The Issue Whether the Proposed Rule 64J-2.010 enlarges, modifies or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, or is arbitrary or capricious, and thus constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Shands operates an 852-bed hospital and Level I trauma center in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. Its business address is 1600 Southwest Archer Road, Gainesville, Florida. Shands treats about 2,500 trauma patients each year. Shands is located within trauma service area (TSA) 4, which is comprised of Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Putnam, Suwannee, and Union counties. St. Joseph’s is a regional tertiary hospital and has served the Tampa area for 75 years and has approximately 800 licensed acute care beds. St. Joseph offers a broad array of acute care services including tertiary health care, serves as a comprehensive regional stroke center, and has been repeatedly recognized as a Consumers Choice hospital. St. Joseph operates a Level II trauma center and a Level I pediatric trauma center. St. Joseph is located in TSA 10, consisting of a single county, Hillsborough. Tampa General is a major tertiary hospital that is designated by the state as a Level I trauma center. Tampa General also serves as a teaching hospital for the University of South Florida, College of Medicine ("USF"). Tampa General is located in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, TSA 10. Bayfront is a 480-bed tertiary hospital located in Pinellas County, Florida. In addition to serving as a teaching hospital, Bayfront is designated as a Level II trauma center pursuant to chapter 395, Part II, Florida Statutes. It is located in TSA 9, composed of Pinellas and Pasco counties. The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County, is an entity which governs and operates the Jackson Health System, including the Ryder Trauma Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital. It is in TSA 19, consisting of Dade and Monroe counties. The Florida Department of Health is the state agency authorized to verify and regulate trauma centers in the state of Florida pursuant to chapter 395, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64J-2.001 et seq. The Division of Emergency Medical Operations, Office of Trauma, oversees the Department's responsibilities with respect to the statewide trauma system. Osceola is a licensed acute care general hospital, located at 700 West Oak Street, Kissimmee, Florida. Osceola provides a wide array of high quality health services to the residents and visitors within its service area. It is located in TSA 8, consisting of Lake, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Sumter counties. The Florida Trauma System For purposes of organizing a statewide network of trauma services, the Florida Legislature directed the Department to undertake the implementation of a statewide inclusive trauma system as funding is available. § 395.40(3), Fla. Stat. The need for a trauma system is premised on the basic principle that a trauma victim who is timely transported and triaged to receive specialized trauma care will have a better clinical outcome. § 395.40(2), Fla. Stat. A trauma victim's injuries are evaluated and assigned an Injury Severity Score ("ISS"). § 395.4001(5), Fla. Stat. Patients with ISS scores of nine or greater are considered trauma patients. § 395.402(1), Fla. Stat. Trauma experts speak in terms of "a Golden Hour," a clinical rule of thumb that postulates no more than 60 minutes should elapse from the occurrence of an injury to the beginning of definitive treatment. There is, however, no current consensus on what constitutes the "Golden Hour" for transport times. A 1990 Department study recommended travel time of 25-35 minutes as the outside range for optimal outcomes. A 1999 Department study favored a goal of 30 minutes transport time by ground, and a 50-mile radius by helicopter. By contrast, a 2005 study conducted for the Department used 85 minutes "total evacuation time" as "acceptable." A trauma center is a hospital that has a collection of resources and personnel who are charged with taking care of trauma patients. They are recognized by the community as a resource for care of severely injured patients. The International Classification Injury Severity Score (“ICISS”) methodology, considered with discharged patient data from the Agency for Health Care Administration database, was used by DOH to determine severely injured patients. An ICISS score is the product of the survival risk ratios (i.e., the probabilities of survival) calculated for each traumatic injury a single patient suffers. Level I trauma centers are generally larger and busier and treat more patients than Level II centers. Level I trauma centers are required to engage in education and research. Trauma centers are required to have several types of physician specialists at the ready at all times. For instance, with respect to surgical services, a Level I trauma center must have a minimum of five qualified trauma surgeons, assigned to the trauma service, with at least two trauma surgeons available to provide primary (in-hospital) and backup trauma coverage 24 hours a day at the trauma center when summoned. Further, in addition to having at least one neurosurgeon to provide in-hospital trauma coverage 24 hours a day at the trauma center, a Level I provider must also have surgeons available to arrive promptly at the trauma center in 11 other specialties, including (but not limited to) hand surgery, oral/maxillofacial surgery, cardiac surgery, orthopedic surgery, otorhinolaryngologic surgery and plastic surgery. Level II trauma centers must comply with similar physician specialist standards. Little if any credible evidence was presented in the present case to suggest that the ability to hire qualified clinical staff, technicians, specialty physicians and other personnel would be severely impacted if the Proposed Rule is implemented. Rather, the existing trauma centers lamented the possibility of reduced case loads which could make it more difficult to retain proficiency. Invalidation of Former Rule 64J-2.010 In 1992, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), the Department of Health's predecessor, promulgated Florida Administrative Code Rule 64J-2.010, titled "Apportionment of Trauma Centers within a Trauma Service Area," (hereinafter referred to as the “Former Rule”). The Department of Health assumed administration of the Former Rule in 1996, when the Legislature split HRS into two new agencies, the Department of Health and the Department of Children and Families. The Former Rule regulated the number of trauma centers that could be established in Florida. The Former Rule divided the state into TSAs as set forth in section 395.402(4), and for each TSA, announced the number of trauma center "positions" available. In 2004, the Florida Legislature amended section 395.402 to require the Department to complete an assessment of Florida's trauma system, and to provide a report to the Governor and Legislature no later than February 1, 2005 (the 2005 Assessment). The scope of the assessment was defined in paragraphs (2)(a) through (g) and subsection (3) of section 395.402. One objective of the assessment was to consider aligning trauma service areas within the trauma region boundaries as established in section 395.4015(1). It required the Department to establish trauma regions that cover all geographic areas of the state and have boundaries that are coterminous with the boundaries of the Regional Domestic Security Task Forces (“RDSTF”) established under section 943.0312. In a related 2004 amendment, the Legislature added a provision that gave the Department the option to use something other than the trauma service areas codified in section 395.402(4) upon completion of the 2005 Assessment. See § 395.402(2), Fla. Stat. ("Trauma service areas as defined in this section are to be utilized until the Department of Health completes" the 2005 Assessment.) § 395.402(4), Fla. Stat. ("Until the department completes the February 2005 assessment, the assignment of counties shall remain as established in this section."). As part of the 2004 amendments to the trauma statute, the Legislature also required the Department to conduct "subsequent annual reviews" of Florida's trauma system. In conducting such annual assessments, the Legislature required the Department to consider a non-exhaustive list of criteria set forth in section 395.402(3)(a)-(k). Further, the Legislature required the Department to annually thereafter review the assignment of Florida’s 67 counties to trauma service areas. The Department timely submitted its 2005 Assessment to the Legislature on February 1, 2005. With respect to its review of the trauma service areas, the 2005 Assessment recommended against the continued use of the 19 trauma service areas. The 2005 Assessment instead suggested that it may be feasible for the existing trauma service areas to be modified to fit the seven RDSTF regions to facilitate regional planning. Following receipt of the 2005 Assessment, the Department took no action to amend the Former Rule and adopt the recommendations of the 2005 Assessment. As a result, in June 2011, several existing trauma centers challenged the validity of the Former Rule pursuant to sections 120.56(1) and (3). See Bayfront Med. Ctr., Inc. et al. v. Dep't of Health, DOAH Case Nos. 11-2602RX, 11-2603RX, 11-2746RX, 11-2796RX (Fla. Div. Admin. Hear., Sept. 23, 2011). On September 23, 2011, an administrative law judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings entered a final order holding that the Former Rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The administrative law judge concluded that the Former Rule was invalid because it contravened the laws it purportedly implemented, including section 395.402. The judge found: The authority granted by section 395.402 for the use of the [nineteen] identified TSAs existed only until February 2005. After that time, the Department was required to consider the findings of the 2005 Assessment, as well as the recommendations made as part of the regional trauma system plan. Thus, section 395.402 can no longer service as a valid basis for the Rule. However, as set forth below, the authority to utilize the 19 TSAs was not rescinded; rather, the mandated requirement to use only the TSAs was rescinded. The Department was required to review the assignment of Florida’s 67 counties to trauma service areas, taking into consideration the factors set forth in paragraphs (2)(b)-(g) and subsection (3) of section 395.402. Having done so, it was incumbent on the Department to amend its [Former] Rule to allocate the number of trauma centers determined to be needed within each designated area through systematic evaluation and application of statutory criteria. On November 30, 2012, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the administrative law judge's determination that the Former Rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. See Dep't of Health v. Bayfront Med. Ctr., Inc., 134 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). After noting that the Former Rule claimed to implement sections 395.401, 395.4015, and 395.402, the appellate court held that the Former Rule was invalid because it failed to reflect the substantial amendments to those laws that were enacted in 2004. The appellate court held: Both the pre-and post-2004 versions of the statute require the Department to establish trauma regions that "cover all geographic areas of the state." However, the 2004 amendment requires that the trauma regions both "cover all geographical areas of the state and have boundaries that are coterminous with the boundaries of the regional domestic security task forces established under s. 943.0312." § 395.4015(1), Fla. Stat. (2004). Similarly, the rule fails to implement the 2004 amendments to section 395.402. The version of the statute in effect at the time the rule was promulgated set forth the nineteen trauma service areas reflected in the rule. [T]he 2004 version of the statute required the Department to complete an assessment of Florida's trauma system no later than February 1, 2005. It further provides that the original nineteen trauma service areas shall remain in effect until the completion of the 2005 Assessment. Bayfront, 134 So. 3d at 1019-20 (Emphasis added). It should be noted that the 2004 version of the statute does not specify at what point in time the 19 TSAs could no longer be utilized, only that they would have to be used at least until completion of the 2005 Assessment. Rule Development The Department thereafter initiated rule development workshops to commence construction of a new rule. The first workshop concerning this rule was in Tallahassee, Florida, on December 21, 2012. In January and February 2013, workshops were then held in Pensacola, Tampa, Ocala, Jacksonville, and Miami, as DOH continued working on a new rule. Each of the sessions involved input from interested persons both live and by telephone. Written comments and oral presentations by these persons were considered by the Department. After these first six workshops, held in various regions of the State to make them more accessible to more citizens, DOH then scheduled three more workshops in March 2013, to be held in areas where there were no existing trauma centers, specifically Ft. Walton Beach, Naples, and Sebring. DOH also considered the recommendations of a report issued by the American College of Surgeons (“ACS”), the lead professional group for trauma systems and trauma care in the United States. The ACS sent a consultation team to Tallahassee, Florida, to conduct a three-day site visit and hold public workshops in February 2013. The ACS ultimately issued a report entitled “Trauma System Consultation Report: State of Florida,” in May 2013. The report included as one of its recommendations the use of RDSTF regions as the TSA areas to be used in determining need for additional trauma centers. In November 2013, DOH released a draft proposed rule and a draft of its first TSA Assessment (the January TSA Assessment). The Department then conducted three additional workshops in Pensacola, Orlando, and Miami. Again, DOH solicited comments from interested persons and entered into a dialogue as to what the proposed rule should look like upon publication. On January 23, 2014, DOH conducted a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee meeting at the Department’s headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida. The committee consisted of seven persons: Karen Putnal, Esquire and Dr. Fred Moore--representing existing trauma centers; Steve Ecenia, Esquire and Dr. Darwin Ang-- representing new trauma centers currently under challenge; Dr. Patricia Byers--representative of the EMS Advisory Council; Jennifer Tschetter, Esquire and Dr. Ernest Block--representing DOH. The public was invited to attend the session but was not afforded an opportunity to speak. The Department considered all the input from each of the workshops, the ACS Report, and the negotiated session, as well as all the applicable items enumerated in section 395.402(3)(a)-(k). The Proposed Rule On February 3, 2014, the Department published Notice of Development of Proposed Rule 64J-2.010 (the "Proposed Rule") in Florida Administrative Register, Volume 40, Number 22. The Department's Notice cited section 395.405, as rulemaking authority for the Proposed Rule. The Notice also cited sections 395.401, 395.4015, 395.402, and 395.405 as the laws intended to be implemented by the Proposed Rule. The following day, February 4, 2014, the Department published a Notice of Correction in Florida Administrative Register, Volume 40, No. 23, to correct the history notes of the Proposed Rule. In the corrected Notice, the Department cited section 395.402 as its rulemaking authority in addition to section 395.405. The correction also removed reference to sections 395.401, 395.4015, and 395.405, as laws implemented by the Proposed Rule. Following the Department's correction, the Proposed Rule was intended only to implement section 395.402. The Proposed Rule established 19 TSAs and determined the number of trauma centers to be allocated within each TSA, based upon a scoring system established in the Proposed Rule. Under the scoring system, TSAs were awarded positive or negative points based on data in an annual Trauma Service Area Assessment relating to the following six criteria: (1) population; (2) median transport times; (3) community support; (4) severely injured patients not treated in trauma centers; (5) Level 1 trauma centers; and (6) number of severely injured patients (in each TSA). Ms. Tschetter added the last two criteria (Level I Trauma Centers and Number of Severely Injured Patients) in response to comments received at the negotiated rulemaking session. Subsequent to a final public hearing held on February 25, 2014, DOH revised its January TSA Assessment and the earlier version of the Proposed Rule. The revised TSA assessment (the “March TSA Assessment”) reflected more conservative calculations (as gleaned from input and discussions with stakeholders) and documents the statutory patient volumes for the existing Level I and Level II trauma centers in each TSA. The March TSA Assessment further recalculated the Median Transport times, including all transports from 0-10 minutes (as opposed to only those transports greater than 10 minutes) and only transports to trauma centers (as opposed to transports to all hospitals). On March 25, 2014, a Notice of Change was published in the Florida Administrative Register. The Proposed Rule, as published on that date, is as follows: Notice of Change/Withdrawal DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Division of Emergency Medical Operations RULE NO.: RULE TITLE: 64J-2.010 Apportionment of Trauma Centers within a Trauma Service Area (TSA) NOTICE OF CHANGE Notice is hereby given that the following changes have been made to the proposed rule in accordance with subparagraph 120.54(3)(d)1., F.S., published in Vol. 40, No. 22, February 3, 2014 issue of the Florida Administrative Register. 64J-2.010 Allocation of Trauma Centers Aamong the Trauma Service Areas (TSAs). Level I and Level II trauma centers shall be allocated among the trauma service areas (TSAs) based upon the following: The following criteria shall be used to determine a total score for each TSA. Points shall be determined based upon data in the Trauma Service Area Assessment. Population A total population of less than 0 to 600,000 receives 2 points. A total population of 600,001 to 1,200,000 receives 4 points. A total population of 1,200,001 to 1,800,000 1,700,000 receives 6 points. d. A total population of 1,800,000 1,700,001 to 2,400,000 2,300,000 receives 8 points. e. A total population greater than 2,400,000 2,300,000 receives 10 points. Median Transport Times Median transport time of less than 0 to 10 minutes receives 0 points. Median transport time of 101 to 20 minutes receives 1 point. Median transport time of 21 to 30 minutes receives 2 points. Median transport time of 31 to 40 minutes receives 3 points. Median transport time of greater than 41 minutes receives 4 points. Community Support Letters of support for an additional trauma center from 250 to 50 percent of the city and county commissions located within the TSA receive 1 point. Letters of support must be received by the Department on or before April 1 annually. Letters of support for an additional trauma center from more than 50 percent of the city or county commissions located within the TSA receive 2 points. Letters of support must be received by the Department on or before April 1 annually. Severely Iinjured Patients Discharged from Acute Care Hospitals Not Treated In Trauma Centers Discharge of 0 to 200 patients with an International Classification Injury Severity Score (“ICISS”) score of less than 0.85 (“severely injured patients”) from hospitals other than trauma centers receives 0 points. Discharge of 201 to 400 severely injured patients from hospitals other than trauma centers receives 1 point. Discharge of 401 to 600 severely injured patients from hospitals other than trauma centers receives 2 points. Discharge of 601 to 800 severely injured patients from hospitals other than trauma centers receives 3 points. Discharge of more than 800 severely injured patients from hospitals other than trauma centers receives 4 points. Level I Trauma Centers The existence of a verified Level I trauma center receives one negative point. The existence of two verified Level I trauma centers receives two negative points. The existence of three verified Level I trauma centers receives three negative points. Number of Severely Injured Patients If the annual number of severely injured patients exceeds the statutory trauma center patient volumes identified in Section 395.402(1), F.S., by more than 500 patients, the TSA receives 2 points. If the annual number of severely injured patients exceeds the statutory trauma center patient volumes identified in Section 395.402(1), F.S., by 0 to 500 patients, the TSA receives 1 point. If the annual number of severely injured patients is less than the statutory trauma center patient volumes identified in Section 395.402(1), F.S., by 0 to 500 patients, the TSA receives one negative point. If the annual number of severely injured patients is less than the statutory trauma center patient volumes identified in Section 395.402(1), F.S., by more than 500 patients, the TSA receives two negative points. The following scoring system shall be used to allocate trauma centers within the TSAs: TSAs with a score of 5 points or less shall be allocated 1 trauma center. TSAs with a score of 6 to 10 points shall be allocated 2 trauma centers. TSAs with a score of 11 to 15 points shall be allocated 3 trauma centers. TSAs with a score of more than 15 points shall be allocated 4 trauma centers. An assessment and scoring shall be conducted by the Department annually on or before August 30th, beginning August 30, 2015. The number of trauma centers allocated for each TSA based upon the Amended Trauma Service Area Assessment, dated March 24, 2014 January 31, 2014, which can be found at www.FLHealth.gov/licensing- and-regulation/trauma-system/_documents/trauma-area-service- assessment.pdf, is as follows: TSA Counties Trauma Centers 1 Escambia, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton 1 2 Bay, Gulf, Holmes, Washington 1 3 Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Jackson, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Taylor, Wakulla 1 4 Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Putnam, Suwannee, Union 1 5 Baker, Clay, Duval, Nassau, St. Johns 12 6 Citrus, Hernando, Marion 2 7 Flagler, Volusia 1 8 Lake, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, Sumter 3 9 Pasco, Pinellas 23 10 Hillsborough 1 11 Hardee, Highlands, Polk 1 12 Brevard, Indian River 1 13 DeSoto, Manatee, Sarasota 2 14 Martin, Okeechobee, St. Lucie 1 15 Charlotte, Glades, Hendry, Lee 12 16 Palm Beach 1 17 Collier 1 18 Broward 2 19 Dade, Monroe 3 Rulemaking Authority 395.402, 395.405 FS. Law Implemented 395.402 FS. History–New 12-10-92, Formerly 10D-66.1075, Amended 6-9-05, 12-18- 06,Formerly 64E-2.022, Amended . DOH did not incorporate the March TSA Assessment by reference in the rule. After exchanges of communications with the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (“JAPC”), wherein DOH sought guidance concerning this matter, there was no directive by JAPC that such adoption by reference would be required. DOH revised the population criterion in the Proposed Rule to have even breaks in intervals of 600,000 people. The February proposed rule awarded 6 points in TSAs with a population of 1,200,001 to 1,700,000 people (i.e., a 500,000 person interval), where all other measures were based upon a 600,000 person interval. This discrepancy is corrected in the newly Proposed Rule. DOH revised the community support criterion in the Proposed Rule to no longer award a point to TSAs where 0-50% of the city and county commissions send letters of support, because this could have reflected the need for a trauma center (by awarding points to the TSA) when no letters of support were received. The Proposed Rule now awards a point to TSAs where 25-50% of the county commissions send letters of support. DOH chose twenty-five percent as the minimum necessary community support because the smallest number of city and county commissions in all of the TSAs is four, which ensures everyone has a voice. DOH revised the title of the fourth criterion from “severely injured patients not treated in trauma centers” to “severely injured patients discharged from acute care hospitals,” which more accurately depicts the function of the criterion. DOH revised the sixth criterion to include citations to the statutory minimum volumes for Level I and Level II trauma centers in response to a request by the staff attorney for the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee. DOH also revised the rule to reference the March TSA Assessment in place of the January TSA Assessment. Finally, DOH revised the Proposed Rule’s allocation table based on the revisions to the rule and assessment. The Proposed Rule as amended allocates a total of 27 trauma centers throughout Florida’s 19 TSAs. Each TSA is still allocated at least one trauma center. The Proposed Rule allocates only Level I and Level II trauma centers, not pediatric trauma centers. The rulemaking directive in section 395.402(4) is interpreted by DOH to be limited to the allocation of Level I and Level II trauma centers. In addition, the allocation of stand-alone pediatric centers would not be feasible because pediatric trauma patients make up such a small percentage of the population and all of the Level I and II trauma centers have the ability to become pediatric trauma centers. Currently, all of the existing Level I trauma centers provide pediatric care and there are only two stand-alone pediatric centers in Florida. The Proposed Rule’s allocation of 27 trauma centers is conservative. There are currently 27 verified trauma centers in the state, including two verified trauma centers under administrative challenge. There are several elements of the Proposed Rule which Petitioners have raised as evidence of the Department’s failure to comply with its rulemaking authority. Petitioners maintain that DOH failed to consider all of the items enumerated in section 395.402(3)(a)-(k). Each of those criteria is addressed below. (a) The recommendations made as part of the regional trauma system plans submitted by regional trauma agencies-- There is only one regional trauma agency in Florida. DOH reviewed the regional agency’s plan, but it was devoid of any recommendations related to trauma center allocation within the TSAs. The regional agency did not amend its plan or submit any separate recommendations throughout the year-long, public rulemaking process. (b) Stakeholder recommendations--Petitioners complain that DOH did not do enough to solicit input from everyone who would be affected by the Proposed Rule. The Department, however, obtained stakeholder testimony from 171 individuals and written comments from 166 stakeholders through the course of the 12 rule development workshops conducted around the state. The workshops were held in several cities to allow for geographic access by more residents. Over 400 people attended the workshops. The January TSA Assessment was also modified prior to its publication as a result of the stakeholder discussions at the workshops and the negotiated rulemaking session. The March TSA Assessment was further amended after its publication as a result of testimony at the public hearing for the Proposed Rule. (c) The geographical composition of an area to ensure rapid access to trauma care by patients--While Florida contains no mountains, its geography is unique to other states in that it contains several inlets, bays, jetties, and swamplands. As such, the DOH data unit examined the coastal areas versus non- coastal areas. The unit also analyzed urban versus rural areas. The unit also looked at the communities surrounding Lake Okeechobee. Ultimately, the analysis was not meaningful because the effect geography has on access to trauma centers is captured by Florida’s transport time records for emergency vehicles and helicopters. Thus, by reviewing the Emergency Medical Services Tracking and Reporting System (“EMSTARS”) database, DOH could know the actual effects of Florida’s geography on access to trauma centers. (d) Historical patterns of patient referral and transfer--This item was considered, but the January TSA Assessment does not address it because it was neither measurable nor meaningful. The data was not measurable because of limitations of data quality in the Trauma Registry. Even if the data were measureable it would not have been meaningful because it would have only illustrated the catchment areas--i.e., the geographic distribution of patients served by existing trauma centers. As recommended by the ACS, DOH’s primary focus is on the trauma system as a whole, not individual trauma centers. Moreover, transfer and referral history is not meaningful to an assessment designed to inform an allocation rule because, again, DOH does not have the authority to define where new trauma centers are developed within a TSA. See § 402.395(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (charging DOH with allocating by rule the number of trauma centers in each TSA, not trauma center location within a trauma service area). (e) Inventories of available trauma care resources, including professional medical staff--Petitioners suggest that DOH should have made a determination of existing professional medical staff, but suggest no viable means of doing so. The January TSA Assessment catalogues several trauma care resources within TSAs, including financing, trauma centers, acute care hospitals, and EMS response capabilities. The January TSA Assessment does not catalogue available professional medical staff. DOH is unaware of any database that compiles this information. DOH sent a survey to the existing trauma centers requesting information as to their resources and professional staff, however it was not useful due to the limited responses and potential for bias. The data unit also reviewed the DOH Division of Medical Quality Assurance health professional licensure