evaluate and treat emergency department patients do. James English, the director of revenue management for Florida Hospital explained the process through his deposition testimony. Florida Hospital, like over 400 other hospitals, uses the “Lynx System” – a proprietary system for creating and maintaining medical records electronically. The program captures each medical service, supply, and physician order that is inputted into the electronic medical record. The hospital’s emergency evaluation and management CPT code is generated from the electronic record. A “point collection system” in the Lynx System translates physician-ordered services, supplies it to a point system, and then assigns the CPT code that is billed based upon the total number of “points” that are in the system at the time the patient is discharged from the emergency department. The level of the evaluation and management CPT code (99281 to 99285) that is reported on Florida Hospital’s bill is a direct reflection of the number and types of medical services that a patient receives from his or her arrival through discharge. In light of evidence showing the manner in which emergency services are provided and the importance of medical records in generating the appropriate billing code for emergency evaluation and management services, it is found that Petitioners failed to provide an adequate analysis of the medical records of either R. P. or J. L. to show that the appropriate CPT codes were not utilized by Florida Hospital in billing for those services. On the other hand, both Petitions for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute filed by Florida Hospital with the Department attached appropriately itemized bills utilizing Form DFS-F5-DWC-90, also known as UB-04 CMS-1450, identifying the charges billed for each line item by revenue code and HCPS or CPT codes. In addition, medical records for the evaluation and treatment provided by Florida Hospital for both patients R. B. and J. L. supporting the itemized bills were submitted to the Department. These documents were also received into evidence at the final hearing. Florida Hospital’s bills at issue correctly identified the hospital’s usual charges for each individual and separately chargeable item, service or supply, with the corresponding code assigned to such billable items as maintained in Florida Hospital’s “charge master.” In addition, Petitioners concede the compensability of both patients’ work-related injuries and do not dispute whether any service or supply rendered and billed by Florida Hospital for these two cases were “medically necessary.”9/ Unbundling As noted above, in Case No. 09-6871, Qmedtrix’s response to Florida Hospital’s petition for resolution of reimbursement dispute contended “unbundling” as a ground for adjustment or disallowance of reimbursement. At the final hearing, Arlene Cotton, the nurse who issued the Dispute Determinations, explained that reason code 63 regarding “unbundling” is inapplicable to hospital billing, as there is no rule that requires hospitals to bundle bill for its services. Mr. von Sydow agreed that reason code 63 was inapplicable. In addition, footnote 2 of Petitioners’ Proposed Recommended Order states, “they did not pursue the allegations of unbundling.” Therefore, it is found that Petitioners did not prove and otherwise abandoned their claim of “unbundling” as a ground to adjust or disallow reimbursement to Florida Hospital. Usual and Customary Charges The Dispute Determinations issued by the Department found that correct payment in both cases equaled 75% of billed charges, citing “Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., [which] incorporates, by reference, the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Both Section 440.13(12)(a), Florida Statutes, and the Hospital Manual provide that hospital services provided to patients under the workers’ compensation law “shall be reimbursed at 75 percent of usual and customary charges.” The Department interprets the term “usual and customary charges” as set forth in the Hospital Manual and Section 440.13(12)(a), Florida Statutes, quoted above, to mean a hospital’s usual charges of the hospital, whereas Petitioners contend that “usual and customary charges” means the average fee of all providers in a given geographical area. While apparently not contending that Petitioners failed to raise the issue of “usual and customary” charges in their EOBR’s,10/ at the final hearing, the Department argued that “nowhere in [either Macy’s or Amerisure’s] response is the issue of customary charges raised.” A review of the responses filed by Qmedtrix to Florida Hospital’s reimbursement dispute petitions filed with the Department reveal that both raise the issue of “usual and customary charges.” Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Mr. von Sydow’s letter attached to both responses state: As you may know, the proposed adoption of Medicare’s Outpatient Prospective Payment System as a methodology for reimbursing hospitals 60% and 75% of “usual and customary charges” follows from the decision of the First District Court of Appeals in One Beacon Insurance v. Agency for Health Care Administration, No. 1D05-5459 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (SB-50 amended section 440.13 to remove all reference to the charges of any individual service provider; this amendment reveals the legislative intent to eliminate calculation of a “usual and customary charge” based on the fees of any one provider in favor of a calculation based on average fees of all providers in a given geographical area). This court decision requires DFS to define payment rates for out patient service that are uniformly applicable to all hospitals in a given geographic area. In addition, at the final hearing, the Department argued that the petitions for administrative hearing did “not raise as a disputed issue of fact or law whether or not usual and customary charges should apply in this case.” Indeed, a review of the request for relief set forth in the petitions for administrative hearings filed by Petitioners do not mention the issue of “usual and customary charges.” Rather, the relief requested by both petitions for administrative review of the Dispute Determinations, as summarized in the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, is: Petitioner[s] seeks reversal of OMS’ Determination(s) and the matters remanded for the Department to: direct payment based upon the actual treatment required/provided and