database (COMPASS), however, it was not helpful because physician specialty reporting is voluntary. Similarly, the data unit reviewed AHCA’s inventory of licensed acute care hospitals and the DOH annual physician workforce survey results, but neither data source provided trauma-specific information. As such, the information was not complete and so was not included in the January TSA Assessment. (f) Population growth characteristics--In response to this criterion, the DOH data unit analyzed the potential for growth in all of the TSAs, but the January TSA Assessment did not include this analysis because it was not meaningful given DOH’s requirement to conduct the assessment annually. The January TSA Assessment does however document the population in each TSA. DOH decided that in light of the continuing change of population in Florida, the best it could do would be to make a finding as to the population in each TSA and use it--year by year--to look at the potential need for additional (or presumably fewer) trauma centers in an area. Obviously the population of an area is not directly commensurate with the number of severely injured patients that might be found. Not all areas have equal percentages of severely injured patients; urban areas would have higher percentages than rural areas, in general. Areas through which a major interstate highway runs would expect a higher percentage. There are a number of factors that could potentially affect an area’s expectation of trauma services. Inasmuch as they could not all possibly be included in an analysis, DOH defaulted to a more general view, i.e., the total population. The total population figure became the first measurement in the Proposed Rule. (g) Transportation capabilities; and (h) Medically appropriate ground and air travel times--DOH considered these two factors together and determined to cover them by way of a determination of median transport time, which was to become the second measurement in the Proposed Rule. The data unit gathered transport capability data by reviewing the COMPASS licensure database and archived paper applications to discern the number of licensed emergency medical stations, helicopters, and vehicles in each TSA. The data unit further calculated the number of ground vehicles per the population in each TSA and every 100 square miles. The January TSA Assessment included this information because it was meaningful and gathered from a reliable database. DOH considered the testimony from a number of trauma surgeons during the 12 workshops regarding transport times and learned that the medically appropriate transport time depends on the nature of injuries and individual patients, which are not always discernable at the scene of an accident. Because of this, the sooner a patient can be transported to a trauma center, the better it is for patient outcomes. In light of the patient-specific realities of establishing a medically appropriate transport time, the data team used EMSTARS to calculate the median emergency transport times in each TSA for the assessment. Granted the EMSTARS is a fairly new system under development, and it reports all 911 calls voluntarily reported (not just trauma patients), so it is not a completely accurate measure. But it is a reasonable approach based upon what is available. Also, the transport times do not reflect whether pre-hospital resources are sufficient for the patient or how far away the closest trauma center may be. It is not an absolutely perfect measurement, but it is reasonable and based on logic. (i) Recommendations of the Regional Domestic Security Task Force--Like Florida’s lone regional trauma agency, the RDSTF did not offer any input throughout the year-long, public rulemaking process. However, DOH considered the testimony of numerous emergency management and law enforcement officials during the rule development process. For example, Chief Loren Mock, the Clay County fire chief and also a member of the Domestic Security Oversight Council, testified at the Jacksonville workshop. There is no evidence DOH directly contacted a RDSTF representative to solicit input. (j) The actual number of trauma victims currently being served by each trauma center--The March TSA Assessment included the annual trauma patient volume reported to the Trauma Registry by the existing trauma centers. When comparing the average patient volume reported to trauma registry from 2010- 2012 to the data unit’s calculation of the average number of severely injured patients treated in trauma centers during this same time span, the volumes reported by the trauma centers were approximately 333% greater. This large disparity prompted DOH to follow the example of many other states and use population as a proxy for the number of potential trauma patients in each TSA in its Proposed Rule. DOH found that: greater population means a greater need for health care; population is a good indicator of need for medical services; population is a reasonable proxy for patient volume; and, more people in a given area results in more trauma cases in a given area. (k) Other appropriate criteria: It was well documented in literature presented to DOH during the rulemaking process that there were a large percentage of severely injured patients in Florida not being seen by trauma centers. The data unit confirmed this by evaluating the AHCA administrative database, which identifies the injuries suffered by patients as well as the type of hospitals discharging those patients, i.e., comparing the total number of severely injured patients with the number of severely injured patients discharged from acute care hospitals in each TSA. This disparity was worrisome to DOH and therefore included in the March TSA Assessment. As pointed out by Petitioners, the Department’s figures include patients who may have received treatment outside the TSA in which the injury occurred. The figures may not have contained patients who needed trauma care but could not access it for other reasons. The Proposed Rule, however, makes as complete an evaluation of the potential patient base for trauma centers as is possible. Notwithstanding complaints about how the Department addressed some of the criteria set forth in the statute, it is clear that all criteria were considered and implemented into the Proposed Rule to the extent feasible and possible. The most credible testimony at final hearing supports the Department’s process. Criticisms of the various elements within the Proposed Rule expressed by Petitioners at final hearing seemed to be based on the concept that the Proposed Rule may allow competition to existing trauma centers rather than real complaints about the elements themselves. All agree, for example, that population, transportation times, number of patients, and the existence of nearby trauma centers are important factors that should be considered. Petitioners just seemed to want those factors expressed in different (though unspecified) terms. Petitioners did enunciate certain shortcomings they felt made the Proposed Rule less than complete. St. Joseph lamented the absence of all the Department’s analysis and background for each of the proposed measurements contained in the Proposed Rule. Jackson Memorial pointed out that pediatric trauma centers were not specifically included in the Proposed Rule. Shands showed that odd or unusual results could arise from implementation of the Proposed Rule. For example, the March TSA Assessment showed a total of 216 severely injured patients in TSA 6, comprised of Marion, Citrus, and Hernando counties. The Proposed Rule called for two trauma centers in that TSA. Although the number of patients necessary to maintain a trauma center’s proficiency was disputed by various experts in the field, it is clear that 108 patients per center would be extremely low. However, the figure appearing in the March Assessment is not absolute or necessarily completely definitive of need. There are other factors concerning population and patients that may affect that figure. The Six Measurement Criteria in the Proposed Rule Petitioners also took exception to the measurement criteria in the Proposed Rule. Each of those six criterion is discussed below. Population The Proposed Rule awards from two to ten points to a TSA, depending on the TSA total population. Two points are awarded for a population of less than 600,000 and ten points are awarded for a popu1ation greater than 2.4 million. The Department used total population as a "proxy" for the actual number of trauma patients in the state rather than using the actual number of trauma victims in the state. The Proposed Rule does not define “population” or “Total Population,” nor are those terms defined in the trauma statute, but those words are subject to their normal definition. The Proposed Rule does not re-state the source of the summary Total Population data; it is already contained in the TSA Assessment. Neither the Proposed Rule nor the March TSA Assessment contains any data or analysis reflecting population by age cohort, population density, or incidence of trauma injury in relation to these factors, and the Department did not specifically conduct any analysis of the significance of any aspect of population data as it relates to the need for new trauma centers, other than determining the total population growth rate in the TSAs. Rather, DOH decided upon total population as the most reliable measure available. Traumatic injury rates and the severity of traumatic injury vary widely based on a number of factors, including whether the area is urban or rural, the population age cohort, and the infrastructure and physical characteristics or features of the geographic area. Thus, the most reasonable way to measure possible need was to look at the total population of an area and extrapolate from that basis. The Department presented no specific data or analysis to support the incremental cutoff points for the Total Population scale contained in the Proposed Rule. Rather, the Department took population as a whole because it was the most readily available, annually updateable, and understandable factor it could access. The use of population as a proxy is not without problems, however. In TSA 19, for instance, the population has increased by about thirty-eight percent in recent decades, but the number of trauma victims has declined by approximately twelve percent. As stated, the Proposed Rule as written is not inerrant. Median Transport Times The Proposed Rule awards from zero to four points to a TSA, depending on the Median Transport Time within a TSA. “Median Transport Time” is not defined in the Proposed Rule, nor is the methodology for determining the summary “Median Transport Time” statistics set forth in the TSA Assessment and relied on in the Proposed Rule. Information concerning transport times is, however, contained within the TSA Assessment. The Median Transport Time used in the Proposed Rule represents the average transport time for all 911 transports voluntarily reported to the state EMSTARS database. EMSTARS is a database that is under development and that collects information voluntarily provided by emergency medical transport providers throughout the state. Although not all EMS providers currently report to EMSTARS (most notably, Miami-Dade County EMS does not participate), the database is useful for research and quality improvement initiatives. The Median Transport Time set forth in the March TSA Assessment and used in the Proposed Rule includes transport time for all patients, regardless of the nature of the emergency, whether the call involved trauma, other types of injury, or illness, and regardless of whether the transport was conducted with the regular flow of traffic or required “lights and siren.” The Median Transport Time used in the Proposed Rule includes all EMS transports of up to two hours in duration. The Median Transport Time excludes transports of patients to trauma centers operating pursuant to the initial stage of trauma center licensure known as “provisional approval.” The Department addressed “medically appropriate air or ground transport times,” as required by section 395.402(3)(h), by its generally accepted conclusion that "faster is better." Not all injured patients, however, benefit from receiving care at a trauma center. Thus, while an existing trauma center is an appropriate destination for all patients with any level of injury who live in the area of a trauma center, the trauma center’s value beyond its immediate area is as a resource for the most severely injured patients whose problems exceed the capabilities of their nearest hospital. The Department did not undertake any analysis to balance its "faster is better" approach to trauma planning against the reality that the resources necessary to provide high quality trauma care are limited, as is the number of severely injured patients. There is a general (but not universal) consensus among trauma experts that access to a trauma center within 30-50 minutes is an appropriate benchmark for access to trauma care. Other than "faster is better," the Department did not determine a medically appropriate travel time for any type of trauma or any geographic area, but recognizes the general consensus as appropriate. The Proposed Rule awards from one to four points that weigh in favor of approval of a new trauma center within a TSA if the Median Transport Time of patients transported in response to any 911 call is between 10 and 42 minutes, i.e., within but faster than the generally accepted consensus. Community Support The Proposed Rule awards from one to two points to each TSA depending on the number of letters of support written by elected city or county commissioners. The Proposed Rule allows for consideration of stakeholder recommendations by way of allowing letters of support from local governments. “Stakeholders” in the state trauma system include existing trauma centers, as well as all acute care hospitals, and pre- and post-hospital care providers, including emergency transport services, air ambulances, and emergency management planning agencies. The Department could find no better way to acknowledge support from those stakeholders, and citizens in general, than to have their elected representatives listen to their constituents and then reflect those people’s desires and comments. Severely Injured Patients Discharged from Acute Care Hospitals The Proposed Rule awards from zero to four points to a TSA, depending on the number of severely injured patients discharged from acute care hospitals (non-trauma centers). The Proposed Rule addresses the number of severely injured patients, i.e., those with an ICISS score of < 0.85, discharged from hospitals other than trauma centers. The Proposed Rule does not specifically define “severely injured patient,” but it is obvious from the context in which that term is used. The summary data in the TSA Assessment labeled "number of severely injured patients” within each TSA is intended to reflect the number of severely injured patients who “didn’t get to trauma care.” The Department's numbers may include patients who received treatment at a trauma center outside of the TSA in which the injury occurred. The Department did not conduct any analysis of the "number of severely injured patients not treated at a trauma center" to determine whether the patients not treated at a trauma center received timely and appropriate care at a non-trauma center hospital with the capability to treat the patient's injuries. The number of “severely injured patients who did not get to trauma care” as reported by the Department is unlikely to reflect the actual number of patients who required care at a trauma center but did not have access, and suggests that this number is far higher than it actually is. The Department, for example (and in response to discussion with stakeholders), excluded from its analysis all patients with isolated hip fractures as well as all patients who were released from the hospital within 24 hours, which resulted in fewer severely injured patients. Neither the Proposed Rule nor the TSA Assessment considers demographics or outcomes for "severely injured patients" treated at general acute care hospitals or outcome data for these patients. The Proposed Rule does not include any method for projecting the actual demand for trauma services in the future; it is used to determine need at a single point in time (and will be done so annually). The Proposed Rule does not include any criteria or method for evaluating whether there are any capacity problems at existing trauma centers, or other barriers that impede access to trauma care. The Department intended this criterion to show a highly conservative estimate of patients who definitely need trauma care. Level I Trauma Centers With respect to “Level I Trauma Centers,” the Proposed Rule awards from negative one to negative three points to a TSA, depending on whether the TSA already has one, two, or three verified Level I trauma center(s), respectively. The Proposed Rule creates the opportunity for establishment of both additional Level I and also additional Level II trauma centers, pursuant to the allocation of need, but the Proposed Rule does not assign or subtract points for the existence of Level II trauma centers. This criterion reflects the recommendations of stakeholders at the rule workshops. It was the consensus of many stakeholders that Level I trauma centers should be protected in order to safeguard the research and teaching missions of those centers. The earlier proposal of a “halo” around existing centers, i.e., not approving a new trauma center within a certain radius of existing centers, was not incorporated into the Proposed Rule. This criterion, however, offers some protection for existing centers. Number of Severely Injured Patients The Proposed Rule awards negative two to two points based on the "number of severely injured patients" in a TSA. The criterion awards points based on the number of Severely Injured Patients which exceed the target trauma center patient volumes as provided in section 395.402(1). If the annual number of Severely Injured Patients exceeds the statutory volumes by more than 500 patients, the TSA will receive two points; if it exceeds it by less than 500 the TSA receives one point; if the number of Severely Injured Patients is less than the statutory volumes by zero to 500 patients, the TSA receives one negative point; if it is less than the volumes by more than 500 patients, the TSA receives two negative points. The Proposed Rule does not include any criterion addressing the actual number of trauma victims currently being served by each trauma center. Instead, Section 6 of the Proposed Rule substitutes the "minimum statutory capacity" of existing trauma centers for the actual capacity of existing trauma centers. The Department could not find “a meaningful” way to measure actual capacity of existing trauma centers. The most accurate way to measure capacity was a contentious topic at rule workshops, and the Department spent a good deal of time working with stakeholders on how to measure capacity in such a way that it could be included as a factor in the Proposed Rule. One suggestion as to how to measure trauma center capacity is by how often existing trauma centers actually divert trauma patients to other facilities. However, trauma centers rarely admit that they are not able to take any more patients, and this is not a realistic method to evaluate capacity. The capacity of an existing trauma center may be measured by various means, including the number of beds at the trauma center, the number of ICU beds, the number of trauma bays, number of operating rooms, as well as the frequency of and reasons for diversion. The trauma center’s clinical staff, including medical and surgical specialists, and supporting clinical personnel, are also indicators of capacity. The Department already routinely collects data reflecting trauma center capacity as part of the quarterly and annual reports that all existing trauma centers are required to submit, and by way of on-site licensure surveys. None of those means, however, provided DOH with sufficiently reliable information and data. The Proposed Rule comports with the DOH Mission to protect, promote, and improve the health of all Floridians through integrated state, county, and community efforts. While by no means perfect, the Proposed Rule is based upon logic and reason derived from an extensive analysis of all relevant factors. History of the Rule The rationale for DOH’s inclusion of those particular six criteria in the Proposed Rule can be better understood by considering some more history of the trauma rule. As stated earlier herein, in 2004 the Legislature made substantial revisions to the trauma statute and ordered the Department to complete an assessment of Florida’s trauma system. The scope of this assessment was defined in paragraphs (2)(a) through (g) and subsection (3) of section 395.402. An appropriation of $300,000 was authorized for the Department to contract with a state university to perform the actions required under the amended statute. Ch. 2004-259, § 10, Laws of Florida. One proposal of the 2005 Assessment was to "[c]onsider aligning trauma service areas within [sic] the trauma region boundaries as established in" section 395.4015(1). § 395.402(2)(a), Fla. Stat. In a related 2004 amendment, the Legislature ended the statutory mandate to use the service areas created in 1990. The obvious conclusion from the above statutory change is that the section 395.402(4) service areas could be replaced by the service areas DOH established or adopted once it had the results of the 2005 Assessment. Unlike the prior statute, there is no mandate for specific new service areas, only the option not to use the prior service areas. The 2005 Assessment included five "Recommendations": Trauma centers should be placed in Tallahassee and in Bay County, which do not currently have a trauma center . . . . It is reasonable to set, as a system goal, that 65 percent of trauma center patients will be treated at a trauma center. . . . Designation of additional trauma centers should be based on the need as determined by trauma region. Deployment of additional trauma centers should take place based, not only on the number of patients served per trauma center, but according to the concept of “trauma center capacity” which should be determined by the staffing levels of medical specialists and other healthcare professionals. . . . The data support the feasibility of transforming the Florida Trauma Services Areas so that these would coincide with the Domestic Security Task Force Regions. . . . It is reasonable to fund trauma centers with public funds, based on the unrecoverable financial burden incurred by trauma centers. The only legislative response to the 2005 Assessment was an increase in funding to trauma centers. The Legislature did not repeal the statute establishing the current 19 TSAs. Likewise, the Department has not amended the Rule to implement the recommendations contained in the 2005 Assessment until the present Proposed Rule. The Department, instead, reviewed existing statutes, interpreted section 395.4015 to mandate the establishment of a trauma system plan (which plan would include trauma regions that have boundaries coterminous with those of the regional domestic security task force boundaries). The development of the trauma system plan is distinct from the determination of need for new trauma systems addressed by the Proposed Rule.
Findings Of Fact North Ridge is a 396 bed short term general acute care hospital located in Broward County, Florida. The ownership of North Ridge changed on September 3, 1985, and the fiscal year was changed from September 30th to August 31st. NRGH Ex. 1, p. 4; NRGH Ex. 2. North Ridge is an investor owned hospital owned by American Medical International, Inc. NRGH Ex. 2. Staff of the HCCB conducts the review of budgets and budget amendments using certain screens and guidelines, T. 21,27, as well as the hospital's 1984 and 1986 budgets. T. 26, 104. In reviewing a budget or a budget amendment, the staff of the HCCB follows certain internal procedures consisting of several steps of review. A budget or amended budget (which, unless stated otherwise, will be deemed to be the same for purposes of this order) is first stamped with the date it is received. T. 21-22. It is then given to Aldric Borders, Regulatory Analyst Supervisor, who distributes budgets to analysts, including Melvin Austin, who is under the supervision of Mr. Borders, and is a Regulatory Analyst II. T. 22, 21, 434. This is not controlled by the hospital. The process thus begins with the date the budget is received and date stamped, although actual substantive review cannot begin until the budget reaches an analyst. The analyst checks the documents to see that they are "in order" and begins the review process. Preliminary findings and recommendations are the end result of the work of the analyst. T. 25-6. A proposed budget amendment is reviewed using the same internal procedures used to review a budget, but the amended budget is not sent to TMIC for generation of computer printouts. T. 24-5. The staff of the HCCB has an internal goal of 25 days within which staff attempts to send out to the hospital their preliminary findings and recommendations. T. 27. It is not clear whether the 25 day period is calculated from the date that the amended budget is received by the HCCB or the date that staff determines the amendment to be complete. T. 27, 104. The 25 days includes approval by James Bracher, Executive Director of the HCCB. T. 27- The 25 day period is only a staff goal, and is not contained in rule or statute. T. 91-2. The HCCB received the proposed amendment filed by North Ridge on December 16, 1985. T. 31; NRGH Exhibit 2; T. 202. The amended budget requested a gross revenue per adjusted admission of $7,569. T. 272. A few days later, North Ridge received NRGH Exhibit 4, which is a letter from the HCCB stating that the amended budget report was "incomplete, nonconforming, and not verifiable." The letter (dated December 17, 1985, from John Pattillo, Chief Financial Analyst) asked North Ridge to complete the enclosed wcrksheets and return it as soon as possible, and mentioned instructions included. Attached was an instruction form to complete worksheet C2A. T. 202. Upon receipt of this letter, Richard Wichmann, Hospital Financial Manager for the Petitioner, called the HCCB and spoke to Pace Allen, who was then employed by the HCCB, asking him how to complete the form. T. 202. On January 13, 1986, Mr. Wichmann wrote to Mr. Allen enclosing worksheet C2A which had been completed in response to the December 17, 1985, letter from Mr. Pattillo. NRGH Exhibit 5. It is stipulated that worksheet C2A was submitted to the HCCB on January 13, 1986. Worksheet C2A was developed to provided a logical, consistent manner for hospitals to provide data that staff of the HCCB would need to help them analyze a proposed budget amendment. The form was first developed just shortly before it was required of North Ridge, in late 1985. The form has been changed several times, but generally is being consistently applied by the HCCB to all hospitals seeking to amend their budgets. There is no evidence that the form is a part of the Hospital Uniform Reporting System Manual. The form is the subject of a proposed rule. T. 410-11. Thus, the letter of Mr. Pattillo on December 17, 1985, requiring that North Ridge submit a completed form C2A was based upon incipient and evolving policy of the HCCB to require such forms when proposed budget amendments are received. There was no evidence that the policy is unreasonable in any respect, and it is the conclusion of the Hearing Officer that the policy is in fact reasonable. The North Ridge amended budget was first assigned to Nancy Speccia, who began the review process. T. 435. Ms. Speccia then left her position with the HCCB, T. 436, and on about January 31, 1986, the proposed amended budget was assigned by Aldric Borders to Melvin Austin for review. Id. T. 92. Ms. Speccia's work was not sufficiently complete at this point to allow the issuance of preliminary findings and recommendations. T. 436. The only reason for delay between early January and early February 1986 was that Ms. Speccia had been originally assigned to the amended budget and had left the HCCB without completing the analysis. T. 206-7. On February 11, 1986, Mr. Wichmann met with Aldric Borders and Melvin Austin at the offices of the HCCB in Tallahassee. T. 204. If staff of the HCCB had completed the preliminary findings and recommendations based upon the information available to staff as of the beginning of the meeting on February 11, 1986, staff would have recommended denial of the proposed amendment by North Ridge. T 441. During this meeting, there was a discussion of the increase in the amended budget from the original budget of gross revenue per adjusted admission and the change in case mix. T. 440, 36, 39, 41. The change in gross revenue in the amended budget was not based upon a change in rates or charges to patients, but was based solely upon a change in case mix. T. 205. During the meeting on February 11, 1986, the HCCB staff asked Mr. Wichmann to provide additional information concerning the change in case mix. T. 43. The only witness who asserted that interest expense was discussed at the meeting on February 11th was Mr. Borders. T. 440. Mr. Borders, however, did not testify that the staff of the HCCB at the February 11th meeting requested that Mr. Wichmann supply additional information concerning interest expense. See T. 441. Mr. Borders simply testified that "we wanted some details on that," but he did not say that he asked Mr. Wichmann for those details. T. 441. Indeed, Mr. Borders denied that he himself had "made a request of the hospital regarding the hospital's interest expense." T. 471. Mr. Austin did not testify that he had asked Mr. Wichmann to supply information concerning interest expense at the February 11th meeting. Thus, it is concluded that the only additional information that Mr. Wichmann was asked to gather and submit as of February 11, 1986, was information concerning case mix. This conclusion is further Supported by the pattern of very prompt responses by Mr. Wichmann with respect to all other requests for information. It is inferred that Mr. Wichmann would have also promptly supplied interest expense information had anyone asked him for such information at the February 11th meeting. At the meeting on February 11, 1986, Mr. Austin requested that North Ridge take some action to alter the 120-day period. T. 44. As will be discussed ahead, all parties at the meeting were aware of the fact that nearly 60 days had already elapsed since the proposed amended budget was first received by the HCCB, and Mr. Wichmann expressed his concerns about this lapse of time. T. 206. In response to the request from Mr. Austin, Mr. Wichmann sent Mr. Austin a letter dated February 13, 1986, NRGH Exhibit 6. T. 207-8. The letter in its entirety states: Per our conversation on Tuesday, February 11, 1986, this letter is to request a waiver of the 120 day approval period for the above provider until documentation is provided to your satisfaction of the the above provider until documentation is provided to your satisfaction of the narrative. My understanding is that once the above information is supplied to your satisfaction, the 120 day period will begin when received. If this is not correct, please notify me immediately. Prior to writing the letter of February 13, 1986, Mr. Wichmann did not consult with an attorney. T. 253. At the time of writing the letter, Mr. Wichmann said that he did not know what a "waiver" was. T 207. It is unclear from the question whether Mr. Wichmann was referring to the ordinary meaning of the word or the legal concept. Mr. Wichmann did not remember a lot of the discussion of the "waiver" (except the part about the budget being returned, discussed ahead), and there appears to have been very little discussion among Mr. Wichmann, Mr. Austin, and Mr. Borders concerning the details of the "waiver." T 442-3. On February 14, 1986, Mr. Austin received NRGH Exhibit 6, T. 45. The letter was copied to Mr. Borders by Mr. Austin, but was not shown to the HCCB Executive Director, Mr. Bracher at that time. T. 45-6. Mr. Bracher was unaware of any requested or allegedly granted waiver until early April of 1986. Hearing Officer Exhibit 1 (Prehearing Stipulation), p. 2. No written acknowledgment of acceptance of any requested or offered waiver of the 120-day period was ever sent by the Hospital Cost Containment Board or its staff to North Ridge, and the question of whether North Ridge was requested to provide the staff with a waiver of the 120-day period, or in fact had offered to granted any such waiver, was never presented to the Board for approval or consideration. Id. Mr. Wichmann was never told by the HCCB whether his letter of February 13, 1986, had been approved. T. 216. Mr. Austin did, however, tell Mr. Wichmann on February 14, 1986, that the letter was "what he had wanted." T. 216. That was the last that Mr. Wichmann heard from the HCCB regarding his letter. Id. 14, 1956, Mr. Wichmann had no further communication with the staff of the HCCB or the HCCB concerning the issue of waiver contained in his letter of February 13, 1986. T. 240, 247. Mr. Austin testified that "case mix was a major thrust at the meeting" on February 11, 1986. T. 41. He also testified that after leaving the meeting on February 11, 1986, we all discovered the problem in that we would probably need more information regarding the case mix data." T. 37-8. Mr. Austin further testified that the purpose of the requested "waiver" was "to get the proper documents to evaluate the hospital amendment" with respect to case mix. T. 42-3. In the same passage, Mr. Austin mentions evaluation of the case mix data, but does not appear to envision the "waiver" as clearly covering evaluation time. The entire passage is as follow: Well, we talked about getting a 120-day waiver notice, and the reasons behind that was based on the hospital requesting sending in their amendment based on case mix. We would need more time to -- to get the proper documents to evaluate the hospital amendment, but -- and by having the 120-day waiver notice, perhaps time constraints would not be a factor in trying to evaluate the information properly. T. 42-3 (E.S.) Mr. Borders similarly limited his characterization of the purpose of the requested "waiver" to a period of time for North Ridge to submit additional information: To the best of my knowledge, we told Mr. Wichmann that if North Ridge, in order for us to make a valid review of his 1986 amended budget, that a waiver would be-- if he wanted to submit to us additional information concerning justification for the budget, then a waiver would be in line. T. 469. (E.S.) In summary, both Mr. Austin and Mr. Borders were given full opportunity to characterize what they understood to be the purpose of the requested "waiver." Both focused primarily upon the time needed for North Ridge to submit additional case mix information. Neither clearly stated that the "waiver" was intended to cover time for staff to evaluate the new information. Neither clearly stated that intended to cover time for staff to evaluate the new information. If either Mr. Austin or Mr. Borders had clearly stated that the "waiver" was needed for a time to evaluate the case mix information, they then would also have had to have established in their testimony a clear event--such as the completion of such evaluation, or the completion of the evaluation coupled with a favorable recommendation or request for more data--as the end of the period under "waiver." It must therefore be concluded that Mr. Austin and Mr. Borders intended the requested "waiver" to cover only the time required for North Ridge to submit additional case mix data as requested at the February 11, 1986, meeting. Mr. Wichmann similarly understood the purpose of the requested "waiver" to be to allow time for North Ridge to submit additional data concerning case mix. T. 246. He also testified: During our meeting at the staff office on February 11, 1986, discussed North Ridge's amended budget, I was asked by Mr. Austin to submit a waiver to the Board, or to himself for North Ridge's amended budget because he believed that the amended budget was, the narrative was not complete and needed more information on case mix. T. 563-64. Finally, and most persuasive, the "waiver" letter sent by Mr. Wichmann only mentions waiver "until the documentation is Provided to your satisfaction." The letter also states that "and the above information is supplied to your satisfaction, the 120 day period will begin when received." The last two words are critical, for it is evident that Mr. Wichmann intended the 120-day period to be again fully operative as of the date of receipt of the information, not the date of "satisfaction." It is therefore concluded that the purpose of the requested "waiver" was to give North Ridge time to submit additional information concerning case mix. The purpose was not to give the staff of the HCCB a specified additional time to evaluate new data as to case mix. At the meeting on February 11, 1986, Mr. Austin, Mr. Borders, and Mr. Wichmann all thought that the 120-day period had already started to run with respect to the proposed amended budget of North Ridge, and the meaning of the "waiver" letter of Mr. Wichmann must be construed with this fact in mind. Mr. Wichmann stated this as he testified as to the purpose he intended in drafting his letter of February 13, 1986: The intent was to stop the clock and start it again on March 4th when the narrative had been received by the staff. T. 246. In response to a question as to why the 120-day period should not begin with March 4, 1986, Mr. Wichmann further testified: Because on December 16, 1985, I submitted North Ridge amended budget complete, conforming and verifiable. T. 244. Similarly, as set forth above, on page 42 of the transcript, Mr. Austin had described the purpose of the waiver and used the phrase "time constraints" in that context. He then was asked what he had meant by "time constraints," and he answered: Well, in terms of getting--once a budget amendment is received and getting approved by the Board, there is 120 days, and based the time that the amendment was received and the time--at that point in time, we were already at February 11th and we were nowhere near recommending any approval or disapproval. So that's why we requested the 120-day waiver notice. T. 43. (E.S.) Moreover, the following testimony confirms that at the meeting on February 11, 1986, Mr. Austin thought that the 120-day period had already started to run: Q. Did you make a statement to anyone that you would send the budget back? A. Yes, I did. Q. What was the circumstance of making that statement? A. That was the circumstances of the hospital not justifying their budget amendment . . . . It had nothing to do with a waiver notice. Q. What did you tell Mr. Wichmann? A. That the hospital's amendment was not justified, and that the fact that the amendment had been in-house since December the 16th, and the mere fact that proper justification had not been received, and in order to avoid time constraints, and in order to allow the hospital to justify the budget, I felt, and my supervisor felt that a waiver notice would be best for both parties involved here. And that is to give the hospital time to submit justification and to allow time constraints on staff's part to avoid the time constraints. T., 638-9. (E.S.) Mr. Borders also believed at the February 11, 1986, meeting that the 120-day period had started to run. He characterized the circumstances surrounding that meeting as follows: Well, we were into February, and the budget had come in December, and we still didn't have enough information in which to evaluate it, and to give him a positive recommendation, which was what he was seeking. At that time, we discussed the 120-day waiver, and what that would do would allow him more time to get us additional information, and also keep us from running out of the -- keep the 120 days from running out on us while the budget was in-house. T. 442. (E.S.) It is true that Mr. Borders also testified that "we" told Mr. Wichmann that: . . . we needed a waiver that would allow us time to evaluate his analysis, and that the 120 days wouldn't start until we received sufficient documentation of his budget. T. 443. (E.S.) One cannot conclude, however, from this testimony that Mr. Borders did not think that the 120-day period had not already started to run by February 11, 1986. First, if Mr. Borders had actually thought that the 120-day period had not already started, he would have had no reason to ask for a "waiver." He simply would have asked for agreement that the period would begin at some future date. Second, the testimony conflicts with what Mr. Borders said on page 442 of the transcript, set forth above. Mr. Wichmann understood from his meeting with Mr. Austin and Mr. Borders that if he did not agree to an alteration of the 120-day period (a "waiver"), the proposed amended budget of North Ridge would be returned to him as if it had never been filed. T 205. Mr. Wichmann heard Mr. Austin tell him this. Id. Mr. Austin testified that he did not connect "waiver" and his statement that the budget would be returned to Mr. Wichmann. T 637. He admitted, however, that he did not tell Mr. Wichmann that he would send the proposed budget amendment back to North Ridge. T. 638. He testified that the statement about sending the budget back was made in connection with the perceived failure of North Ridge as of February 11, 1986, to "justify" its amendment to the Satisfaction of Mr. Austin, and that "in order to allow the hospital to justify the budget, I felt, and my supervisor felt that a waiver notice would be best for both parties Involved here." T. 638. The manner in which Mr. Austin combined the concepts of "justification of the budget, the "waiver notice," and the statement, admittedly made, that the budget would be "sent back" leads to the conclusion that in context, the implication was left with Mr. Wichmann that the budget would have been sent back to Mr. Wichmann if he had not submitted additional information and provided a "waiver notice." Mr. Borders apparently did not understand the Implications of what Mr. Austin said, since Mr. Borders testified that he did not hear it and would have Corrected Mr. Austin if it had been said. T. 441-2. On about March 4, 1986, Mr. Wichmann hand delivered to Mr. Austin NRGH Exhibit 7, which is a letter of the same date from Mr. Wichmann to Mr. Austin conveying additional information concerning case mix. T. 46-7. During the period from February 11, 1986, to March 4, 1986, Mr. Austin was waiting for additional information to justify the increase in case mix, and Mr. Austin characterized the March 4, 1986, letter as "a better narrative trying to support their amendment." T. 47-8. On March 4, 1986, Mr. Wichmann also met with Mr. Austin and spent additional time explaining case mix changes. T. 219. Upon receipt of the case mix information, Mr. Austin again began to review the amended budget. T. 48. On March 10, 1986, North Ridge received another request from the staff of the HCCB for additional information relating to case mix which had previously been provided. Although this information was provided to staff on March 13, 1986, on about March 12, 1986, Mr. Austin told Mr. Wichmann that the information concerning case mix was acceptable. T. 220. On March 5, 1986, Mr. Bracher, Executive Director of the HCCB wrote to Rudy Noriega, Acting Chief Executive Officer of North Ridge. NRGH Exhibit 8. The first two paragraphs of that letter stated: A preliminary review of the first request to amend the 1986 approved budget has been completed for North Ridge General Hospital. It is concluded that the first request to amend is not complete, conforming and verified based or the lack of information discussed below. The 120 day review period cannot begin until additional data is received. (E.S.) The letter does not mention NRGH Exhibit 4, which was dated December 17, 1986, and advised that the amended budget was not complete, conforming, or verifiable due to a lack of worksheet C2A. The March 5, 1986, letter from Mr. Bracher is concerned solely with obtaining "information regarding the hospital's actual experience for this year, and its' [sic] projected revenues for the remainder of the year." NRGH Exhibit 8. (E.S.) The letter is not concerned with case mix information as had been discussed with Mr. Borders and Mr. Austin on February 11, 1986, but, rather, sought entirely new information. Since the letter of March 5, 1986, was aimed at gathering actual historical data from that portion of the 1986 fiscal year which had already elapsed, it included within as item 17 on page 2 a request for the 1986 actual operating experience for "interest expense." On March 13, 1986, Mr. Wichmann responded to the letter of Mr. Bracher of March 5, 1986, and supplied the fiscal year 1986 actual experience data by cost center as requested. NRGH Exhibit 9. On page two of that exhibit Mr. Wichmann provided Mr. Austin with the actual interest expense that had been incurred by North Ridge from September 1, 1985 to December 31, 1985, which was $2,533,311. If one were to assume that the interest expense was to remain the same throughout the fiscal year, the projected interest expense would be 4 times that amount, or $10,133,244. On March 19 and 25, 1986, additional refinements in previously submitted case mix information was discussed between staff and representatives of North Ridge. Additional case mix data was sent by North Ridge to the board on April 7, 1986. Prehearing stipulation. On April 1, 1986, Mr. Pattillo, Chief Financial Analyst for the HCCB, who wrote the letter of December 17, 1985, NRGH Exhibit letter to Mr. Noriega again stating that the amended budget report was "incomplete, nonconforming, or not verifiable," this time a result of the amended budget having been entered into the computer. NRGH Exhibit 10. Mr. Noriega (L was requested to enter changes on the computer printout which needed changing, and to return the signed copy to the HCCB. Id. The information requested by Mr. Pattillo did not concern case mix. On April 7, 1986, Edward F. Kipp, Chief Financial Officer of North Ridge, responded to NRGH Exhibit 10, the letter of April 1, 1986, providing the information that had been requested by Mr. Pattillo. NRGH Exhibit 11. On April 17, 1986, Mr. Wichmann sent a letter to Allen Pearman, deputy director of research for the HCCB, with additional case mix information requested by Mr. Pearman as a result of an earlier meeting with Mr. Wichmann. T. 222-5; NRGH Exhibit 12. On April 23, 1986, Mr. Austin wrote to Don S. Steigman, Chief Executive Officer of North Ridge, requesting that North Ridge complete the attached MDC report and provide certain other information with respect to case mix. NRGH Exhibit 13. Mr. Wichmann responded by sending the information contained in NRGH Exhibit 14, which was received by the HCCB on May 5, 1986, and concerned only case mix information. See also T. 49-50. In the first week of May 1986, the HCCB staff determined, based upon all information submitted by North Ridge, that North Ridge had justified the amended gross revenue per adjusted admission based on the change to case mix. T. 50-1. This occurred upon receipt of information concerning MDC's, T. 51, which is contained in NRGH Exhibit 14. During the first two weeks of May, 1986, Mr. Austin spoke to Terry Richardson about Mr. Austin's concern that interest expense was not appropriate in the amended budget. T. 55. This was the first time that Mr. Austin had considered interest expense as an issue. T. 55. Mr. Austin was in the process of drafting a version of the staff preliminary findings and recommendations during the first two weeks of May, and had written it approving the change to gross revenue per adjusted admission, but was uncertain about the interest expense. T. 56. Mr. Austin sent his draft of preliminary findings and recommendations to Mr. Borders on May 14, 1986, T. 54, and the draft disapproved the amended budget. T. 53. The basis for disapproval was not disapproval of case mix or gross revenue per adjusted admission. T. 56. On about May 9, 1986, Mr. Richardson told Mr. Wichmann that the HCCB staff would recommend approval of the amended budget with respect to the case mix issue. At the same time Mr. Richardson told Mr. Wichmann that staff would be recommending a reduction of the amended budget for all long-term interest expense in excess of the 80th percentile of their hospital group. T. 227. This was the first time that anyone from the HCCB had informed North Ridge that interest expense was a problem. T. 229. Until about May 9, 1986, the only issue had been case mix. Id. During this same conversation, Mr. Richardson made a request to Mr. Wichmann for information concerning interest expense. The request was not made in writing, and the testimony of Mr. Richardson and Mr. Wichmann as to what was requested evidences misunderstanding of what Mr. Richardson may have intended. The problem arises because Mr. Richardson could have asked Mr. Wichmann for information concerning the current actual interest expense of North Ridge, or how the budgeted interest expense was projected, or both. Mr. Richardson's testimony on this point is not clear. He was asked by counsel "what did you ask of Mr. Wichmann" and responded "we asked him how the interest expense for the hospital was calculated." T. 406. It would appear from this answer that Mr. Richardson meant how was the budgeted expense projected, but it also could have meant how was the actual current Interest expense calculated. The matter is further confused by the next question asked. Mr. Richardson was directed to the precise place in the amended budget which contains the budgeted interest expense, and was asked: "Did you ask Mr. Wichmann to submit justification regarding that figure?" (E.S.) T. 406. Justification implies having a basis in fact, and a basis in fact would involve the current actual interest expense. Mr. Richardson replied: "We asked him to submit the method of calculation of that figure for purposes of determining whether it was justifiable." T. 406-7. (E.S.) It must be concluded from Mr. Richardson's testimony that Mr. Richardson intended to ask Mr. Wichmann to justify the projected interest expense in the budget, which would include both the method of calculation of the budgeted figure and the actual current interest expense. It also must be concluded from the above testimony that Mr. Richardson did not clearly communicate his intention to Mr. Wichmann. Mr. Wichmann understood Mr. Richardson's request to be concerned only with substantiation of actual current interest expense. T. 227-8. Mr. Wichmann understood Mr. Richardson to have said that the amended budget would be approved if North Ridge could substantiate the actual current interest expense incurred. Id. Mr. Wichmann did not understand that Mr. Richardson had requested or intended that North Ridge present information concerning how the budgeted interest expense had been calculated. T. 257. In an attempt to comply with this request, Mr. Wichmann contacted Arthur Andersen & Company to have them substantiate what would be North Ridge's actual interest expense, and to show what the interest expense would be based on external forms of financing. T. 231, 256. Had he understood that Mr. Richardson wanted to know how the amended budgeted interest expense had been calculated, Mr. Wichmann would have provided that information. T. 261-2. NRGH Exhibit 15 is the information provided to Mr. Wichmann from Arthur Andersen & Co. in response to Mr. Wichmann's request, and this was submitted to the HCCB on May 19, 1986. T. 231, 57. At the time of delivery of this document, Mr. Wichmann spoke to Mr. Austin and Mr. Borders to explain what he thought Arthur Andersen & Co. had presented. T. 254. Mr. Wichmann also told Mr. Austin that he thought that the interest expense was 10 per cent of the $85 million which had been paid by AMI for the hospital. T. 255-6. Upon review of NRGH Exhibit 15, the HCCB staff concluded that NRGH exhibit 15 " . . . did not in detail justify how the interest expense was calculated." T. 61. (E.S.) The May 14, 1986, draft of preliminary findings and recommendations did not reduce the amended budget due to interest expense, but was simply negative in tone on this issue. T. 63. That draft did not go any further than Mr. Borders. Id. On May 23, 1986, Mr. Austin told Mr. Wichmann that the interest expense had not been substantiated and that staff intended to recommend that the amended budget be reduced due to the interest expense. T. 232. This recommendation was put into written form as preliminary findings and recommendations and sent by Mr. Austin to Mr. Borders and Mr. Bracher, Executive Director, recommending that the interest expense in the amended budget of North Ridge be reduced back to the group 80th percentile level. T. 64-5, 233. This recommendation was disapproved, however, by Mr. Bracher, and Mr. Bracher directed that the reduction focus upon the operating margin of North Ridge. T. 65-6, 233-5. Mr. Bracher disapproved the preliminary findings and recommendations on Thursday, May 28, 1986, and the disapproved document was received by Mr. Borders and Mr. Austin on Friday, May 29, 1986. T. 67-8. Mr. Austin then told Mr. Wichmann that the basis for the recommendation of staff to reduce the amended budget of North Ridge was not interest expense, but was operating margin. T. 69, 236. He also told Mr. Wichmann that staff approved the case mix change. Id. Mr. Austin then prepared another version of the preliminary findings and recommendations and sent that forward for staff review. T70. This document was ultimately approved by Mr. Bracher and became the final staff version of the staff preliminary findings and recommendations which is NRGH Exhibit 1, T. 71, and is dated June 12, 1986. It was received by Mr. Wichmann the next day. T. 236-7. As of the date of this recommended order, there has been no final order of the Hospital Cost Containment Board approving or disapproving the proposed amended budget of North Ridge. In view of the foregoing findings of fact and the conclusions of law which follow, findings of fact concerning the substantive issues in this case pertaining to the proposed amended budget are not necessary. However, since the budget review process is necessarily compressed into such a short period of time, the following findings of fact will nonetheless be made for the record. The following facts are part of the prehearing stipulation: North Ridge has submitted sufficient justification of a change in case mix to establish that the hospital's requested GRAA of $7,569 appears to be reasonable and justified considering the noted change in North Ridge's cardiac patients. As a result, the Hospital has met its burden of proof regarding case mix. The statewide average operating margin for proprietary hospitals in Florida, based upon 1984 actual data, is 13.3 percent. The operating margin requested by North Ridge in its FY 1986 amended budget after application of the base year adjustment is 4.5 percent. The State of Florida has not obtained a waiver allowing state regulation of Medicare and Medicaid revenues. The Hospital Cost Containment Board does not at the current time have a definition for "reasonable rate of return." North Ridge General Hospital's original FY 1986 budget was approved by the Board for gross revenue per adjusted admission (GRAA) of $7,122. T. 42, 452. The original budget was criticized by staff with respect to four issues, but the amended budget was not criticized by staff on these issues, T. 348-9 After approval of the FY 1986 budget, North Ridge filed its corrected FY 1986 budget. T. 453. The corrected budget conformed the budget to all reductions made in the approved budget, including the base year adjustment. T. 452-3. As previously found as fact, the proposed amended budget requested a GRAA of $7,569. It also requested a net revenue per adjusted admission (NRRA) of $5,684. T. 272-3. Interest expense was not a basis for recommendation of reduction of the proposed amended budget in the preliminary findings and recommendations issued by the HCCB staff on June 13,1986. See findings of fact 43; T. 472. It is not reasonable or proper to calculate interest expense on capital. Interest expense must be calculated on debt. T. 528. North Ridge asserts that the interest expense is reasonable because it was a result of the purchase of the hospital by American Medical International, Inc. North Ridge asserts that there is no equity in the budgeted debt. T. 147. If it was a reasonable projection of debt expense, then the amount of $8.5 million interest expense would be reasonable based on 10 percent interest. T. 546. The intercompany interest rate of American Medical International, Inc., which is the rate AMI charges its affiliates for the cost of capital, is 10 percent. T. 148, 150. North Ridge actually calculated its projected interest expense for its proposed amended budget using the 10 percent rate and a debt amount asserted to be $84,977,800. Citizens Ex. 5. The debt amount is asserted to consist of $28,840,800, a mortgage assumed from a commercial bank, $36,750,000, a note issued to the former owner of North Ridge, $17,037,000, an amount due for redemption of preferred stock, and $2,350,000, an amount associated within the company for "domestic development," which was labeled legal, accounting, and related company acquisition costs. Citizens Ex. 5; NRGH Ex. 15. All of these items were associated with the acquisition of North Ridge by AMI. If all of these were legitimate projections of debt when the proposed amended budget was prepared, and do not contain equity, then the budgeted interest expense of $8.5 million is reasonable pursuant to the testimony of Pace Allen, T. 546, and John Hutchins, T. 151-2. The analysis of the reasonableness of the budgeted interest expense performed by Mr. Hutchins, NRGH Ex. 15, is based upon debt information available September 2, 1985, the beginning of the fiscal year for 1986. T. 147; NRGH Ex. 15. The note payable, in the amount of $36,750,000, had no stated interest rate, and was to be paid off on February 28, 1986, by North Ridge or by AMI on behalf of North Ridge. T. 148, 181. It was refinanced on February 28, 1986, by A-I and reflected in the "intercompany financing account" of North Ridge. NRGH 15, p. 2; T. 572. Mr. Hutchins imputed a reasonable rate of interest to the note. T. 148. The preferred stock was redeemed prior to June 30, 1986. T. 572. It had a mandatory redemption date of June 26, 1986, and a mandatory redemption amount of $17,888,550. T. 148; NRGH Ex. 15, p. 2. The unaudited balance sheet for North Ridge for the period ending June 30, 1986, showed only $28,135,803 as long term debt, Citizens Ex. 6, because the note and preferred stock were paid or redeemed prior to June 30,1986. T. 572. The June 30, 1986, balance sheet of North Ridge contains an item "intercompany accounting" under capital. North Ridge put on no evidence to show that this term should be considered to be debt, or that it was carried as capital on this balance sheet by mistake. The item usually is carried above capital. T. 556. At 10 percent interest, the interest on the item shown as long term debt, $28,135,803, would be $2,013,503. T. 529. For the period ending June 30, 1986, the unaudited statement of income and expenses of North Ridge showed $6,673,686 as "cost of capital." Citizens Ex. 7. This figure could include any number of things, including the cost of floating bonds or interest. T. 534. If it was all interest expense, extrapolated for the full fiscal year, the interest expense would be about $8,000,000. Id. There is no evidence in the record to show what the "cost of capital" item is in fact. The interest expense in the approved 1986 budget was about $41,000. T. 440-1. None of the three methods used in NRGH Ex. 15, prepared by Arthur Andersen & Co., were used by North Ridge to calculate projected interest expense for the proposed amended budget. T. 180; Citizens Ex. 5. North Ridge did not present evidence to explain the amount of $2,350,000 shown on Citizens Ex. 5 for "domestic development." T. 176 The proposed interest expense of $8.5 million is about twice that of the amount of the 80th percenti1e for hospitals in North Ridge's group. T. 115. The interest expense could be less by $4,100,000 to equal the 80th percentile. Citizens Ex. 2. The percentile is calculated by comparing interest expense to total operating expense. HCCB Ex. 1. At the 