pursuant to the correct CPT code; find that the hospital upcoded and that Petitioner properly reimbursed (or exceeded amount due); and determine that the hospital has the burden of proof to substantiate its billing and the use of the chosen CPT code. Contrary to the Department’s argument, however, both petitions for administrative hearing raise the issue of “usual and customary charges.” Page 9 of Macy’s petition, in pertinent part states: Petitioner submits that in issuing the above findings OMS failed to consider the holding in One Beacon Insurance v. Agency for Health Care Administration (wherein the Court determined that reimbursement should not be based solely upon a mathematical equation [as found within the Reimbursement Manual] and applying it to the fee charged by a particular provider; and that by eliminating the reference to any one facility’s charges, the legislature intended that the charges be based on average fees of all providers in a geographical area as opposed to the fees of the particular provider in question). Likewise, review of Amerisure’s petition for administrative hearing reveals that the issue of “usual and customary charges” was raised. Pages 7 and 8 of Amerisure’s petition state, in pertinent part: Further, if the Hospital is permitted to utilize incorrect revenue codes it would be impossible to determine whether the charges are consistent with the Hospital’s own [usual and customary] charges for the service, procedure or supplies in question and, further, whether such charges are consistent with charges by other like facilities (in the same geographical area) for the same services, procedures, or supplies. See One Beacon Insurance, supra. In addition, Amerisure’s petition on page 12 states with regard to the Department’s determination: Such finding was issued without consideration of . . . the amounts charged for the same services in the Orlando area where this hospital is located. Petitioners further preserved the issue of “usual and customary charges” in the first paragraph of their statement of position on page 3 of the Joint Prehearing Statement, as follows: Petitioners, Macy’s and Amerisure, take the position that the Determinations must be reversed as the Department has the duty to scrutinize the bills in question in order to determine, first, whether the hospital, in fact, charged its usual charge for the services provided, and second, whether the billed charges are in line with the customary charges of other facilities in the same community (for the same or similar services) and that the Department failed to do so. As such, Petitioners contend that payment for services provided by Florida Hospital should have been based upon 75% of usual and customary charges, not 75% of billed charges. Therefore, it is found that Petitioners have preserved the issue of “usual and customary charges” for consideration in this administrative proceeding. Although preserved, Petitioners failed to demonstrate that their interpretation of “usual and customary charges” should prevail. The Department has consistently interpreted the term “usual and customary charges” as used in the Hospital Manual, Section 440.13(12)(a), Florida Statutes, and rules related to hospital reimbursement under the workers’ compensation law as the “usual and customary charges” of the hospital reflected on the hospital’s “charge master.” The Hospital Manual requires each hospital to maintain a charge master and to produce it “when requested for the purpose of verifying its usual charges. . . .” (Emphasis added). Petitioners did not conduct or request to conduct an audit to verify whether the charges billed by Florida Hospital corresponded with the Florida Hospital’s charge master. In fact, Mr. von Sydow conceded at the final hearing that Florida Hospital’s bills at issue were charged in accordance with Florida Hospital’s charge master. Nor did Petitioners institute rule challenge proceedings against the Department regarding the Hospital Manual, incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 38F-7.501. Instead, Petitioners assert that they should be able to reduce Florida Hospital bills based upon a different interpretation of the phrase “usual and customary charges” to mean the average charge in the community as determined by Qmedtrix. Qmedtrix is not registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, and does not employ any Florida-licensed insurance adjuster, physician, or registered nurse. Qmedtrix earns 12 to 15 percent of “savings” realized by carriers utilizing their bill review services. For example, if a bill is reduced by $100, Qmedtrix is paid $12.11/ Qmedtrix uses a proprietary bill review system called “BillChek.” According to Qmedtrix’s website: BillChek reviews out-of-network medical charges for all bill types in all lines of coverage, including group health, auto, medical, and workers’ compensation. BillChek is a unique specialty cost- containment service that determines an accurate and reasonable reimbursement amount for non-network facility and ancillary medical charges. BillChek incorporates historical data to help determine reasonable payment recommendations across all sectors of the health care industry. All BillCheck recommendations are backed by extensive medical and legal expertise, and supported by Qmedtrix’s experienced Provider Relations and Dispute Resolution teams. According to the testimony of Mr. von Sydow, Qmedtrix collects and maintains data from various sources, including Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), the American Hospital Directory (AHD.com), and HCFA 2552’s (data reported to the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services on HCFA 2522) in order to construct a database of health care providers’ usual charges. Mr. von Sydow advised that AHD.com data was a principle source for constructing the database. He also advised that AHCA data was included in the database even though Qmedtrix found the AHCA data defective. Examples of data downloaded from AHD.com for Florida Hospital showing a profile of the facility was received into evidence as P-5. The data did not, however, show usual charges for the CPT codes for emergency department services at issue in this case. Petitioners also introduced into evidence Exhibits P-6 and P-7, which contained AHD.com data showing average charges for Florida Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital, respectively, for Level 1 through Level 5 emergency room visits (corresponding to CPT codes 99281 through 99285). Mr. von Sydow explained that the data was part of the information Qmedtrix used to construct the average charge in the community. Petitioners failed to provide similar AHD.com data for other hospitals in the area Qmedtrix determined to be the “community.” In addition, Petitioners introduced AHCA’s Florida Health Finder Web-site, as Exhibit P-8, which ostensibly included average charges for all hospitals in Florida for the subject emergency department CPT codes (99281 through 99285). Mr. von Sydow explained, however, “[w]e find that [the AHCA data] is not refreshed very often, unfortunately, and some other defects in the scrubbing of the data by the agency, which they know, I will say. But this is incorporated in our database to a large extent.” The exhibit was received into evidence for the purpose of helping to explain how Qmedtrix constructed its database, with the recognition that it was largely composed of hearsay. In sum, while Petitioners showed their methodology of constructing the database, other than the AHD.com data for Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital, Petitioners failed to introduce reliable evidence sufficient to show the “usual and customary charge” of all providers in a given geographical area as determined by Qmedtrix. In addition, the AHCA data, though characterized by Mr. von Sydow as unreliable, indicates that there is a wide range of differences in emergency room charges between hospitals in Florida. Petitioners’ interpretation of “usual and customary charge” to mean the average fee of all providers in a given geographical area does not take into account an individual hospital’s indigent care, cost of labor, overhead, number of beds, size, age, or various other differences between facilities that could affect amounts each hospital charges for emergency department and other services; the Department’s interpretation does.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a Final Order consistent with this Recommended Order that: Directs Macy’s Claims Services to reimburse Florida Hospital Medical Center $4,160.40 for services rendered to patient R. P., and to submit proof of reimbursement of that amount within 30 days from the date the Final Order is received; Directs Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company to reimburse Florida Hospital Medical Center $2,138.25 for services rendered to patient J. L., and submit proof of reimbursement of that amount to the Department within 30 days from the date the Final Order is received. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2010.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to change from individual to family coverage under the State of Florida Employees' Group Insurance Plan more that thirty-one calendar days after the birth of her son and outside the open enrollment period.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) District IV in 1986. For the past 18 months she has worked in her present position with HRS District IV in Deland, Florida. She presently resides with her husband in Deltona, Florida. HRS District IV personnel office is located at 5920 Arlington Expressway in Jacksonville, Florida. Linda Boutwell is employed as the Insurance Coordinator for HRS District IV. Petitioner gave birth to a son on January 6, 1990. On January 8, 1990, Petitioner called Linda Boutwell concerning the addition of her son to her State Health Insurance which would require a change from individual to family coverage. Mrs. Boutwell advised Petitioner that she could change from individual coverage to family coverage, but that the child would not be covered until the form was returned and approved. Boutwell indicated she would send her the necessary paperwork to add her son as a dependent. Mrs. Boutwell prepared and mailed the paperwork on January 8, 1990. It was received by Petitioner on January 10, 1990. Although Petitioner received the required enrollment papers on January 10, 1990, she did not return them to her personnel office. Petitioner states she did not return the papers to her personnel office because she understood from conversation with Linda Boutwell that her son's hospital bills would not be paid by the State Plan, since the child was not enrolled in the State Plan prior to that date. Instead, Petitioner elected to enroll in family coverage under her husband's employer's carrier. On March 15, 1990, Petitioner again called Linda Boutwell to request her son to be added to her insurance. Boutwell explained that Petitioner's request could not be honored since the request was beyond 31 days of the birth of the child. Therefore, Petitioner had to wait until the annual open enrollment period to obtain insurance coverage for the child. Petitioner's March 15, 1990 request was prompted by her discovery that the hospital bill related to the birth of her son was covered under the State Plan, even though she had not yet converted to the family coverage provision of the State Plan. Petitioner never asked Boutwell whether her individual hospital bill was covered or not. Petitioner's conclusion that her son's hospital birth would not be covered was based partly on the statement of a close friend who called Petitioner on January 7, 1990, to warn her to "expect problems" with her State Plan coverage. Petitioner has received a copy of the Amended State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Benefit Document, dated July 1, 1988. However, she did not examine it during the period January-March, 1990. Section II of the Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan states in pertinent part: II. Covered Hospital and Other Facility Services: The following services shall be covered when ordered by a physician and are medically necessary for the treatment of an insured as a result of a covered accident or illness. Inpatient hospital services under Subsections A., B., and H., are in connection with the pregnancy of only the employee . . . shall also include nursery charges of the child during the hospital stay of the mother. Petitioner does not offer any credible explanation why she did not convert to family coverage prior to or at the time of the birth of her son or during the 1989 open enrollment period which occurred during Petitioner's seventh month of pregnancy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1 through 11. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Millard, pro se 2391 Montano Street Deltona, FL 32725 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