50th percentile, the interest expense of North Ridge would be $2,286,909. Id. North Ridge has failed to justify the reasonableness of the interest expense that it projected in its proposed amended budget filed December 16, 1985. Mr. Hutchins, for Arthur Andersen & Co., testified as an expert, but his report disclaims any opinion as to the "elements" of his report, which include the propriety of treating the various amounts as proper projected debt at the time the proposed amended budget was filed. NRGH Ex. 15. The disclaimer is due to the fact that Mr. Hutchins did not do an examination in accordance with generally accepted auditing principles. Id. North Ridge put on no direct testimony or evidence to show to whom the $36.7 million note was payable, why it bore no interest, when it was due, and who paid it off. It would appear from the fact that it was completely paid on February 28, 1986, by "refinancing" and thereafter was reflected in the "intercompany financing account," see finding of fact 56 above, it would appear that AMI paid it off in cash. This action should have been foreseen when the proposed amended budget was prepared in December 1985. There is no evidence when the preferred stock was redeemed. Page 2 of the Arthur Andersen & Co. report states that management intended to refinance the obligation to redeem the preferred stock, but this statement is hearsay and is not further explained by direct evidence as to when the refinancing would occur. It might not have occurred until June 26, 1986. There is no evidence to explain why the preferred stock caused an interest expense prior to redemption. Further, North Ridge did not attempt to explain the "cost of Capital" item on Citizens Ex. 7, despite the testimony that this item did not necessarily contain interest expense. Nor did North Ridge credibly prove that it was proper to project an interest expense on the $2,350,000 it labeled "domestic development." In the absence of credible expert opinion as to the factual basis of all these "elements" and absent direct evidence from North Ridge, other than hearsay contained in NRGH Ex. 15, a finding of fact cannot be made that these were reasonable projections of reasonably ascertainable amounts of interest expense as of the time the proposed amended budget was prepared. Since the debt to an outside bank in the amount of about $28 million is still shown by implication as long term debt as of June 30, 1986, and since 10 percent interest is a reasonable rate of interest, the proper interest rate for the proposed amended budget of North Ridge should be at least $2,013,503, which is quite close to the 50th percentile for its group. Staff of the HCCB and the Public Counsel propose that the interest rate be reduced to the 80th percentile of the group by subtraction of $4,100,000 from allowed interest. Citizens Exhibit 2. This in effect acknowledges $4,400,000 as proper interest expense in the amended budget. Given the possibility that some interest was paid prior to redemption of the preferred stock and payment of the note, see finding of fact 28, and upon consideration of there commendations of staff, it is concluded that reduction of the interest expense by $4,100,000 would be reasonable. Operating margin is the difference between a hospital's operating expenses and its net operating revenues, divided by net operating revenues to obtain a percentage. T. 77. The statewide operating margin for proprietary hospitals in Florida based on 1984 actual data is 13.3 percent. See finding of fact 47. As requested in its amended budget after application of the base year adjustment, the operating margin of North Ridge is projected for FY 1986 to be 4.5 percent. Id. The operating margin is 7.4 percent without the base year adjustment. T.273. The operating margin in the 1986 approved budget was 1.5 percent. T. 286. A proposed increase in operating margin can be analyzed for reasonableness by comparison to the statewide average for like hospitals and by comparison to the previous operating margin for the hospital concerned. T. 116- In most cases in the past, the HCCB had made the comparison only to the statewide average. T. 329. Compared only to the statewide average of 13.3 percent for proprietary hospitals, the proposed operating margin of 4.5 percent is very reasonable. Comparison of the proposed increase in operating margin to the prior operating margin in the hospital's budget is an appropriate comparison, but some care must be taken when the Initial operating margin approaches zero. It is misleading to use the "percentage of the increase" method in this circumstance since an increase, as here, from 1.5 percent to 4.5 percent, is mathematically an increase of 200 percent when compared to the original amount, but really is quite small, only 3 percent. T. 328-9. Staff of the HCCB did not consider the statewide operating margin average to be a relevant basis for comparison for an amended budget, T. 118, add did not do so in this case. T. 121. Staff asserted that the foregoing is a policy of the HCCB in reviewing amendments to budgets. T. 120. The policy is not contained in a rule or statute. T. 120. There is no specific evidence in the record to justify the policy. The policy is reasonable on its face an initial means to identify the nature of increases proposed in a budget amendment, but it is facially unreasonable to stop at that point and not analyze the basis for increases. A hospital should not be barred from correcting errors in their budgets. A primary reason that the projected operating margin of North Ridge is only 4.5 percent is due to the interest expense of $8.5 million. If the interest expense projected were at the group 50th percentile, the operating margin would be 12.8 percent. HCCB Ex. 1; T. 98. This interest expense would be $2,286,909, which is substantially the same as the interest expense of $2,013,503 for the commercial mortgage loan. It should be noted that the operating margin of 4.5 percent and 12.6 percent both contain the base year adjustment T. 98-9; finding of fact 47. As discussed above, North Ridge has not proved by credible evidence that as of the time of preparing the proposed amended budget, there was a basis for expecting that an interest expense of $8.5 million would actually be incurred for the entire year. Clearly it was known that the preferred stock was to be redeemed by June 1986 and the $37 million note was to be completely paid by the end of February, 1986. If, thereafter, North Ridge's interest expense is merely a payment of interest to American Medical International, which owns North Ridge, this is a payment on capital, and should not be deducted from operating revenue as an operating expense to calculate operating margin. T. 536-7. There really is no clear evidence in this record to prove conclusively that North Ridge has been paying AMI interest at about a 10 percent rate, but it appears that some sort of inter- company transaction of this sort is occurring. T. 294. Thus, for the portion of the year that such interest was paid to AMI rather than to an outside entity, those amounts (whatever they may be) should not be considered to be a deduction from operating revenue to calculate operating margin. There is evidence concerning other factors that could be used to justify an increase in operating margin. Of these, the only one applicable is the need to purchase capital equipment. Operating margin is a source of funds for capital equipment. T. 284. North Ridge's approved 1986 budget and the amended budget contain the same equipment expenditure projections. T. 288-9. The operating margin in the approved budget was 1.5 percent. T. 286. This margin was not felt to be sufficient by Mr. Wichmann to purchase the capital equipment planned in the approved budget. T. 286, 289. The increase in case mix may be a reason for needing more capital in the amended budget, and thus a greater operating margin, but the record is not clear on this point. T 287. Increased services would require a greater operating margin if increased capital was associated with the increased services. T. 287. An insufficiency of supplies would be a reason to increase operating margin. T287. There is no evidence that North Ridge's supplies are inadequate. T 287. The amended budget does not project a higher level of services for the service index than did the 1986 approved budget. T. 525. In the short run, deferred income taxes could be used as a source of funds, as could depreciation, T. 289-90, and these funds could be used to purchase capital equipment. T. 524. Staff of the HCCB currently uses an incipient and evolving policy to require that benefits that a hospital may receive from a reduction in Medicare contractual allowances, which results in Increased revenues from the federal government, be passed on to non-Medicare patients by "netting out" these benefits against any increase proposed by the hospital in its budget or amended budget. T 416. The policy was first mentioned in March at the Board meeting to Venice Hospital T. 413-7, 582. The policy was not "applied" except as a basis for a critical public comment. The hospital's proposed amendment did not propose a change in gross revenue. T, 414. The reduction in the contractual adjustment referred to in the testimony is the difference between the Medicare contractual adjustment in the 1986 original budget and the proposed budget amendment. A Medicare contractual adjustment is the amount of shortfall in Medicare reimbursement which is written off by the Hospital. The amount of reduction in contractual adjustment in this case is $3,152,818. T. 80. The proposed amendment to the 1986 budget also has $171,203 of additional revenue over costs to private payors compared to the approved 1986 budget. T. 79-80. The sum of these two amounts, which is $3,324,021, ultimately has a positive effect on operating margin. T. 490. Staff of the HCCB recommends that the $3,324,021 be passed on as a benefit to private paying patients by a reduction in net revenues and gross revenues. T. 79-17; Citizens Ex. 2. The amount of $3,324,021 discussed in the last paragraph is exactly the difference between the operating margin in the 1986 approved budget (corrected) and the proposed amended budget. T. 492, 455. The Medicare contractual adjustment of $3,152,818 was caused by an increase in the hospital's case mix, T. 312-3, and the Medicare prospective payment system of reimbursement for Medicare patients has impacted both case mix and contractual adjustment. Id. Under the perspective payment system, it is the policy of the federal government that a hospital may keep the excess of reimbursement if more than costs, but the hospital is at risk if costs exceed the payment. T. 321-2. Medicare pays a flat amount per case, and cases are weighted for determining the amount of payment into types called diagnostic related groups, or DRG's. T. 315. The percentage of fixed payment patients at North Ridge is 73.3 percent. T. 170. The percentage of Medicare patients days is 67.1 percent. NRGH Ex. 1. The State of Florida, has not obtained a waiver allowing state regulation of Medicare and Medicaid revenues. Prehearing Stipulation. A hospital could reduce its net revenues by the amount of the contractual adjustment by giving that amount away, T. 167, or by some combination of actions which amounts to the same thing: lowering rates for private payment patients and performing more indigent care. See T. 387. The testimony that a hospital has no method to do this is rejected. See T. 167. It would appear that North Ridge has 26.7 percent of its patients days that are not Medicare patient days that could be involved in the lowering or waiving of charges. See finding of fact 94. The corrected budget as approved by the HCCB for FY 1986 contains a base year adjustment of $1,662,632, and the proposed amended budget does not. T. 484, 314. There is no clear or competent evidence as to precisely how the corrected budget distributed the base year adjustment, but since the adjustment is a result of statute and only effects net revenues, it ultimately must reduce net revenues by this amount. T. 386. Lawrence R. Murray testified for North Ridge as an expert in hospital finance and accounting and third-party reimbursement matters including Medicare and Medicaid. T. 301. Mr. Murray argued that the similarity between the dollar amounts relating to the contractual adjustment (about $3 million) and the differences between the operating margin in the corrected budget and the proposed amended budget (see findings of facts 79 and 80) meant that the contractual adjustment recommendations of the staff of the HCCB were really recommendations to reduce the operating margin of North Ridge by that amount. T. 596-7. He then reasoned that the operating margin in the corrected budget already had the base year adjustment made but the proposed amended budget did not, and this was partially the cause of the increase in operating margin. He concluded that if the operating margin of North Ridge should be reduced by the amount of the contractual adjustments, then the amount of the reduction should be reduced by first subtracting the base year adjustment. Id. The problem with the argument is that the reduction recommended by the staff of about $3 million is premised upon this amount being a change entirely in contractual adjustments, not a change in operating margin. Since admittedly the proposed amended budget has not had the base year adjustment made, that adjustment has to be made at some time, and it is proper to do it as shown on Citizens Ex. 2. The similarity between the contractual adjustment figure and the difference in operating margins appears to be caused by the fact that operating revenues rose by $1.6 million (to $72.6 million from the corrected budget revenues of $71 million) and this amount is the amount of the base year adjustment. T. 453-4. The difference in revenues less deductions between the corrected budget (with the base year adjustment) and the proposed amended budget (without the base year adjustment) is $4.6 million. Id. The corrected budget with the base year adjustment had gross revenues of $71 million and deductions of $51 million, and the proposed amended budget had gross revenues of $72.6 million and deductions of $15 million. Cost shifting is the shifting of a cost from one payor to another who presumably did not incur the cost. As such, it results in higher costs to the payor to whom the cost is shifted. The contractual adjustment in the instant case is the result in an increase in reimbursement of costs which results in higher net revenues for Medicare patients. T. 187. A requirement to lower revenues for private payment patients in the same amount results in a lower cost to these patients, and thus is the opposite in effect of cost shifting as defined above. T. 536. In its preliminary findings and recommendations, staff applied a methodology to calculate how a predetermined reduction in gross revenue would be applied to net revenue. NRGH Exhibit 1; T. 82. This methodology uses a fixed percentage based upon the amended budget ratio of net to gross revenues. Id. There is a conflict in the record as to whether staff of the HCCB purposes to apply this method to North Ridge, although it appears from representations of counsel as well as proposed finding of fact 27 that staff clearly proposes not to apply this method to North Ridge. T. 17,425-6. The fixed percentage method of calculating from gross to net revenues does not properly consider payor mix and should not be used in this case because it is inaccurate. T. 169-70. Administrative, courtesy and policy discounts include discounts to clergymen, physicians, employees, and employee dependents, and discounts to health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations. T. 179. About 1.8 percent of total patient days are represented by these discounts. NRGH Exhibit 16. Indigent and charity care represents the amount of revenue that is written off by a hospital to indigent care. T. 179. About 4.4 percent of total patient days are represented by indigent care. NRGH Exhibit 16. About 67.1 percent of total patient days of North Ridge come from Medicare. NRGH Exhibit 16. North Ridge thus has about 73.3 percent of its patients as fixed payment patients. T. 170; NRGH Exhibit 16. If the Contractual adjustment net revenues are to be shifted as a benefit to non-fixed payment patients, the percentage of those patients so benefiting is 26.7 percent. If there is to be a reduction in net revenues due to the contractual adjustment issue, the total amount of the reduction would be $3,324,021, which is a reduction of $344 per adjusted admission for net revenues. Citizens Exhibit 2. The proper method of converting a net revenues reduction for contractual adjustments to a gross revenue figure, using the fixed payment patients percentage, is found on Citizens Exhibit 2. T. 513. This exhibit correctly projects admissions using actual admissions projected for the year. T. 515. However, the percentage to be used should be 73.3 percent fixed payment patients. This method accurately takes into account the fixed price payor mix by calculating the GRAA reduction from the NRAA reduction by dividing the percentage of non-Medicare and Medicaid patient days by total patient days. Thus, the reduction in NPAA as shown on Citizens Exhibit 2 of $344 is correct if there is to be a reduction for contractual adjustments, but the reduction in GRAA should be $1288, which is $344 divided by 26.7 percent. T. 190. Citizens Exhibit 2 blends the proposed amended budget with actual experience for the fiscal year. T. 514. It is not a new policy to do this. T. 542. The policy is also contained in a proposed rule 27J-1.0205(3), which was officially recognized, and is made Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. The proposed rule does not prohibit blending in this case. There was no explicit evidence offered to substantiate the reasonableness of this policy, but the policy is facially reasonable given the obvious fact that a projected budget, including an amendment in midyear, should be based on the most recent historical data for making the projection Mr. Murray's testimony did not demonstrate that the policy is unreasonable. Moreover, none of the hospital budgets mentioned by Mr. Murray involved a reduction in contractual adjustment for Medicare. T. 641. 102. Pace Allen testified as an expert in hospital accounting and finance. T. 505. Mr. Allen's testimony with respect to Citizens Exhibits 1 and 2 was concerned primarily with calculation methods. Mr. Allen did not perform an independent analysis of the reasonableness of North Ridge's proposed amended budget, T. 540, and did not compare interest expense to other hospitals. T. 544. Mr. Allen had not express an opinion as to what the final GRAA and NRRA should be. T. 560. Citizens Exhibit 2, however, shows as a result a GRAA of $6224 which was verified by Mr. Murray. T. 625. It appears that the GRAA at the 50th percentile for North Ridge's group is $6422. NRGH Ex. 1. A GPAA of $6224 is less than the approved budget for 1986 of North Ridge. There is no rule to provide standards for determining the justification and extent to which a decrease in contractual adjustments for Medicare should be passed on to non-Medicare patients by decreasing gross revenue per adjusted admission. Further, in the case at bar, the HCCB has not presented evidence to justify the application of the policy in the case at bar. While it is true that application of the policy will lower the operating margin of North Ridge to about 6 percent, there is no explanation in the record why that is the correct figure for North Ridge. It cannot be assumed to be the correct figure since the statewide average operating margin for proprietary hospitals is 13.3 percent. It is true that there is some evidence that North Ridge does not need an increase in operating margin for capital needs associated with case mix change, or to purchase supplies, or to provide new services. There is also some evidence that North Ridge may need an increased operating margin for capital equipment. But the evidence on the whole is insufficient to determine whether this means windfall profits to North Ridge or simply an Increase of reimbursement that is in whole or in part reasonably necessary to reimburse actual costs for services.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Hospital Cost Containment Board enter its Final Order confirming that the proposed amended budget of North Ridge General Hospital for fiscal year 1986 has been approved in its entirety by operation of law. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2412H Pursuant to section 120.159(2), Fla. Stat. (1985) the following are specific rulings upon all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties which have been rejected in this recommended order, using the same numbers used by the parties. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: The finding is not necessary. The finding is not necessary. The finding is not necessary. The finding is a matter of law. The finding is not necessary. 9. The second sentence is a matter of law. It is not clear whether staff considers the 25 day--period to start with receipt of the budget or substantive review. The first sentence is thus rejected. The finding is a matter of law. 21. The last clause of the sentence is irrelevant. 25. The second sentence is irrelevant. 36. This finding is rejected because the exhibit did not explain the basis of the interest expense as found in the findings of fact. This finding is irrelevant. This finding is irrelevant. 56. The last sentence is a matter of law. The first sentence is a matter of law, as is the second sentence. This finding is irrelevant since Petitioner admits there was a valid partial waiver. This finding is legally incorrect since the amended budget would be complete, conforming, and verifiable on the 40th day from receipt, absent a valid notice within the 40 day period to the contrary which remained uncorrected. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Rejected as explained in detail in the findings of fact. Rejected in detail in the findings of fact. While it is true that interest expense is a fixed cost, the failure of North Ridge to explain the expense makes this finding irrelevant. Irrelevant. Rejected as stated in the findings of fact for lack of evidence. The first sentence is rejected since Arthur Andersen & Co. only "obtained information," and the basis was uncorroborated hearsay. T. 147. The last sentence is rejected for lack of supporting evidence. Rejected because not supported by competent evidence. 91. The last sentence is not relevant since a policy may properly be applied the first time in this ease. 92-100. No ruling has been made upon these proposed findings of fact since the recommended orders relies upon other issues, making these findings unnecessary. 105. The second sentence is rejected in finding 85. 107. The second sentence is rejected as a matter of law, not fact. 111. Rejected in finding of fact 88. The third and fourth sentences are rejected as being irrelevant. There was no proof of this policy or any reliance on it by the Board, and thus this is irrelevant. 116. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by persuasive evidence. Rejected with respect to interest expense. No ruling was made with respect to contractual adjustments or operating margin. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: 2. The lack of worksheet C2A has been found as a fact, but there is no evidence in the record to find as fact that the amendment "could not be properly analyzed" without additional information. Staff could have analyzed what they had and recommended disapproval based on what they had. 4. There is no evidence in the record that there was a "paucity of supporting documentation." It is true that Mr. Austin and others felt they needed more information to give a favorable recommendation. The last phrase of the second sentence is rejected since it implies that something other than case mix information was discussed at the February 11, 1986, meeting. The evidence is not sufficient to make that finding. The last phrase of the second sentence is rejected since the evidence does not show that the "waiver" was discussed in the context of allowing staff time to analyze the amendment. 9. The last sentence is rejected since the evidence does not show that staff asked Mr. Wichmann at the February 11, 1986, meeting to supply any information except case mix. The last phrase of the second sentence is rejected because the evidence does not show that the "waiver" was discussed in the context of allowing staff time to evaluate the amendment. The fifth sentence is rejected because there is no evidence that the purpose of the "waiver" was clearly discussed with Mr. Wichmann, at least in terms of how the "waiver" would operate. There is no credible evidence that Mr. Wichmann was told that "the 120 days would not start until sufficient documentation was received by the Board." The last sentence is rejected because Mr. Wichmann only testified that he did not remember much about the discussion concerning "waiver" except that the budget would be returned to him. The second and third sentences have been partially rejected since what Mr. Austin did tell Mr. Wichmann could reasonably have been interpreted by Mr. Wichmann as saying that without the waiver and the new information, the budget would be returned. The ultimate conclusion of this proposed finding is rejected because not supported by the weight of credible evidence. As discussed in the findings of fact, neither Mr. Austin nor Mr. Borders clearly or credibly testified that it was clearly understood by Mr. Wichmann that his "waiver" letter was intended to erase the first 58 days of the 120-day period which had elapsed. Moreover, neither Mr. Austin nor Mr. Borders clearly testified that they understood the "waiver" to include time for them to evaluate the new information concerning case mix. But more important, Mr. Wichmann's letter clearly did not grant time to evaluate. The period would start running again as of the date of receipt of the information once "satisfaction" had been achieved. Regardless of what Mr. Austin or Mr. Borders wanted, they got only what the letter says. Finally, with regard to specific proposed findings in this paragraph, Mr. Wichmann did not testify that he did not know the "ordinary" meaning of the word waiver. He was not asked that. It is unclear from the question whether the legal meaning, which was clearly at issue at the time of the question, or the ordinary" meaning, was meant by the question. The failure of Mr. Wichmann, Mr. Austin, and Mr. Borders to clarify what was desired and what was intended by the letter of February 13, 1986, is perhaps true, and if pursued as a finding of fact, could result in a finding that there was never a meeting of the minds, and hence, no waiver at all. This finding, however, is rejected, by findings of fact 12-23. Reading the Health Care Access Act is irrelevant since the statute does not define "waiver" or "extension," and Mr. Wichmann admittedly had no advice from a lawyer when he wrote his letter. Finally, the failure of Mr. Wichmann to explain the contents of his letter to the staff of the HCCB is wholly irrelevant. He ended the letter with the sentence "If this is not correct, please notify me immediately." The burden of clarifying ambiguities in the letter was on the staff of the HCCB, not Mr. Wichmann. The fifth and sixth sentences are rejected because Mr. Wichmann did not repudiate his letter, and the meaning of his letter has previously been discussed and found as fact. The eighth and ninth sentences are irrelevant. The rules of the HCCB do not prohibit submission of additional information after a budget is "filed," and it would be completely unreasonable to preclude a continuing exchange of information in an effort to resolve budget issues in free form action without the necessity of a formal administrative hearing. Moreover, the power of staff, pursuant to rule 4D-1.014, to ask for more information, as previously discussed above, has nothing to do with whether a budget has been "filed" so as to commence the 120-day period. The Legislature surely did not intend that the 12-day period be postponed indefinitely by staff through unending requests for information. The eleventh through fourteenth sentences are rejected as matters of law. The first sentence is rejected in the conclusions of law. See the last sentence of the immediately preceding paragraph also. The last sentence is also rejected for the reasons stated in the conclusions of law, paragraph 33. The facts proposed in this paragraph are irrelevant. Mr. Wichmann failed to submit information concerning the original budget compared to the amended budget, staff should have immediately recommended disapproval of the North Ridge amendment, thus allowing enough time for a section 120.57(1) hearing and a final order by the Board. Moreover, staff already had the original budget in its files, so it is unclear what Mr. Wichmann's asserted "failure" was. Finally, case mix was the central focus, and case mix was in fact approved by staff. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that Mr. Wichmann's attempt to "disassociate the budget amendment request from the original budget submission" had anything to do with the issues in this case, if it occurred at all. This finding is rejected because it is irrelevant. The second sentence is an issue of law. The second sentence is an issue of law. The sixth sentence through the end are irrelevant. 28. The last two sentences are rejected because contrary to the evidence. 35. Irrelevant. Findings of fact proposed by the Intervenor: 8. It is unclear from the testimony whether the 25 day goal is commenced by the filing of the budget or the day when substantive review begins, and therefore the finding as stated categorically is rejected. This finding is irrelevant, although it is true and provides background information. The phone call was not in writing and was not within the 40 days from receipt of the budget amendment by the HCCB. This finding is also irrelevant for the reasons stated in the last paragraph. 29. This finding is rejected for the reasons stated in finding of fact 12, and also 11, 17, and 18. The portion of this proposed finding concerning "time to analyze further justification and further evaluate the requested amended budget" is rejected in findings of fact 17-20. This proposed finding is rejected in finding of fact 22. This proposed finding is essentially rejected in finding of fact 23. 40. The second sentence is rejected because the question did not use the word "ordinary" and Mr. Wichmann could easily have thought counsel meant some legal definition. 55. This proposed finding is essentially rejected in findings of fact 37 and 38. 64. Irrelevant. 72-78. Rejected because cumulative. The ultimate finding is accepted and adopted. 79. The last two sentences are rejected as hearsay. 82-84, 88-91. Irrelevant and cumulative. 108. Rejected because the evidence is not sufficient. 122-123. Rejected in favor of the percentages found from other evidence in the record. 124. Cumulative and unnecessary. 128 The amount of GRAA proposed cannot be found for lack of supporting calculations or facts in the record. Irrelevant. Irrelevant since this legal issue has not been reached in this order. Rejected as an issue of law. Rejected as specified in detail in the findings of fact. Rejected as specified in detail in the findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Curtis Ashley Billingsley, Esquire Hospital Cost Containment Board Woodcrest Office Plaza, Building L, Suite 101 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Ralph Haben, Jr., Esquire Steven T. Mindlin, Esquire 306 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Shreve, Public Counsel John Knight, Esquire Office of Public Counsel 202 Blount Street 624 Fuller Warren Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Bracher, Secretary Executive Director Hospital Cost Containment Board Woodcrest Office Plaza 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether the application timely filed with the Department of Health (“Department”) by Memorial Healthcare Group, Inc., d/b/a Memorial Hospital Jacksonville (“Memorial”), met the applicable standards for approval to operate as a provisional Level II trauma center; and whether the Department’s approval of the application was based upon an unadopted rule.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida created pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes. The Department’s mandate is to “promote, protect and improve the health of all people in the state,” and it has a primary responsibility for evaluating provisional trauma center applications submitted by acute care hospitals. §§ 381.001 and 395.40(3), Fla. Stat. Shands is an acute-care hospital located in Trauma Service Area (“TSA”) 5, which lies in Baker, Nassau, Duval, Clay, and St. Johns counties. Shands has been designated by the Department as a Level I trauma center. Memorial is an acute-care hospital also located in TSA 5. Memorial operates a provisional Level II trauma center. The application that was submitted by Memorial and approved by the Department on May 1, 2017, is the subject of this proceeding. 5. Chapter 395, Part II (§§ 395.40 – 395.51), Florida Statutes (“Trauma Statute”), sets forth the statutory framework for the development of a statewide trauma system. The Department is charged with the planning and establishment of the statewide inclusive trauma system. See, § 395.40(3), Fla. Stat. The Legislature recognized the benefits of trauma care provided within an “inclusive trauma system,” that is “designed to meet the needs of all injured trauma victims.” § 395.40(2), Fla. Stat. Section 395.401(2) directs the Department to “adopt, by rule, standards for verification of trauma centers based on national guidelines, including those established by the American College of Surgeons.” The Trauma Center Standards are published in DH Pamphlet (DHP) 150-9, which is incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64J-2.011 (the “Trauma Standards”). Section 395.4025 (the “Application Statute”) describes the application process for hospitals seeking to become designated as a trauma center. Section 395.4025(2)(c) requires the Department to conduct a “provisional review” of each trauma center application to determine if “the hospital’s application is complete and that the hospital has the critical elements required for a trauma center.” This “critical review” shall be based on “trauma center standards” and shall include a review of whether the hospital has: (1) equipment and physical facilities necessary to provide trauma services; (2) personnel in sufficient numbers and with proper qualifications to provide trauma services; and (3) an effective quality assurance process. Id. Notably, the provisional review described in section 395.4025(1)(c) looks only to the application to determine whether an application “has [met] the critical elements required for a trauma center.” Id. Section 395.4025(13) authorizes the Department to “adopt, by rule, the procedures and processes by which it will select trauma centers.” Pursuant to this authorization, the Department issued rule 64J-2.012, which provides detailed regulations governing the application process. Rule 64J-2.012(1)(d) includes a detailed list of elements that a provisional trauma center applicant must satisfy (the “critical elements”) to receive provisional approval from the Department. The Trauma Standards contain other elements that were not designated by the Department as “critical” (the “non-critical elements”). These standards pertain primarily to ensuring the programmatic integrity of a trauma center. Provisional trauma center applications must eventually establish compliance with the non-critical elements, but the non-critical elements are not examined by the Department until after a provisional trauma center application is granted. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.012(1)(h). The process for obtaining designation as a provisional trauma center begins on October 1 each year. By that date, hospitals must submit to the Department a letter of intent to file a provisional trauma center application. See § 395.4025(2)(a), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J- 2.012(1)(a). If a hospital timely submits a letter of intent, the Department must provide the hospital with a provisional trauma center application and instructions for submitting it to the Department. § 395.4025(2)(b), Fla. Stat. April 1 of the following year is the deadline for the hospital to submit a provisional trauma center application. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.012(1)(a). The Department conducts a review of the application to determine whether it is complete and has established compliance with the critical elements. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.012(1)(d). The Department does not conduct a site visit until a provisional trauma center application is approved and the trauma center is operational. § 395.4025(2)(d) and (5), Fla. Stat. By April 15, the Department must provide the applicant with written notice of any deficiencies in the critical elements and gives the hospital the opportunity to submit additional clarifying or correcting information. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.012(1)(e). Applicants then have five working days to address the identified deficiencies and submit additional information. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.012(1)(f). On or before May 1, the Department must send written notification to each applicant hospital advising whether its application was approved or denied. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.012(1)(g)1.-2. If a hospital is granted provisional approval, it is required to begin operation as a provisional trauma center on May 1 and becomes a full member of Florida’s integrated trauma system on that day. § 395.4025(3), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.012(1)(g)1. The Department also immediately notifies EMS providers of the newly operational provisional trauma center. Providers are required immediately to begin transporting “trauma alert” victims, as identified pursuant to field triage criteria, to the newly designated provisional trauma center for trauma care when it is the nearest trauma center to the location of the incident. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.002(3)(g). In the summer of 2016, Memorial received a letter from the Department notifying Memorial of the opportunity to submit a letter of intent to become a trauma center. Memorial timely submitted a letter of intent to the Department in September 2016. This letter indicated that Memorial would seek approval from the Department to operate as a Level II trauma center. After Memorial submitted its letter of intent, the Department responded by sending Memorial a notice accepting its letter of intent and providing information on the application process. The notice directed Memorial to the Department’s trauma center application and contained instructions for the completion and submission of the application. Once Memorial received the Department’s notice confirming acceptance of its letter of intent, it began making significant investments of resources and capital to develop its trauma program. It did so to ensure that its application would be compliant with the Trauma Standards. In order to implement its trauma program and meet the required Trauma Standards, Memorial made investments in a number of areas, including the renovation of its emergency department (“ED”) to accommodate two dedicated trauma resuscitation bays; the hiring and recruitment of new physicians and staff; conducting significant staff education; and beginning work towards the construction of a new helipad. By May 1, 2017, Memorial had invested over $4 million to develop its trauma program. This capital investment included approximately $2.5 million in construction and equipment. Memorial also invested $1.7 million in recruiting physicians and staff, as well as trauma-related training and education. Memorial was well positioned to develop its trauma program, since many of the needed surgical specialties were already offered at the hospital. The hospital recruited additional physicians to fill the more than 20 non-surgical specialties required by the Trauma Standards. In addition to new physicians, Memorial recruited many new specialized nurses needed to serve trauma patients. Memorial ultimately provided over 6,000 hours of trauma training before May 1, 2017, and continues to train new nurses. The hospital ensured that over 200 nurses received training in Trauma Nurse Core Competencies, which ensures that nursing staff can provide high quality care for severely injured patients. Memorial made all of the above investments prior to March 31, 2017, the date on which Memorial submitted its application to the Department. Memorial’s Application was prepared by a core team, headed by Eleanor Lynch, senior vice president of operations at Memorial. The key members of the team included Memorial’s trauma medical director, trauma program director, as well as representatives from the intensive care unit (“ICU”) and operating room. In order to ensure Memorial’s Application met the Trauma Standards, the team preparing the application met at least three times each week. Those meetings sometimes consisted of 30 different individuals from a variety of disciplines, including the trauma program director, trauma medical director, registration, respiratory, ICU, and the ED. The process was comprehensive and inclusive to ensure the hospital was fully prepared to address each Trauma Standard in its application. This team reviewed the application before it was submitted to the Department to ensure that it complied with the Trauma Standards. Memorial also received assistance from K.C. Pidgeon, vice president of trauma for HCA South Atlantic Division--which includes Memorial. Mr. Pidgeon, who has significant experience in developing trauma programs in Florida, participated in each of the team meetings. He provided guidance into making sure the hospital and its application met the Trauma Standards, including updating policies and procedures, purchasing equipment, recruiting staff, and development of nurse leaders. The final application submitted to the Department consisted of 32 separate binders encompassing thousands of pages of information. In order to be ready to operate by May 1, 2017, Memorial set an internal deadline of February 27, 2017, for the hospital to meet each of the Trauma Standards. Memorial met this internal deadline and included a letter in its application from Memorial’s CEO confirming this milestone. Memorial timely submitted its trauma center application to the Department on March 31, 2017. In developing its trauma program and preparing its application, Memorial ensured that it met all of the Trauma Standards that are required for provisional approval. After receiving Memorial’s Application, the Department arranged for it to be reviewed by two outside experts, Dr. Marco Bonta and Nurse Marla Vanore. Both Dr. Bonta and Nurse Vanore have reviewed numerous trauma applications on behalf of the Department, and are very familiar with the Trauma Standards. Following their review, Dr. Bonta and Nurse Vanore sent the Department a checklist identifying alleged deficiencies in Memorial’s Application. Both reviewers concluded that the quality of the application on initial review was excellent, and reflected a serious effort to meet the Trauma Standards before beginning operations. On April 14, 2017, the Department sent Memorial a letter notifying it of the deficiencies that Dr. Bonta and Nurse Vanore had identified. The few deficiencies identified by the Department were mainly clerical in nature or required simple clarifications. For instance, one of the noted deficiencies included updating the curriculum vitae of Memorial’s trauma program director. Memorial timely responded to each deficiency identified by the Department on April 22, 2017. Memorial’s deficiency response was also reviewed by Dr. Bonta and Nurse Vanore. Following their review of Memorial’s deficiency response, the expert reviewers concluded that Memorial properly addressed each deficiency identified during the Department’s initial review. On May 1, 2017, the Department informed Memorial that its application was in compliance with the applicable Trauma Standards and directed it to begin trauma operations on that same day. As indicated by the parties’ stipulation, Shands takes issue with only a few of the hundreds of requirements that comprise the Trauma Standards. The only aspects of Memorial’s Application which Shands disputes are the standards related to trauma surgeon call coverage (Standards II.A.4-5, II.B.2, and III.A) and the helipad (Standard V.A.5). Shands does not dispute that the application meets the remaining Trauma Standards. Standard III of the Trauma Standards details the surgical staffing requirements that each trauma center must meet. Standard III.A specifically addresses the requirements for general trauma surgeons. Standard III.A.1 requires that “[t]here shall be a minimum of five qualified trauma surgeons, assigned to the trauma service, with at least two trauma surgeons available to provide primary and backup trauma coverage 24 hours a day at a trauma center when summoned.” Standard III.A.2 requires each trauma surgeon to sign the General Surgeons Commitment Statement, which confirms that each surgeon on primary and backup call will comply with certain conditions, including arriving promptly when summoned. Standard III.A.3 lists the minimum qualifications for each trauma surgeon taking call, such as certifications and hospital privileges. Memorial submitted substantial documentation which demonstrated its compliance with the requirements in Standard III.A. Although the Trauma Standards only require five trauma surgeons, Memorial secured nine trauma surgeons for its program. For each of these surgeons, Memorial provided proof of hospital privileges, board certification, state licensure, Advanced Trauma Life Support (“ATLS”) certification, proof of participation in past trauma cases, completion of continuing medical education courses, attestation by the Chief of Neurosurgery, and the commitment statement, among other documentation. Memorial’s documentation for this section totaled more than 500 pages. Memorial also submitted primary and backup call schedules for February, March, April, and May 2017, indicating when each trauma surgeon was scheduled to take trauma call. In addition, Memorial submitted a number of policies and procedures, including Memorial’s credentialing criteria, which is more stringent than what the Department requires. In order to be credentialed at Memorial, a trauma surgeon must agree to the following requirements for primary trauma call: be physically present in-house to meet all trauma patients in the trauma resuscitation areas at the time of the trauma patient’s arrival; perform no elective surgery or procedures during the on- call period that would render the trauma surgeon unavailable to arrive promptly to a trauma alert patient; and refrain from taking general surgery emergency call at any other facility or trauma call at any other facilities while on trauma call at the primary facility. Similar requirements exist for trauma backup call. Standard II of the Trauma Standards sets forth the trauma call coverage requirements that each trauma center must meet. Specifically, Standards II.A.4 and II.A.5 require “[a]t least one qualified trauma surgeon (as described in Standard III.A) to be on primary trauma call at all times to provide trauma service care” and “[a]t least one qualified trauma surgeon (as described in Standard III.A) to be on backup trauma call at all times to provide trauma service care.” Simply put, there must be one trauma surgeon on primary call and one trauma surgeon on backup call at all times. As part of its application, Memorial submitted detailed information about each of the nine trauma surgeons on its monthly call schedules, including the call schedules themselves. The call schedules detail each of the trauma surgeons scheduled to take primary and backup trauma call for February through May 2017. Memorial secured and submitted commitment statements (DH Form 2043E) from each of the trauma surgeons on its call schedule. These signed commitment letters indicate that each trauma surgeon agreed to commit to the call schedules submitted to the Department and be available as indicated. These letters also indicate that each surgeon pledged not to take trauma call at any other facility while on trauma call at Memorial. Trauma Standard II also includes a requirement that the hospital ensure any new trauma surgeons are appropriately qualified and sign the commitment statement. Specifically, “[a]s surgeons change, the trauma medical director must ensure that the new surgeons have the qualifications delineated in Standard III.A.3 and that they sign the General Surgeons Commitment Statement. The trauma service shall keep a current and up-to- date commitment statement on file in the hospital’s trauma center application at all times for Department of Health review.” In response to this subpart, Memorial appropriately submitted the commitment statements for its initial nine trauma surgeons. Because this was Memorial’s provisional application, none of the new trauma surgeons who have subsequently joined its program after May 1, 2017, were included with this submission. After completing their initial review of Memorial’s Application, the Department’s expert reviewers identified only one issue to be addressed in the above sections. For one of the trauma surgeons, Dr. Alton Parker, there was a question as to whether he had met all the required continuing medical education (“CME”) requirements. As requested, Memorial submitted additional documentation with its Deficiency Response confirming that Dr. Parker had in fact completed the required CME courses. With this concern resolved, the expert reviewers ultimately concluded that Memorial’s Application met every requirement. At hearing, Shands alleged that because some of the trauma surgeons listed in Memorial’s Application do not live in Jacksonville year round, the application did not meet the Trauma Standards detailed above. However, there is no requirement in the Trauma Standards that trauma surgeons must live full time in the same community as the hospital at which they take trauma call. Rather, the Trauma Standards require that trauma surgeons on primary and backup trauma call in Level II trauma centers be available within 30 minutes once summoned. In actuality, Shands’ criticisms appear to be a matter of preference or imagining the ideal situation, rather than substantive questions about compliance with the legal requirements for trauma surgeon call. Memorial has not had any gap in trauma call coverage or similar issues since it began operations on May 1, 2017; every shift has been covered and each trauma surgeon available as required. Memorial’s trauma surgeons are committed members of the trauma team, including active participants in the quality improvement process, regardless of where their permanent residence may be. As part of its mission to ensure high-quality care, Memorial requires its trauma surgeons on primary trauma call to be physically present at the hospital during the entire shift, which is beyond what the Trauma Standards require for Level II trauma centers. Memorial established this requirement in part to ensure that there would be no issues with response time for trauma surgeons. Any trauma surgeons on backup call that do not have permanent residences within 30 minutes response time of the hospital, typically stay at a hotel close to the hospital in order to comply with the Trauma Standards and Memorial’s own requirements. For any trauma surgeons who do not live full time in the Jacksonville area, Memorial requires that they report well in advance of beginning the call coverage to ensure there are no issues, e.g., a trauma surgeon beginning call at 9:00 a.m. Monday morning must report to the hospital by 9:00 p.m. the night before. Memorial’s trauma surgeons have positive working relationships with other team members, like the ED physicians, and have collaborated well with local EMS. Memorial has worked to build a full-time trauma surgeon roster, with the hope that recruited physicians will ultimately decide to make the Jacksonville area their home. Memorial currently has three trauma surgeons, including the trauma medical director, Dr. Michael Samotowka, who live full time in Jacksonville and plans to continue recruiting until all six current spots are filled by full-time residents. Both Dr. Bonta and Nurse Vanore determined that Memorial’s trauma call coverage met the applicable Trauma Standards, including Standards II.A.4-5, II.B.2, and III.A. Both expert reviewers confirmed at hearing that the Trauma Standards only require trauma surgeons on primary and backup call to be readily available--they do not dictate where surgeons must reside full time. Nurse Vanore also testified that many trauma centers across the country utilize physicians who do not live in the immediate vicinity of the hospital. These physicians either stay at the hospital or make arrangements to stay nearby when on call. This reflects a common trend in trauma centers nationwide, which often use the rotation of trauma surgeon (both on- and off-call) shifts to enhance patient care. Most trauma centers do not use trauma surgeons to provide longitudinal care (one surgeon with the patient throughout the care process). Instead, there is a comprehensive patient handoff to the next trauma surgeon. There was no indication in Memorial’s Application that its trauma surgeons would not fulfill their call obligations. The general trauma surgeon call schedules submitted by Memorial adequately demonstrated that Memorial would be able to fulfill its trauma call coverage requirements. Since beginning trauma operations, Memorial has not had any gaps in coverage or other issues related to trauma call. Therefore, Memorial satisfied Standards II.A.4-5, II.B.2, and III.A. The helipad became a central issue at hearing. Standard V addresses the facility requirements relating to the ED, including the helipad. Standard V.A.5 requires that each hospital must have a “helicopter-landing site in close proximity to the resuscitation area.” “Close proximity” is defined to mean that “the interval of time between the landing of the helicopter and the transfer of the patient into the resuscitation area will be such that no harmful effect on the patient’s outcome results.” In addition to this requirement, the helipad must be properly licensed by state and federal authorities, and have appropriate policies and procedures for helipad operations. Memorial has used the helipad in its current location since 1993. Before it began operations as a trauma center, Memorial effectively used its helipad to transport trauma patients out of its ED to Shands and other trauma centers without incident for the entirety of that time period. The helipad is located approximately 1900 feet from Memorial’s ED. To meet this Trauma Standard, Memorial hired Liberty Ambulance Service, a private ambulance service, to staff the helipad 24/7, so that at all times there is an advanced life support ambulance with two paramedics ready to transport patients from the helipad to the ED. In addition, the ambulance driver has received emergency vehicle operations course training. Memorial also provided training to the ambulance crew members to ensure they were proficient in helicopter safety. This training included in-depth interaction with air crew of TraumaOne, which is one of the region’s air transport providers. Memorial hires deputies from the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office to be present at all times for helicopter arrivals. These deputies can be used to block any pedestrian or vehicle access to the transport route or otherwise provide transport assistance, although this has not been needed. Memorial conducted numerous time studies, almost daily since February 27, 2017, to ensure it could quickly move patients from the helipad to the ED without delaying treatment. The time trials entailed actually loading a stretcher onto an ambulance at the helipad, driving the ambulance to the ED, and unloading the stretcher at the ED. These time trials, which were conducted beginning in December 2016 and continue today, showed an average transport time of two to three minutes. Each time trial was attended by Memorial’s EMS Coordinator, Greg Miller, and signed off by each ambulance crew that participated. These time trials helped familiarize the ambulance crew with the short route from the helipad to the ED, as well as to identify an alternate route that can be used if needed. Admittedly, the trials were performed using hospital personnel posing as patients, rather than actual trauma patients, but the methodology, while presenting a best case scenario, was nonetheless reasonable. In addition to the time trials, actual air transports of non-trauma patients confirm the close proximity of the helipad. It only took five minutes to transport a recent non- trauma patient from the helipad to the ED, as documented by the LifeFlight air crew which transported the patient. Since beginning trauma operations, there have not been any issues with trauma patients arriving by helipad. At the time of hearing, Memorial had only had one trauma patient delivered by helicopter since May 1, 2017. Memorial has only had 24 total non-trauma patients delivered by helipad in 2017. In fact, very few patients are transported by air in TSA 5, generally. As part of ongoing renovations, Memorial is currently constructing a new helipad, which will be situated one floor directly above the ED. The new helipad is scheduled to be completed in July 2018. Shands alleged at hearing that Memorial’s helipad was not optimally located and voiced general concerns about its potential impact on patient care. While 1900 feet from the ED cannot be considered the “optimal location” for the helipad, the claims of adverse impact on patient care were not supported by evidence produced at hearing. None of Shands’ witnesses suggested that the patient transport times reflected in Memorial’s Application would adversely impact patient care, or that any adverse incidents had occurred on Memorial’s helipad. Actually, none of Shands’ witnesses had even reviewed any of the time trials or actual patient transport information included in Memorial’s Application. The time it takes to transport patients from Memorial’s helipad to the ED is not substantially different from other trauma centers in the region. Shands’ own witnesses confirmed that Shands’ helipad sits atop a six-story parking garage across the street from its ED, which requires patients to be transported down an elevator and wheeled on a stretcher across a road while security blocks traffic access. Despite their criticisms, none of Shands’ witnesses knew how long it took to transport patients from Shands’ helipad to the ED. Moreover, with the construction of its new helipad atop the ED, any concerns about the current transport times will be eliminated. Both Dr. Bonta and Nurse Vanore determined that Memorial’s helipad met the applicable Trauma Standard, namely Standard V.A.5. Based on the time studies provided by Memorial which showed the average transport time from the helipad to the ED was only two to three minutes, the expert reviewers determined that the helipad was in “close proximity” to the resuscitation area. Based on their experience, the expert reviewers concluded that two to three minutes was typical of other trauma centers, including hospitals with rooftop helipads. This duration of transport time is actually quite good and would not adversely affect patient care. Memorial’s helipad is in close proximity to the trauma resuscitation area, as the Department properly concluded based on the information provided in Memorial’s Application. The two-to- three minute transport time for trauma patients is well within the acceptable range and demonstrates that Memorial met Standard V.A.5. Memorial elicited testimony from a longtime expert in health care planning, Gene Nelson of Health Strategies, Inc. Mr. Nelson spoke at length in an effort to establish need for an additional trauma center in TSA 5 through a feasibility study employing well recognized health planning concepts. He focused primarily on access to trauma care for patients needing the comprehensive specialized care offered by trauma centers. Mr. Nelson noted that many trauma patients were being treated in general acute care hospitals without trauma centers which fell short of the care provided in centers like Shands and the proposed Memorial trauma center. He concluded that a substantial need exists for another trauma center in TSA 5 and that Memorial would fulfill that need. Shands objected to this discussion of need by Mr. Nelson on behalf of Memorial, and argues that the letter of intent and application filed by Memorial should not have been accepted in the first place, since there was not a documented need for another trauma center in TSA 5. As will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, the need for an additional trauma center is not a determination to be made at the time of a hospital’s filing for authority to begin operating a provisional trauma center. Shands testified that Memorial’s operation of a trauma center in TSA 5 has already resulted in injury to its operations and profitability. This injury will only continue in the future as Memorial gains a stronger foothold in the TSA. The negative impacts include fewer trauma patients at Shands resulting in a longer period for trauma nurses to acquire and maintain the specialized skills necessary for operating in a trauma center versus a general acute care hospital. The opening of Memorial’s provisional trauma center has caused the number of severely injured trauma patients at Shands to decrease. Shands predicts an annual loss of 324 trauma cases due to Memorial’s opening, translating to a $2.25 to $2.7 million annual loss of revenues. If outpatient cases are included in this analysis, Shands projects an annual loss in revenues of $12,422 per case over the 324 lost cases, resulting in an annual total loss of approximately $4 million. Memorial argues that sufficient trauma volume exists in TSA 5 for both facilities to operate their trauma centers. Memorial projects that it will treat 1,556 trauma patients per year, well above the American College of Surgeons’ (“ACS”) recommendation of at least 1,200 patients per year as a minimum volume level. Mr. Nelson estimates that, annually, only between 300 and 500 trauma patients will be treated at Memorial that otherwise would have been treated at Shands. The rest likely would have received treatment at an acute care hospital, not a trauma center. Mr. Nelson believes that Memorial’s trauma program has had, at most, a minimal impact on Shands. An analysis produced by Shands demonstrates that Shands’ own projections estimate a loss of only 154 trauma patient admissions, well below the numbers projected by Memorial. Even with Memorial’s trauma program being fully operational, Shands will continue to receive in excess of 2,000 trauma patients admitted annually. That volume is well above the ACS’s recommended minimum patient volume of 1,200 for Level I trauma centers. Shands’ own data shows that it will continue to see over 4,600 total trauma patients annually, including inpatient and outpatient cases. Estimates prepared by Shands’ associate vice president of finance, Dean Cocchi, demonstrate that even with a potential impact from Memorial, Shands will still have a contribution margin of well over $30 million. Mr. Cocchi also testified that Shands’ projected financial impact from Memorial operations will not endanger the continued operation of its trauma program. While the presence of Memorial in the TSA 5 market will have a small negative financial impact on Shands, it is not projected to be substantially adverse. The quality of care provided at Shands has not been impacted by the opening of Memorial’s trauma center. Shands remains a high-quality provider of trauma care.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order finding that Memorial met its burden of establishing that its trauma center application met the applicable standards; awarding provisional Level II status to Memorial; and dismissing Shands’ petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 13th day of June, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Gabriel F.V. Warren, Esquire Rutledge Ecenia, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 202 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 (eServed) Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Marc Ito, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 750 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Daniel Ryan Russell, Esquire Jones Walker, LLP 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 130 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Michael Jovane Williams, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Martin B. Goldberg, Esquire Lash & Goldberg, LLP 100 Southeast Second Street, Suite 1200 Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Jeffrey L. Frehn, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) J. Stephen Menton, Esquire Rutledge Ecenia, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 202 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 (eServed) Nichole Chere Geary, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed) Shannon Revels, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 (eServed) Celeste M. Philip, M.D., M.P.H. State Surgeon General Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the certificate of need (CON) applications filed by New Port Richey Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Community Hospital of New Port Richey (Community Hospital) (CON No. 9539), and Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc., d/b/a North Bay Hospital (North Bay) (CON No. 9538), each seeking to replace and relocate their respective general acute care hospital, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule criteria.
Findings Of Fact The Parties AHCA AHCA is the single state agency responsible for the administration of the CON program in Florida pursuant to Chapter 408, Florida Statutes (2000). The agency separately reviewed and preliminarily approved both applications. Community Hospital Community Hospital is a 300,000 square feet, accredited hospital with 345 licensed acute care beds and 56 licensed adult psychiatric beds, located in southern New Port Richey, Florida, within Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital is seeking to construct a replacement facility approximately five miles to the southeast within a rapidly developing suburb known as "Trinity." Community Hospital currently provides a wide array of comprehensive inpatient and outpatient services and is the only provider of obstetrical and adult psychiatric services in Sub-District 5-1. It is the largest provider of emergency services in Pasco County with approximately 35,000 visits annually. It is also the largest provider of Medicaid and indigent patient days in Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital was originally built in 1969 and is an aging facility. Although it has been renovated over time, the hospital is in poor condition. Community Hospital's average daily census is below 50 percent. North Bay North Bay is a 122-bed facility containing 102 licensed acute care beds and 20 licensed comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds, located approximately one mile north of Community Hospital in Sub-District 5-1. It serves a large elderly population and does not provide pediatric or obstetrical care. North Bay is also an aging facility and proposes to construct a replacement facility in the Trinity area. Notably, however, North Bay has spent approximately 12 million dollars over the past three years for physical improvements and is in reasonable physical condition. Helen Ellis Helen Ellis is an accredited hospital with 150 licensed acute care beds and 18 licensed skilled nursing unit beds. It is located in northern Pinellas County, approximately eight miles south of Community Hospital and nine miles south of North Bay. Helen Ellis provides a full array of acute care services including obstetrics and cardiac catheterization. Its daily census average has fluctuated over the years but is approximately 45 percent. Mease Mease operates two acute care hospitals in Pinellas County including Mease Dunedin Hospital, located approximately 18 to 20 miles south of the applicants and Mease Countryside Hospital, located approximately 16 to 18 miles south of Community and North Bay. Each hospital operates 189 licensed beds. The Mease hospitals are located in the adjacent acute care sub-district but compete with the applicants. The Health Planning District AHCA's Health Planning District 5 consists of Pinellas and Pasco Counties. U.S. Highway 41 runs north and south through the District and splits Pasco County into Sub- District 5-1 and Sub-District 5-2. Sub-District 5-1, where Community Hospital and North Bay are located, extends from U.S. 41 west to the Gulf Coast. Sub-District 5-2 extends from U.S. 41 to the eastern edge of Pasco County. Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in Florida and steadily grows at 5.52 percent per year. On the other hand, its neighbor to the north, Pasco County, has been experiencing over 15 percent annual growth in population. The evidence demonstrates that the area known as Trinity, located four to five miles southeast of New Port Richey, is largely responsible for the growth. With its large, single- owner land tracts, Trinity has become the area's fuel for growth, while New Port Richey, the older coastal anchor which houses the applicants' facilities, remains static. In addition to the available land in Trinity, roadway development in the southwest section of Pasco County is further fueling growth. For example, the Suncoast Highway, a major highway, was recently extended north from Hillsborough County through Sub-District 5-1, west of U.S. 41. It intersects with several large east-west thoroughfares including State Road 54, providing easy highway access to the Tampa area. The General Proposals Community Hospital's Proposal Community Hospital's CON application proposes to replace its existing, 401-bed hospital with a 376-bed state- of-the-art facility and relocate it approximately five miles to the southeast in the Trinity area. Community Hospital intends to construct a large medical office adjacent to its new facility and provide all of its current services including obstetrical care. It does not intend to change its primary service area. North Bay's Proposal North Bay's CON application proposes to replace its existing hospital with a 122-bed state-of-the-art facility and also plans to relocate it approximately eight miles to the southeast in the Trinity area of southwestern Pasco County. North Bay intends to provide the same array of services it currently offers its patients and will not provide pediatric and obstetrical care in the proposed facility. The proposed relocation site is adjacent to the Trinity Outpatient Center which is owned by North Bay's parent company, Morton Plant. The Outpatient Center offers a full range of diagnostic imaging services including nuclear medicine, cardiac nuclear stress testing, bone density scanning, CAT scanning, mammography, ultrasound, as well as many others. It also offers general and specialty ambulatory surgical services including urology; ear, nose and throat; ophthalmology; gastroenterology; endoscopy; and pain management. Approximately 14 physician offices are currently located at the Trinity Outpatient Center. The Condition of Community Hospital Facility Community Hospital's core facilities were constructed between 1969 and 1971. Additions to the hospital were made in 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1992, and 1999. With an area of approximately 294,000 square feet and 401 licensed beds, or 733 square feet per bed, Community Hospital's gross area-to-bed ratio is approximately half of current hospital planning standards of 1,600 square feet per bed. With the exception of the "E" wing which was completed in 1999, all of the clinical and support departments are undersized. Medical-Surgical Beds And Intensive Care Units Community Hospital's "D" wing, constructed in 1975, is made up of two general medical-surgical unit floors which are grossly undersized. Each floor operates 47 general medical-surgical beds, 24 of which are in three-bed wards and 23 in semi-private rooms. None of the patient rooms in the "D" wing have showers or tubs so the patients bathe in a single facility located at the center of the wing on each floor. Community Hospital's "A" wing, added in 1973, is situated at the west end of the second floor and is also undersized. It too has a combination of semi-private rooms and three-bed wards without showers or tubs. Community Hospital's "F" wing, added in 1979, includes a medical-surgical unit on the second and third floor, each with semi-private and private rooms. The second floor unit is centrally located between a 56-bed adult psychiatric unit and the Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU) which creates security and privacy issues. The third floor unit is adjacent to the Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU) which must be accessed through the medical-surgical unit. Neither intensive care unit (ICU) possesses an isolation area. Although the three-bed wards are generally restricted to in-season use, and not always full, they pose significant privacy, security, safety, and health concerns. They fail to meet minimum space requirements and are a serious health risk. The evidence demonstrates that reconfiguring the wards would be extremely costly and impractical due to code compliance issues. The wards hinder the hospital's acute care utilization, and impair its ability to effectively compete with other hospitals. Surgical Department and Recovery Community Hospital's surgical department is separated into two locations including the main surgical suite on the second floor and the Endoscopy/Pain Management unit located on the first floor of "C" wing. Consequently, the department cannot share support staff and space such as preparation and recovery. The main surgical suite, adjacent recovery room, and central sterile processing are 25 years old. This unit's operating rooms, cystoscopy rooms, storage areas, work- stations, central sterile, and recovery rooms are undersized and antiquated. The 12-bay Recovery Room has no patient toilet and is lacking storage. The soiled utility room is deficient. In addition, the patient bays are extremely narrow and separated by curtains. There is no direct connection to the sterile corridor, and staff must break the sterile field to transport patients from surgery to recovery. Moreover, surgery outpatients must pass through a major public lobby going to and returning from surgery. The Emergency Department Community Hospital's existing emergency department was constructed in 1992 and is the largest provider of hospital emergency services in Pasco County, handling approximately 35,000 visits per year. The hospital is also designated a "Baker Act" receiving facility under Chapter 394, Florida Statutes, and utilizes two secure examination rooms for emergent psychiatric patients. At less than 8,000 total square feet, the emergency department is severely undersized to meet the needs of its patients. The emergency department is currently undergoing renovation which will connect the triage area to the main emergency department. The renovation will not enlarge the entrance, waiting area, storage, nursing station, nor add privacy to the patient care areas in the emergency department. The renovation will not increase the total size of the emergency department, but in fact, the department's total bed availability will decrease by five beds. Similar to other departments, a more meaningful renovation cannot occur within the emergency department without triggering costly building code compliance measures. In addition to its space limitations, the emergency department is awkwardly located. In 1992, the emergency department was relocated to the front of the hospital and is completely separated from the diagnostic imaging department which remained in the original 1971 building. Consequently, emergency patients are routinely transported across the hospital for imaging and CT scans. Issues Relating to Replacement of Community Hospital Although physically possible, renovating and expanding Community Hospital's existing facility is unreasonable. First, it is cost prohibitive. Any significant renovation to the 1971, 1975, 1977, and 1979 structures would require asbestos abatement prior to construction, at an estimated cost of $1,000,000. In addition, as previously noted, the hospital will be saddled with the major expense of complying with all current building code requirements in the 40-year-old facility. Merely installing showers in patient rooms would immediately trigger a host of expensive, albeit necessary, code requirements involving access, wiring, square footage, fireproofing columns and beams, as well as floor/ceiling and roof/ceiling assemblies. Concurrent with the significant demolition and construction costs, the hospital will experience the incalculable expense and loss of revenue related to closing major portions, if not all, of the hospital. Second, renovation and expansion to the existing facility is an unreasonable option due to its physical restrictions. The 12'4" height of the hospital's first floor limits its ability to accommodate HVAC ductwork large enough to meet current ventilation requirements. In addition, there is inadequate space to expand any department within the confines of the existing hospital without cannibalizing adjacent areas, and vertical expansion is not an option. Community Hospital's application includes a lengthy Facility Condition Assessment which factually details the architectural, mechanical, and electrical deficiencies of the hospital's existing physical plant. The assessment is accurate and reasonable. Community Hospital's Proposed Replacement Community Hospital proposes to construct a six- story, 320 licensed beds, acute care replacement facility. The hospital will consist of 548,995 gross square feet and include a 56-bed adult psychiatric unit connected by a hallway to the first floor of the main hospital building. The proposal also includes the construction of an adjacent medical office building to centralize the outpatient offices and staff physicians. The evidence establishes that the deficiencies inherent in Community Hospital's existing hospital will be cured by its replacement hospital. All patients will be provided large private rooms. The emergency department will double in size, and contain private examination rooms. All building code requirements will be met or exceeded. Patients and staff will have separate elevators from the public. In addition, the surgical department will have large operating rooms, and adequate storage. The MICU and SICU will be adjacent to each other on the second floor to avoid unnecessary traffic within the hospital. Surgical patients will be transported to the ICU via a private elevator dedicated to that purpose. Medical-surgical patient rooms will be efficiently located on the third through sixth floors, in "double-T" configuration. Community Hospital's Existing and Proposed Sites Community Hospital is currently located on a 23-acre site inside the southern boundary of New Port Richey. Single- family homes and offices occupy the two-lane residential streets that surround the site on all sides. The hospital buildings are situated on the northern half of the site, with the main parking lot located to the south, in front of the main entrance to the hospital. Marine Parkway cuts through the southern half of the site from the west, and enters the main parking lot. A private medical mall sits immediately to the west of the main parking lot and a one-acre storm-water retention pond sits to the west of the mall. A private medical office building occupies the south end of the main parking lot and a four-acre drainage easement is located in the southwest corner of the site. Community Hospital's administration has actively analyzed its existing site, aging facility, and adjacent areas. It has commissioned studies by civil engineers, health care consultants, and architects. The collective evidence demonstrates that, although on-site relocation is potentially an option, on balance, it is not a reasonable option. Replacing Community Hospital on its existing site is not practical for several reasons. First, the hospital will experience significant disruption and may be required to completely close down for a period of time. Second, the site's southwestern large four-acre parcel is necessary for storm-water retention and is unavailable for expansion. Third, a reliable cost differential is unknown given Community Hospital's inability to successfully negotiate with the city and owners of the adjacent medical office complexes to acquire additional parcels. Fourth, acquiring other adjacent properties is not a viable option since they consist of individually owned residential lots. In addition to the site's physical restrictions, the site is hindered by its location. The hospital is situated in a neighborhood between small streets and a local school. From the north and south, motorists utilize either U.S. 19, a congested corridor that accommodates approximately 50,000 vehicles per day, or Grand and Madison Streets, two-lane streets within a school zone. From the east and west, motorists utilize similar two-lane neighborhood streets including Marine Parkway, which often floods in heavy rains. Community Hospital's proposed site, on the other hand, is a 53-acre tract positioned five miles from its current facility, at the intersection of two major thoroughfares in southwestern Pasco County. The proposed site offers ample space for all facilities, parking, outpatient care, and future expansion. In addition, Community Hospital's proposed site provides reasonable access to all patients within its existing primary service area made up of zip codes 34652, 34653, 34668, 34655, 34690, and 34691. For example, the average drive times from the population centers of each zip code to the existing site of the hospital and the proposed site are as follows: Zip code Difference Existing site Proposed site 34652 3 minutes 14 minutes 11 minutes 34653 8 minutes 11 minutes 3 minutes 34668 15 minutes 21 minutes 6 minutes 34655 11 minutes 4 minutes -7 minutes 34690 11 minutes 13 minutes 2 minutes 34691 11 minutes 17 minutes 6 minutes While the average drive time from the population centroids of zip codes 34653, 34668, 34690, and 34691 to the proposed site slightly increases, it decreases from the Trinity area, where population growth has been most significant in southwestern Pasco County. In addition, a motorist's average drive time from Community Hospital's existing location to its proposed site is only 10 to 11 minutes, and patients utilizing public transportation will be able to access the new hospital via a bus stop located adjacent to the proposed site. The Condition of North Bay Facility North Bay Hospital is also an aging facility. Its original structure and portions of its physical plant are approximately 30 years old. Portions of its major mechanical systems will soon require replacement including its boilers, air handlers, and chillers. In addition, the hospital is undersized and awkwardly configured. Despite its shortcomings, however, North Bay is generally in good condition. The hospital has been consistently renovated and updated over time and is aesthetically pleasing. Moreover, its second and third floors were added in 1986, are in good shape, and structurally capable of vertical expansion. Medical Surgical Beds and ICU Units By-in-large, North Bay is comprised of undersized, semi-private rooms containing toilet and shower facilities. The hospital does not have any three-bed wards. North Bay's first floor houses all ancillary and support services including lab, radiology, pharmacy, surgery, pre-op, post-anesthesia recovery, central sterile processing and supply, kitchen and cafeteria, housekeeping and administration, as well as the mechanical, electrical, and facilities maintenance and engineering. The first floor also contains a 20-bed CMR unit and a 15-bed acute care unit. North Bay's second and third floors are mostly comprised of semi-private rooms and supporting nursing stations. Although the rooms and stations are not ideally sized, they are in relatively good shape. North Bay utilizes a single ICU with ten critical care beds. The ICU rooms and nursing stations are also undersized. A four-bed ICU ward and former nursery are routinely used to serve overflow patients. Surgery Department and Recovery North Bay utilizes a single pre-operative surgical room for all of its surgery patients. The room accommodates up to five patient beds, but has limited space for storage and pre-operative procedures. Its operating rooms are sufficiently sized. While carts and large equipment are routinely stored in hallways throughout the surgical suite, North Bay has converted the former obstetrics recovery room to surgical storage and has made efficient use of other available space. North Bay operates a small six-bed Post Anesthesia Care Unit. Nurses routinely prepare patient medications in the unit which is often crowded with staff and patients. The Emergency Department North Bay has recently expanded its emergency department. The evidence demonstrates that this department is sufficient and meets current and future expected patient volumes. Replacement Issues Relating to North Bay While it is clear that areas of North Bay's physical plant are aging, the facility is in relatively good condition. It is apparent that North Bay must soon replace significant equipment, including cast-iron sewer pipes, plumbing, boilers, and chillers which will cause some interruption to hospital operations. However, North Bay's four-page written assessment of the facility and its argument citing the need for total replacement is, on balance, not persuasive. North Bay's Proposed Replacement North Bay proposes to construct a new, state-of-the- art, hospital approximately eight miles southeast of its existing facility and intends to offer the identical array of services the hospital currently provides. North Bay's Existing and Proposed Sites North Bay's existing hospital is located on an eight-acre site with limited storm-water drainage capacity. Consequently, much of its parking area is covered by deep, porous, gravel instead of asphalt. North Bay's existing site is generally surrounded by residential properties. While the city has committed, in writing, it willingness to assist both applicants with on-site expansion, it is unknown whether North Bay can acquire additional adjacent property. North Bay's proposed site is located at the intersection of Trinity Oaks Boulevard and Mitchell Boulevard, south of Community Hospital's proposed site, and is quite spacious. It contains sufficient land for the facilities, parking, and future growth, and has all necessary infrastructure in place, including utility systems, storm- water structures, and roadways. Currently however, there is no public transportation service available to North Bay's proposed site. Projected Utilization by Applicants The evidence presented at hearing indicates that, statewide, replacement hospitals often increase a provider's acute care bed utilization. For example, Bartow Memorial Hospital, Heart of Florida Regional Medical Center, Lake City Medical Center, Florida Hospital Heartland Medical Center, South Lake Hospital, and Florida Hospital-Fish Memorial each experienced significant increases in utilization following the opening of their new hospital. The applicants in this case each project an increase in utilization following the construction of their new facility. Specifically, Community Hospital's application projects 82,685 total hospital patient days (64,427 acute care patient days) in year one (2006) of the operation of its proposed replacement facility, and 86,201 total hospital patient days (67,648 acute care patient days) in year two (2007). Using projected 2006 and 2007 population estimates, applying 2002 acute care hospital use rates which are below 50 percent, and keeping Community Hospital's acute care market share constant at its 2002 level, it is reasonably estimated that Community Hospital's existing hospital will experience 52,623 acute care patient days in 2006, and 53,451 acute care patient days in 2007. Consequently, Community Hospital's proposed facility must attain 11,804 additional acute care patient days in 2006, and 14,197 more acute care patient days in 2007, in order to achieve its projected acute care utilization. Although Community Hospital lost eight percent of the acute care market in its service area between 1995 and 2002, two-thirds of that loss was due to residents of Sub- District 5-1 acquiring services in another area. While Community Hospital experienced 78,444 acute care patient days in 1995, it projects only 64,427 acute care patient days in year one. Given the new facility and population factors, it is reasonable that the hospital will recapture half of its lost acute care market share and achieve its projections. With respect to its psychiatric unit, Community Hospital projects 16,615 adult psychiatric inpatient days in year one (2006) and 17,069 adult inpatient days in year two (2007) of the proposed replacement hospital. The evidence indicates that these projections are reasonable. Similarly, North Bay's acute care utilization rate has been consistently below 50 percent. Since 1999, the hospital has experienced declining utilization. In its application, North Bay states that it achieved total actual acute care patient days of 21,925 in 2000 and 19,824 in 2001 and the evidence at hearing indicates that North Bay experienced 17,693 total acute care patient days in 2002. North Bay projects 25,909 acute care patient days in the first year of operation of its proposed replacement hospital, and 27,334 acute care patient days in the second year of operation. Despite each applicant's current facility utilization rate, Community Hospital must increase its current acute care patient days by 20 percent to reach its projected utilization, and North Bay must increase its patient days by at least 50 percent. Given the population trends, service mix and existing competition, the evidence demonstrates that it is not possible for both applicants to simultaneously achieve their projections. In fact, it is strongly noted that the applicants' own projections are predicated upon only one applicant being approved and cannot be supported with the approval of two facilities. Local Health Plan Preferences In its local health plan for District 5, the Suncoast Health Council, Inc., adopted acute care preferences in October, 2000. The replacement of an existing hospital is not specifically addressed by any of the preferences. However, certain acute care preferences and specialty care preferences are applicable. The first applicable preference provides that preference "shall be given to an applicant who proposes to locate a new facility in an area that will improve access for Medicaid and indigent patients." It is clear that the majority of Medicaid and indigent patients live closer to the existing hospitals. However, Community Hospital proposes to move 5.5 miles from its current location, whereas North Bay proposes to move eight miles from its current location. While the short distances alone are less than significant, North Bay's proposed location is further removed from New Port Richey, is not located on a major highway or bus-route, and would therefore be less accessible to the medically indigent residents. Community Hospital's proposed site will be accessible using public transportation. Furthermore, Community Hospital has consistently provided excellent service to the medically indigent and its proposal would better serve that population. In 2000, Community Hospital provided 7.4 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients and 0.8 percent of its total patient days to charity patients. Community Hospital provided the highest percentage and greatest number of Medicaid patient days in Sub-District 5-1. By comparison, North Bay provided 5.8 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients and 0.9 percent of its total patient days to charity patients. In 2002, North Bay's Medicaid patients days declined to 3.56 percent. Finally, given the closeness and available bed space of the existing providers and the increasing population in the Trinity area, access will be improved by Community Hospital's relocation. The second local health plan preference provides that "[i]n cases where an applicant is a corporation with previously awarded certificates of need, preference shall be given to those which follow through in a timely manner to construct and operate the additional facilities or beds and do not use them for later negotiations with other organizations seeking to enter or expand the number of beds they own or control." Both applicants meet this preference. The third local health plan preference recognizes "Certificate of Need applications that provide AHCA with documentation that they provide, or propose to provide, the largest percentage of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals in the sub-district." Community Hospital provides the largest percentage of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals in Sub-District 5-1, and therefore meets this preference. The fourth local health plan preference applies to "Certificate of Need applications that demonstrate intent to serve HIV/AIDS infected persons." Both applicants accept and treat HIV/AIDS infected persons, and would continue to do so in their proposed replacement hospitals. The fifth local health plan preference recognizes "Certificate of Need applications that commit to provide a full array of acute care services including medical-surgical, intensive care, pediatric, and obstetrical services within the sub-district for which they are applying." Community Hospital qualifies since it will continue to provide its current services, including obstetrical care and psychiatric care, in its proposed replacement hospital. North Bay discontinued its pediatric and obstetrical programs in 2001, does not intend to provide them in its proposed replacement hospital, and will not provide psychiatric care. Agency Rule Preferences Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.038(6) provides an applicable preference to a facility proposing "new acute care services and capital expenditures" that has "a documented history of providing services to medically indigent patients or a commitment to do so." As the largest Medicaid provider in Sub-District 5-1, Community Hospital meets this preference better than does North Bay. North Bay's history demonstrates a declining rate of service to the medically indigent. Statutory Review Criteria Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes: The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed in relation to the applicable district health plan District 5 includes Pasco and Pinellas County. Pasco County is rapidly developing, whereas Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in Florida. Given the population trends, service mix, and utilization rates of the existing providers, on balance, there is a need for a replacement hospital in the Trinity area. Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes: The availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant Community Hospital and North Bay are both located in Sub-District 5-1. Each proposes to relocate to an area of southwestern Pasco County which is experiencing explosive population growth. The other general acute care hospital located in Sub-District 5-1 is Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point, which is located further north, in the Hudson area of western Pasco County. The only other acute care hospitals in Pasco County are East Pasco Medical Center, in Zephyrhills, and Pasco Community Hospital, in Dade City. Those hospitals are located in Sub-District 5-2, east Pasco County, far from the area proposed to be served by either Community Hospital or North Bay. District 5 includes Pinellas County as well as Pasco County. Helen Ellis and Mease are existing hospital providers located in Pinellas County. Helen Ellis has 168 licensed beds, consisting of 150 acute care beds and an 18-bed skilled nursing unit, and is located 7.9 miles from Community Hospital's existing location and 10.8 miles from Community Hospital's proposed location. Access to Helen Ellis for patients originating from southwestern Pasco County requires those patients to travel congested U.S. 19 south to Tarpon Springs. As a result, the average drive time from Community Hospital's existing and proposed site to Helen Ellis is approximately 22 minutes. Helen Ellis is not a reasonable alternative to Community Hospital's proposal. The applicants' proposals are specifically designed for the current and future health care needs of southwestern Pasco County. Given its financial history, it is unknown whether Helen Ellis will be financially capable of providing the necessary care to the residents of southwestern Pasco. Mease Countryside Hospital has 189 licensed acute care beds. It is located 16.0 miles from Community Hospital's existing location and 13.8 miles from Community Hospital's proposed location. The average drive time to Mease Countryside is 32 minutes from Community Hospital's existing site and 24 minutes from its proposed site. In addition, Mease Countryside Hospital has experienced extremely high utilization over the past several years, in excess of 90 percent for calendar years 2000 and 2001. Utilization at Mease Countryside Hospital has remained over 80 percent despite the addition of 45 acute care beds in April 2002. Given the growth and demand, it is unknown whether Mease can accommodate the residents in southwest Pasco County. Mease Dunedin Hospital has 189 licensed beds, consisting of 149 acute care beds, a 30-bed skilled nursing unit, five Level 2 neonatal intensive care beds, and five Level 3 neonatal intensive care beds. Its former 15-bed adult psychiatric unit has been converted into acute care beds. It is transferring its entire obstetrics program at Mease Dunedin Hospital to Mease Countryside Hospital. Mease Dunedin Hospital is located approximately 18 to 20 miles from the applicants' existing and proposed locations with an average drive time of 35-38 minutes. With their remote location, and the exceedingly high utilization at Mease Countryside Hospital, neither of the two Mease hospitals is a viable alternative to the applicants' proposals. In addition, the construction of a replacement hospital would positively impact economic development and further attract medical professionals to Sub-District 5-1. On balance, given the proximity, utilization, service array, and accessibility of the existing providers, including the applicants, the relocation of Community Hospital will enhance access to health care to the residents. Section 408.035(3), Florida Statutes: The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care As stipulated, both applicants provide excellent quality of care. However, Community Hospital's proposal will better enhance its ability to provide quality care. Community is currently undersized, non-compliant with today's standards, and located on a site that does not allow for reasonable expansion. Its emergency department is inadequate for patient volume, and the configuration of the first floor leads to inefficiencies in the diagnosis and treatment of emergency patients. Again, most inpatients are placed in semi-private rooms and three-bed wards, with no showers or tubs, little privacy, and an increased risk of infection. The hospital's waiting areas for families of patients are antiquated and undersized, its nursing stations are small and cramped and the operating rooms and storage facilities are undersized. Community Hospital's deficiencies will be effectively eliminated by its proposed replacement hospital. As a result, patients will experience qualitatively better care by the staff who serve them. Conversely, North Bay is in better physical condition and not in need of replacement. It has more reasonable options to expand or relocate its facility on site. Quality of care at North Bay will not be markedly enhanced by the construction of a new hospital. Sections 408.035(4)and(5), Florida Statutes, have been stipulated as not applicable in this case. Section 408.035(6), Florida Statutes: The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds available for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation The parties stipulated that both Community Hospital and North Bay have available health personnel and management personnel for project accomplishment and operation. In addition, the evidence proves that both applicants have sufficient funds for capital and operating expenditures. Community Hospital proposes to rely on its parent company to finance the project. Keith Giger, Vice-President of Finance for HCA, Inc., Community Hospital's parent organization, provided credible deposition testimony that HCA, Inc., will finance 100 percent of the total project cost by an inter-company loan at eight percent interest. Moreover, it is noted that the amount to be financed is actually $20 million less than the $196,849,328 stated in the CON Application, since Community Hospital previously purchased the proposed site in June 2003 with existing funds and does not need to finance the land acquisition. Community Hospital has sufficient working capital for operating expenditures of the proposed replacement hospital. North Bay, on the other hand, proposes to acquire financing from BayCare Obligated Group which includes Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc.; Mease; and several other hospital entities. Its proposal, while feasible, is less certain since member hospitals must approve the indebtedness, thereby providing Mease with the ability to derail North Bay's proposed bond financing. Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes: The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district The evidence proves that either proposal will enhance geographical access to the growing population in the service district. However, with its provision of obstetrical services, Community Hospital is better suited to address the needs of the younger community. With respect to financial access, both proposed relocation sites are slightly farther away from the higher elderly and indigent population centers. Since the evidence demonstrates that it is unreasonable to relocate both facilities away from the down-town area, Community Hospital's proposal, on balance, provides better access to poor patients. First, public transportation will be available to Community Hospital's site. Second, Community Hospital has an excellent record of providing care to the poor and indigent and has accepted the agency's condition to provide ten percent of its total annual patient days to Medicaid recipients To the contrary, North Bay's site will not be accessible by public transportation. In addition, North Bay has a less impressive record of providing care to the poor and indigent. Although AHCA conditioned North Bay's approval upon it providing 9.7 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid and charity patients, instead of the 9.7 percent of gross annual revenue proposed in its application, North Bay has consistently provided Medicaid and charity patients less than seven percent of its total annual patient days. Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes: The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal Immediate financial feasibility refers to the availability of funds to capitalize and operate the proposal. See Memorial Healthcare Group, Ltd. d/b/a Memorial Hospital Jacksonville vs. AHCA et al., Case No. 02-0447 et seq. Community Hospital has acquired reliable financing for the project and has sufficiently demonstrated that its project is immediately financially feasible. North Bay's short-term financial proposal is less secure. As noted, North Bay intends to acquire financing from BayCare Obligated Group. As a member of the group, Mease, the parent company of two hospitals that oppose North Bay's application, must approve the plan. Long-term financial feasibility is the ability of the project to reach a break-even point within a reasonable period of time and at a reasonable achievable point in the future. Big Bend Hospice, Inc. vs. AHCA and Covenant Hospice, Inc., Case No. 02-0455. Although CON pro forma financial schedules typically show profitability within two to three years of operation, it is not a requirement. In fact, in some circumstances, such as the case of a replacement hospital, it may be unrealistic for the proposal to project profitability before the third or fourth year of operation. In this case, Community Hospital's utilization projections, gross and net revenues, and expense figures are reasonable. The evidence reliably demonstrates that its replacement hospital will be profitable by the fourth year of operation. The hospital's financial projections are further supported by credible evidence, including the fact that the hospital experienced financial improvement in 2002 despite its poor physical condition, declining utilization, and lost market share to providers outside of its district. In addition, the development and population trends in the Trinity area support the need for a replacement hospital in the area. Also, Community Hospital has benefited from increases in its Medicaid per diem and renegotiated managed care contracts. North Bay's long-term financial feasibility of its proposal is less certain. In calendar year 2001, North Bay incurred an operating loss of $306,000. In calendar year 2002, it incurred a loss of $1,160,000. In its CON application, however, North Bay projects operating income of $1,538,827 in 2007, yet omitted the ongoing expenses of interest ($1,600,000) and depreciation ($3,000,000) from its existing facility that North Bay intends to continue operating. Since North Bay's proposal does not project beyond year two, it is less certain whether it is financially feasible in the third or fourth year. In addition to the interest and depreciation issues, North Bay's utilization projections are less reasonable than Community Hospital's proposal. While possible, North Bay will have a difficult task achieving its projected 55 percent increase in acute care patient days in its second year of operation given its declining utilization, loss of obstetric/pediatric services and termination of two exclusive managed care contracts. Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes: The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness Both applicants have substantial unused capacity. However, Community Hospital's existing facility is at a distinct competitive disadvantage in the market place. In fact, from 1994 to 1998, Community Hospital's overall market share in its service area declined from 40.3 percent to 35.3 percent. During that same period, Helen Ellis' overall market share in Community Hospital's service area increased from 7.2 percent to 9.2 percent. From 1995 to the 12-month period ending June 30, 2002, Community Hospital's acute care market share in its service area declined from 34.0 percent to 25.9 percent. During that same period, Helen Ellis' acute care market share in Community Hospital's service area increased from 11.7 percent to 12.0 percent. In addition, acute care average occupancy rates at Mease Dunedin Hospital increased each year from 1999 through 2002. Acute care average occupancy at Mease Countryside Hospital exceeded 90 percent in 2000 and 2001, and was approximately 85 percent for the period ending June 30, 2002. Some of the loss in Community Hospital's market share is due to an out-migration of patients from its service area to hospitals in northern Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. Market share in Community's service area by out-of- market providers increased from 33 percent in 1995 to 40 percent in 2002. Community Hospital's outdated hospital has hampered its ability to compete for patients in its service area. Mease is increasing its efforts to attract patients and currently completing a $92 million expansion of Mease Countryside Hospital. The project includes the development of 1,134 parking spaces on 30 acres of raw land north of the Mease Countryside Hospital campus and the addition of two floors to the hospital. It also involves the relocation of 51 acute care beds, the obstetrics program and the Neonatal Intensive Care Units from Mease Dunedin Hosptial to Mease Countryside Hospital. Mease is also seeking to more than double the size of the Countryside emergency department to handle its 62,000 emergency visits. With the transfer of licensed beds from Mease Dunedin Hospital to Mease Countryside Hospital, Mease will also convert formerly semi-private patient rooms to private rooms at Mease Dunedin Hospital. The approval of Community Hospital's relocated facility will enable it to better compete with the hospitals in the area and promote quality and cost- effectiveness. North Bay, on the other hand, is not operating at a distinct disadvantage, yet is still experiencing declining utilization. North Bay is the only community-owned, not-for- profit provider in western Pasco County and is a valuable asset to the city. Section 408.035(10), Florida Statutes: The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods or energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction The parties stipulated that the project costs in both applications are reasonable to construct the replacement hospitals. Community Hospital's proposed construction cost per square foot is $175, and slightly less than North Bay's $178 proposal. The costs and methods of proposed construction for each proposal is reasonable. Given Community Hospital's severe site and facility problems, the evidence demonstrates that there is no reasonable, less costly, or more effective methods of construction available for its proposed replacement hospital. Additional "band-aide" approaches are not financially reasonable and will not enable Community Hospital to effectively compete. The facility is currently licensed for 401 beds, operates approximately 311 beds and is still undersized. The proposed replacement hospital will meet the standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-3.081, and will meet current building codes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Guidelines for Design and Construction of Hospitals and Health Care Facilities, developed by the American Institute of Architects. The opponents' argue that Community Hospital will not utilize the 320 acute care beds proposed in its CON application, and therefore, a smaller facility is a less- costly alternative. In addition, Helen Ellis' architectural expert witness provided schematic design alternatives for Community Hospital to be expanded and replaced on-site, without providing a detailed and credible cost accounting of the alternatives. Given the evidence and the law, their arguments are not persuasive. While North Bay's replacement cost figures are reasonable, given the aforementioned reasons, including the fact that the facility is in reasonably good condition and can expand vertically, on balance, it is unreasonable for North Bay to construct a replacement facility in the Trinity area. Section 408.035(11), Florida Statutes: The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent Community Hospital has consistently provided the most health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent in Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital agreed to provide at least ten percent of its patient days to Medicaid recipients. Similarly, North Bay agreed to provide 9.7 percent of its total annual patient days to Medicaid and charity patients combined. North Bay, by contrast, provided only 3.56 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients in 2002, and would have to significantly reverse a declining trend in its Medicaid provision to comply with the imposed condition. Community Hospital better satisfies the criterion. Section 408.035(12) has been stipulated as not applicable in this case. Adverse Impact on Existing Providers Historical figures demonstrate that hospital market shares are not static, but fluctuate with competition. No hospital is entitled to a specific or historic market share free from competition. While the applicants are located in health planning Sub-District 5-1 and Helen Ellis and the two Mease hospitals are located in health planning Sub-District 5- 2, they compete for business. None of the opponents is a disproportionate share, safety net, Medicaid provider. As a result, AHCA gives less consideration to any potential adverse financial impact upon them resulting from the approval of either application as a low priority. The opponents, however, argue that the approval of either replacement hospital would severely affect each of them. While the precise distance from the existing facilities to the relocation sites is relevant, it is clear that neither applicants' proposed site is unreasonably close to any of the existing providers. In fact, Community Hospital intends to locate its replacement facility three miles farther away from Helen Ellis and 1.5 miles farther away from Mease Dunedin Hospital. While Helen Ellis' primary service area is seemingly fluid, as noted by its chief operating officer's hearing and deposition testimony, and the Mease hospitals are located 15 to 20 miles south, they overlap parts of the applicants' primary service areas. Accordingly, each applicant concedes that the proposed increase in their patient volume would be derived from the growing population as well as existing providers. Although it is clear that the existing providers may be more affected by the approval of Community Hosptial's proposal, the exact degree to which they will be adversely impacted by either applicant is unknown. All parties agree, however, that the existing providers will experience less adverse affects by the approval of only one applicant, as opposed to two. Furthermore, Mease concedes that its hospitals will continue to aggressively compete and will remain profitable. In fact, Mease's adverse impact analysis does not show any credible reduction in loss of acute care admissions at Mease Countryside Hospital or Mease Dunedin Hospital until 2010. Even then, the reliable evidence demonstrates that the impact is negligible. Helen Ellis, on the other hand, will likely experience a greater loss of patient volume. To achieve its utilization projections, Community Hospital will aggressively compete for and increase market share in Pinellas County zip code 34689, which borders Pasco County. While that increase does not facially prove that Helen Ellis will be materially affected by Community Hospital's replacement hospital, Helen Ellis will confront targeted competition. To minimize the potential adverse affect, Helen Ellis will aggressively compete to expand its market share in the Pinellas County zip codes south of 34689, which is experiencing population growth. In addition, Helen Ellis is targeting broader service markets, and has filed an application to establish an open- heart surgery program. While Helen Ellis will experience greater competition and financial loss, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it will experience material financial adverse impact as a result of Community Hospital's proposed relocation. In fact, Helen Ellis' impact analysis is less than reliable. In its contribution-margin analysis, Helen Ellis utilized its actual hospital financial data as filed with AHCA for the fiscal year October 1, 2001, to September 30, 2002. The analysis included total inpatient and total outpatient service revenues found in the filed financial data, including ambulatory services and ancillary services, yet it did not include the expenses incurred in generating ambulatory or ancillary services revenue. As a result, the overstated net revenue per patient day was applied to its speculative lost number of patient days which resulted in an inflated loss of net patient service revenue. Moreover, the evidence indicates that Helen Ellis' analysis incorrectly included operational revenue and excluded expenses related to its 18-bed skilled nursing unit since neither applicant intends to operate a skilled nursing unit. While including the skilled nursing unit revenues, the analysis failed to include the sub-acute inpatient days that produced those revenues, and thereby over inflated the projected total lost net patient service revenue by over one million dollars.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Community Hospital's CON Application No. 9539, to establish a 376-bed replacement hospital in Pasco County, Sub- District 5-1, be granted; and North Bay's CON Application No. 9538, to establish a 122-bed replacement hospital in Pasco County, Sub-District 5- 1, be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Hauser, Esquire R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Metz, Hauser & Husband, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505 Post Office Box 10909 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Richard M. Ellis, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Richard J. Saliba, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Station 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Karen A. Putnal, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Darrell White, Esquire William B. Wiley, Esquire McFarlain & Cassedy, P.A. 305 South Gadsden Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner herein petitioned the Division of Administrative Hearings seeking a determination of the validity of proposed Rule 100-86.008, Florida Administrative Code, in accordance with Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes. Petitioner has demonstrated its standing to participate in the formal hearing to consider the validity of Rule 100- 86.008, Florida Administrative Code. The parties stipulated that to determine standing, no proof of the facts with regard to standing as alleged within the original Petition would be required and that these might be taken as admitted. Petitioner is a non-profit corporation organized and maintained for the benefit of the 220 governmental- investor-owned- and nonprofit hospitals which comprise its membership and all of Petitioner's 220 members are hospitals subject to the verification requirements of Section 395.031, Florida Statutes and the Proposed Rule. Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' (DHRS') contention that Petitioner cannot show injury in fact since only 31 hospitals are currently verified and only 30 more are expected to seek verification within the next biennium is without merit. In the first placed that latter 30 applicants figure is determined to be arbitrary and capricious elsewhere within this order. DHRS also suggests that even if all of the 31 already verified trauma centers were members of Petitioners which they are not, this figure cannot constitute a "substantial number" as discussed in Florida Home Builders Association v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1982) of a membership as high as 220. This suggestion begs the question. DHRS thereby illogically assumes that in every case, the more members a Petitioner represents, the less standing to represent them Petitioner has. DHRS' last contention that Petitioner cannot show standing in fact because the trauma center verification program is voluntary in nature is also without merit. To accept DHRS' position that there is no standing since the program is voluntary in nature and no hospital is forced or required to apply for verification would, carried to its reasonable end, mean that no hospital would ever have standing to challenge the Proposed Rule even though the Proposed Rule clearly affects those hospital members of Petitioner who will soon face biennial recertification or reclassification plus other members who may hereafter desire initial certification. Petitioner has standing to bring this challenge. The Economic Impact Statement supports this finding as does the prior participation of Petitioner in the rule-making process. The challenge to the subject rule as offered by Petitioner was timely made. The parties by stipulation have waived the time limitations set forth in Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes. The thrust of Petitioner's allegations are that Proposed Rule 100- 86.008 is arbitrary, capricious, without rational basis in fact and constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by imposing higher verification fees upon hospitals which desire verification of their emergency rooms as trauma centers than are reasonably needed or authorized under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. Furthers Petitioner claims that the Economic Impact Statement for this proposed rule is inadequate and unfair and has "impaired the correctness of the rule adoption proceedings," primarily upon the allegation that there is no relationship of fee by proposed rule to the statutory authorization and purpose. Petitioner challenges an amendment to Rule 10D-86.008 which seeks to increase the cost of the verification fee which must be paid by each hospital emergency room applicant for every initial verification, for any reclassification and for continued verification every two years as a "trauma center. Using strike-throughs for the deletions and underlining for the additions, the proposed rule seeks to amend current Rule 10D-86.08 as follows: 10D-86.008 Fees. The Department shall charge fees to each applicant hospital. The fee shall be submitted with each application. All such fees will be used solely to defray the cost of the verification program. The following fee schedule shall apply to initials reclassification and continued verification applications: (a) Level I ... 3,000.00 $11,000.00 (b) Level II ... 2,000.00 $11,000.00 (c) Level III ... 1,500.00 $11,000.00 Statutory authorization for the existing and for the proposed rule is found in Section 395.031, Florida Statutes, which provides in pertinent part, as follows: * * * (3) Any hospital licensed in the state that desires to be verified as a trauma center shall submit to the department a request for verification as a trauma center. * * * (5) Biennially thereafter- the department shall review the trauma center to verify its compliance with the standards set forth by subsection (6). The department shall notify the hospital of such verification. If the department finds that the trauma center does not comply with those standards the department shall within 30 days, notify the hospital of its findings. Within 30 days after receiving such findings the hospital may request a hearing in which to contest the findings of the department. The hearing shall be held in accordance with chapter 120. If a hospital does not desire to contest the findings of the department but desires to continue its verification as a trauma center, the hospital shall be given 90 days in which to comply with the standards set forth in subsection (6). After verification of compliance with those standards- the department shall continue the verification of the hospital as a trauma center or verify a reclassification of the trauma center pursuant to the standards set forth in subsection (6). * * * (7) The cost of verification shall be borne by the applicant, based on a fee schedule set by the department not to exceed the cost of verification. (Emphasis supplied.) The trauma center verification program (see Chapter 100- 86, Florida Administrative Code) establishes procedures and fees to verify that facilities and services-of licensed hospitals that apply for trauma center verification meet current standards of the American College of Surgeons. DHRS is the only state agency with any responsibility for verification of trauma centers. A hospital may offer the same services as are offered by a bona fide trauma center without being verified but it may not hold itself out as a trauma center without being verified by DHRS. Upon this limited basis, the program is voluntary as to the hospitals applying and is administered by DHRS' Emergency Medical Services Section. The Emergency Medical Services Section (EMS) is divided into two subsections. One is "Regulatory Services" in which all licensing functions other than trauma center verification are placed and includes such diverse matters as licensing of ambulance services, non-emergency transportation services, emergency medical technicians and paramedics. The licensing of trauma centers is logistically placed within "Program Development," which subsection administers certain grants and which has as its principal function general planning activities pursuant to EMS' statutory responsibility to produce a state plan for emergency medical services. DHRS characterizes the categories of trauma center as follows: a Level I Trauma Center" is the top level and requires a surgeon in the emergency room 24 hours per day as well as a demonstrated commitment to research and training in the area. A "Level II Trauma Center" is quite similar to the Level I center except that it does not have the mandatory commitment to trauma research and training. A "Level III Trauma Center" is largely found in rural areas where the population base is insufficient to support a Level I or Level II trauma center, but represents a maximum commitment to trauma center service based on available resources. Although only a single application form is utilized, it may be logically inferred that the category or level" of verification sought by the applicant to be verified will affect the size, scope, detail, and supporting documentation of its initial application and likewise will affect the scope of the agency procedure leading either to verification or denial of the initial application of each applicants and to any reclassification or continued verification of a previously verified trauma center. This inference was apparently codified in the existing rules by charging application fees graduated by level of verification requested. It is recognized by DHRS that the three respective levels have different configurations of services, equipment, and general effort towards the treatment of trauma and that a Level I application is "significant" in comparison to the other levels. Nonetheless, the proposed rule amendment seeks to establish only the same fee amount or "cost of verifying" the application for all applicants regardless of level of verification requested. When the original trauma center verification program fees were promulgated (Rule 100-86.08), on-site visits (live inspections by an accreditation or verification team) to applicants' trauma centers and program overhead were not calculated into the fees as established because on-site visits were not originally contemplated by the verification program as a whole. When the original trauma center verification program fees were promulgated, it was anticipated that 65 or 70 trauma centers would apply for verification over the first biennium. This estimate was based on a survey of all licensed hospitals. However, in the first year, only 15 trauma centers applied for verification. However, the trauma center verification process, as planned into the next biennium, (1985-1987) now contemplates application and document reviews plus on-site visits as direct costs and overall program overhead as indirect costs. The new proposed fee schedule within Proposed Rule 10D- 86.008 was derived by using anticipated expenses for the 1935- 1987 biennium as a base. DHRS anticipated the total amount needed for the trauma center verification program and program compliance as $329,904. This figure lumps together salaries, expenses and travel for employees of DHRS' Emergency Medical Services Section within the trauma center verification program, physician review of applications, trauma center on-site visits, legal expenses for denial hearings pursuant to Section 120.57(1) and (2), Florida statutes, and expenses of contracting with a medical records consultant and medical director. DHRS candidly admits that these expenses have been calculated into the new proposed fee schedule and maintains that these expenses should be calculated into any fee schedule established. Petitioner's view is that it is only the costs attributable to the actual processing of individual applications which may properly be included as a "cost of verification ... borne by the applicant" pursuant to Section 395.031(7), Florida statutes, and asserts that inclusion of any other costs is arbitrary, capricious, excessive, and not statutorily justified. By its proposed findings of fact as well as by the direct evidence of all of its witnesses, DHRS acknowledges that it has considered the cost of compliance 1/ in devising the non-graduated fee schedule within the Proposed Rule. In calculating the proposed fee schedule, DHRS divided the total amount needed for program operation and compliance (the $329,904 previously referenced) by the estimated number of trauma centers (the 15 per year based on the first year's experience multiplied by 2 for the two-year biennium horizon) to yield a verification fee per trauma center of $10,996.80. The agency then rounded this amount to $11,000 per anticipated applicant for the 1985-1987 biennium, and thus the non-graduated fee in the Proposed Rule was devised. This method does not bear any logical or rational relationship to the size, scope, detail and supporting documentation of the applications as they vary among Levels I, II, and III. Nor can it be said that this method takes into consideration any of the logical or rational differences inherent in the paperwork processing and physician review as it differs by level applied for, or in the type of projected on-site compliance review of the physical plants of applicants for the differing levels. Moreover, although it may be appropriate to begin with the assumption that 15 is a representative idea of the number of initial applications that may require processing in each year, there is simply no documentation or rationale provided by the agency to determine whether the number of initial applications will diminish or increase as the finite number of potentially verifiable hospitals is approached. Therefore, this divisor figure of 15 x 2 borders on mere estimation or speculation and is not statutorily justified. It is not saved by an intention without guarantee of a biennial review of the rule. Unless it somehow embraces a rational projected calculation of reclassifications from one level to another and biennial reviews for compliance with the verification standards, the 15 x 2 figure is further skewed. Since there is testimony that EMS can only hope to do 6 annual on-site reviews at random (presumably encompassing all three categories) , the (15 x 2 30) divisor remains askew, arbitrary, capricious and unjustified. It is interesting that DHRS acknowledges, to a point at least that the 11,0O0 fee schedule figure is inaccurate. Specifically, despite DHRS' rounding up to the nearest thousand dollar amount so as to reach $11,000, it is DHRS' position that its procedure for establishing the non-graduated fee schedule actually underestimates or understates the amount required to fund the verification program. Neither rounding "up" versus rounding "down" nor rounding to the nearest even $1,000 as opposed to the nearest dollar amount was specifically raised as an issue by the parties. However, since it is partly through DHRS' contention that it has actually understated the amount required to fund the verification program that DHRS attempts to parry Petitioner's assertion that DHRS is seeking to cause trauma center verification applicants to bear the cost of the entire trauma center program instead of merely requiring applicants to bear the cost of the single application verification function of that program, some assessment of this "rounding" methodology is in order. DHRS has not demonstrated any specific reason to "round" in this manner, nor how "rounding" relates, if at ally to understatement of fees needed or how it relates, if at ally to precise calculation of the funding amounts actually required. It is easy to appreciate that $11,000 looks better in a printed, codified rule and is easier to administer than an odd number but even those shallow rationales have not been advanced by those rule drafters who testified. Even if one could accept the reasoning that because of the high amounts of fixed costs for the improved verification program DHRS is somehow justified in spreading the cost of the entire verification program equally among all applicants instead of graduating the fees by level, there remains the unrefuted testimony of Mr. Lawn an accepted expert in the area of accounting matters in state government, that the Statement of Justification does not identify which costs are fixed and which costs are variable and does not determine the relevant range of activity which affects allocation of fees to the number of applicants. Thus, the conclusion must still be reached that the $11,000 fee is unreasonable, without rational basis in fact, and without statutory justification. As calculated by Larry Jordan, EMS Administrator, and as reflected in the Statement of Justification prepared by Terry Davis, Program Analyst within the EMS Section, Programs Subsection, and supervisor of the trauma center verification Program, part of the $329,904 figure reflects salaries, expenses, and travel. That portion for salaries is represented as $187,995. Supposedly, the relevant portion of six individual employees' actual salaries was a component. On the other hand, full time equivalents (FTEs) were devised according to the percentage of time Larry Jordan would or could permit these EMS Section employees to devote to the trauma center verification program. FTEs derived in the context of rational experience or mathematical certainty may constitute a portion of a valid formula for fixing a fee schedule but that cannot be said to have occurred with regard to this Proposed Rule. The methodology employed for calculating these particular FTEs lumps a lot of "guesstimating" and conjecture with very little viable quantification of time allotments. Jordan determined, on the basis of what he described as "an educated guess" after review of a staff roster with Terry Davis that although 7.8 FTEs were required for program compliance only 2.5 FTEs could be allotted to the trauma center verification program. It is largely upon the basis of all of DHRS' witnesses' evidence in connection with this FTE computation that the determination must be reached that when agency personnel refer to the calculation of "costs of compliance" they do not mean merely biennial review pursuant to Section 395.031(5) to ensure that subsection (6) statutory standards continue to be met by a hospital once it has been verified as a trauma center. Inclusion of those types of compliance cost figures in the verification program is clearly authorized by the statute. No, rather, the DHRS drafters use the word "compliance" with the implied meaning of encompassing all of the operations of the EMS Section relative in any respect to trauma center matters. In line with its position that the proposed fee schedule is understated, DHRS suggested at hearing that contrary to the Statement of Justification, actual experience has shown that a slightly higher amount of employee time is devoted to the trauma center verification program than is reflected by the 2.5 FTE figure: 2.5 FTEs (allowed) as opposed to 2.73 FTEs (actual) which Mr. Caldwell calculated at hearing would result in a $12,556.79 fee per application for the 1986-1988 biennium. This is not the biennium originally calculated for the rule or projected in its published Statement of Justification. As serious as this is; confession of an originally inaccurate FTE computation figure and inaccurate Statement of Justification is problematic in light of the total lack of logic and rationality with regard to the method of arriving at either the original 2.5 or the recalculated 2.73 FTE figure. The time sampling study does not render 2.73 FTEs rational. 2/ Mr. Jordan, who could not even describe the process of application approval or rejection is credited in the original FTE calculation for the Statement of Justification with 20 percent of his time and salary component devoted to the verification program. Jaime Caldwell Program Development Supervisor, also could not describe the process of application approval or rejection and his testimony reflects that rather than the 40 percent credited in the original FTE calculation for his time and salary component for direct supervisory responsibility over trauma center verification matters, he, Caldwell was equally at ease assessing his own time and salary component as either 35 percent or between 3 and 5 percent. The change and range assigned by Mr. Caldwell is as unsupported as the initial 40 percent assessment made by Jordan and Davis together in April 1985. (Davis actually denied having significant input to the initial assessment). This discrepancy and range are not explainable reconcilable, or justified on the basis of Mr. Caldwell's vague testimony concerning a recent time sampling based on the overall trauma center program which embraces far more than just the trauma center verification process and procedures. 3/ Of those who testified, only Terry Davis had a working knowledge of the existing process by which a trauma center verification application is initially approved or denied. He personally handles all applications from the time one is received until it is approved or denied. Using the maximum amount of time estimated by Mr. Davis, it has taken roughly 12 hours of his time spread over the 60 days provided by statute to process each of the applications received. Davis also denied that Jordan's estimate of his (Davis') time at 100 percent for the verification program was accurate. Davis confirms that the involvement of both Jordan and Caldwell has been infrequent. No witness could delineate with any certainty what, if any, involvement a secretary, a word processor, and Mr. Jordan's personal secretary did in relation to actually processing trauma center verification applications. Although Mr. Davis volunteered someone must do his typing during the application process, this record exhibits no justification for assigning percentages of 60 percent, 20 percent, and 10 percent respectively of each of these clerical employees' time to the verification program for purposes of arriving at an FTE component. These figures appear to have sprung directly from "up front" line item budgeting based on position assignments which by actual testimony are directly contrary to experience that these positions do not participate directly or to any meaningful degree in the verification process. Based on this evidence, and also upon the tacit admission of both Caldwell and Davis that the FTEs reflect EMS employees' percentage of time in the trauma center program as a whole, the methodology employed to obtain the FTE figures must be deemed to be arbitrary and capricious. As calculated by Larry Jordan and as reflected in the Statement of Justification prepared by Terry Davis, expenses and travel were also calculated using FTEs and the percentage of trauma center verification program time for each employee was multiplied by the relevant object category in the Legislative Budget Request: Standards for New Positions 1985-1987. This figure is skewed by the 2.5 FTE figure for all of the reasons already discussed and is likewise arbitrary and capricious. It is also arguable, but not conclusively demonstrated, that this figure is skewed arbitrary, and capricious in anticipated travel and expenses by duplication of some costs and expenses as regards the physician and medical records consultant to be assigned to on-site reviews. See infra. In the Statement of Justification, with respect to "Physician Review of Applications," a figure of eight applications per year was selected based on anticipation that since there are 8 trauma centers in Jacksonville, Florida and the present trauma center verification program's Medical Director, Dr. Raymond Alexander resides in Jacksonville and is employed at a Level I trauma center there potential conflicts of interest exist if any of these entities become applicants for any of the three levels of verification and that if any did, the agency would have to contract with a different physician for review of these eight applications at $200 per application reviewed. It was also anticipated that due to fluctuations in workload and the desire of Dr. Alexander that some Level I applications elsewhere in the state receive a backup application review by another physician, these situations might also require contracting with physicians other than Dr. Alexander. Although DHRS' motives are commendable at first glance it strains credibility that out of 15 per year (total 30) eight (total 16) will come from the finite "Jacksonville 8" number or arrive at a peak workload period. There is no evidence of record what criteria besides Dr. Alexander's request will be used to decide which Level I applicants will get dual reviews and there is a suggestion that there is going to be duplication of effort on these applications for the purpose of avoiding even the appearance of conflict. There is no evidence of record to show how reclassification or continued verification reviews or on-site reviews, if any, work into this figure either. Nonetheless, the parties appear to accept this figure of 16 spread over the biennium. If the figure of 16 is accepted, a remainder of 14 applications (based on DHRS' questionably anticipated 30 applications for the biennium horizon) remain for Dr. Alexander's review. DHRS assigned a 50 percent time allotment (based on Dr. Alexander's annual $42,600 contract) to its Statement of Justification. Incongruously, Dr. Alexander's contract itemizes 15 percent of his time for the combined duties of listing other physicians willing to review applications and his own time reviewing these applications. Petitioner desires the inference to be drawn that either Dr. Alexander is being paid slightly more than $3,000 per application review ($42,600 divided by 14) as compared to $200 per review by other physicians or that the 15 percent figure should be used instead of the 50 percent time/salary component. Neither inference is fully supported by the record as a whole nor by mathematics. However, even assigning the deference due to the discretion afforded an agency in the exercise of its rulemaking authority, that quality of deference will not withstand Larry Jordan's characterization of this 50 percent figure as coming from the attachment at the "front end" of an arbitrary percentage. Although submission of subsequent reports by Dr. Alexander supposedly justify that 50 percent figure as being paid from the trauma center verification activities budget, these reports are not before the undersigned, and Mr. Jordan admits that no analysis was done to establish this 50 percent figure in relation to time/salary solely related to verification. Therefore, the use of this figure of 50 percent is at least arbitrary and capricious in that there is nothing to substantiate what it means with regard to actual medical director duties concerning verification. In the Statement of Justification, with respect to "Trauma Center Site Visits", Larry Jordan determined that an on- site visit for each application is necessary in order to comply with the statutory mandate of Section 395.031(5) that DHRS ensure that the statutory standards set forth in Section 395.031(6) are maintained by trauma centers subsequent to their initial verification. This is permissible discretion within the agency administering the statute. Upgrading its methods of meeting its statutory mandate is a laudable goal of the executive branch and ought not to be violated except where it can be clearly shown that the method exceeds the statutory mandate. That has not been shown here with regard to establishing on-site reviews for the future. Jordan decided to phase in on-site visits commencing with 6 per year. Nothing in this decision to start with 6 a year first has been demonstrated to be arbitrary, capricious, or outside the statutory mandate. However, the dollar amount is another matter. The dollar amount for this upgraded procedure was taken from information from the Joint Committee on Accreditation of Hospitals who conduct similar hospital site visits for accreditation purposes of entire hospitals. Relative to the on- site inspection fee cost calculation contained in the Statement of Justification which is set forth as $54,736 (including a medical records consultant figure discussed infra.) there is no clear indication of whether this figure is based on a prognosis of entire hospital review as with the model accreditation team or upon review of just the emergency room. Trauma is a life-threatening injury a/k/a surgical disease. Since availability of surgeons, surgery rooms, and anesthesiologists as opposed to emergency room physicians is crucial to trauma center qualification it is conveivable that more than just emergency rooms will be inspected but there is insufficient indication even by job description of exactly who will be assigned to the team, what the on-site reviews will cover, what the team duties will entail or how the balance of the $54,736 figure relates to these items. Past agency experience with a single on-site review using existing agency personnel resulted in total expenses of $400.00. The agency also regularly meets the Section 395.006(3)(a) directive to inspect whole hospitals at a cost of not more than $12.00 per bed. By contrast with this information- EMS' component of cost for on-site review of trauma centers is arbitrary, capricious, excessive, and not statutorily justified. In the Statement of Justifications with respect to "Legal Expenses for Denial Hearings," Larry Jordan estimated that $6,000 was a minimal amount that would-be needed for denial hearings. Although testimony is clear that there had never been a denial hearing or even a denial of a trauma center application, provision for such hearings is clearly set out in Section 395.031(4) and (5), and it is naive in the extreme to assume that in meeting its statutory mandate, the agency will never deny any initial applications reclassification- or continued verification application or that of those denied none will ever seek a hearing in accord with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. There is, however, no rationale within the record for why the figure of $6,000 was arbitrarily selected. In the Statement of Justification, with respect to "Medical Records Consultant Contract," it was determined that such a position is necessary to the trauma center verification program and would be paid approximately $16,000 per year. The asserted justification for a medical records consultant is to support the proposed six on-site visits per year. This purpose is plausible and reasonable within the discretion normally afforded agencies and supportable by the laudable goal to upgrade the method of meeting this agency's statutory mandate already discussed, but DHRS has neither legislative nor budgetary authorization for the medical records consultant position and this renders speculative its inclusion at this time in the calculations for the fee schedule rule. Even recognizing that sometimes an indication that the position can be supported by outside fees is a necessary prerequisite to getting an agency position authorized, inclusion of this speculative cost in this fee schedule is not justified by the statute which requires that the verification program fees to applicants not exceed its cost. Petitioner has adequately demonstrated that an undesignated amount of time of various employees utilized in calculating the FTE function was devoted to legislation, rules drafting, grant disbursal, and meetings of the EMS Advisory Council not directly related to the trauma center verification program and that these elements included within the FTE calculation have skewed the fee need calculations and rendered the fee excessive and not statutorily justified. The record does not support DHRS' contention that the fee increase is necessary to cover its operation deficit or that the cash deficit discussed in the Statement of Justification applies to the verification program alone. It is Petitioner's view that DHRS, in fact performing two distinct functions concerning trauma centers, one of which may be designated "the trauma center program" encompassing every activity of DHRS' Emergency Medical Services Section relative to trauma center matters (including preparation of a statewide medical services program, drafting, analysis, and lobbying of legislation, public education, service in connection with the mandate of the EMS Advisory Council, preparation, negotiation, and litigation concerning promulgation of this and other rules, and non-specific administrative time) and the other function being the "trauma center verification program" pursuant to which applications filed with the EMS Section are received and approved or denied. Petitioner further contends that it is only costs attributable to the latter function, the cost of processing individual applications of hospitals for trauma center verification which may properly be included as a "cost of verification borne by the applicant" pursuant to Section 395.031(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner seems to suggest that only the 12 hours of Mr. Davis' time multiplied by the number of projected applications should be calculated into the proposed fee. Petitioner's view is too narrow in regard to the full mandate of the statute. The trauma center verification program cannot operate in a vacuum and except as set out in previous findings of fact Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that any elements used in the agency's calculations are not integral parts of the verification program. However, for all the reasons set forth in the preceding findings of fact it is clear that an excessive, arbitrary and capricous calculation of components have rendered the rule itself arbitrary and capricious and its fee schedule excessive to the point of being confiscatory. As such, the fee schedule embodied in the Proposed Rule exceeds the statutory mandate of Sub-Section (7). The foregoing findings are not altered by Respondent's negotiating during the rule making process a $9,000 reduction from an originally anticipated $20,0OO ungraduated fee by the deletion of two additional plans to upgrade the trauma center verification program.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is in substantial compliance with the requirements in section 395.4025, Florida Statutes, and, therefore, has the critical elements required for a trauma center, so that Respondent must find Petitioner's Level II Trauma Center Application acceptable for approval, which would make Petitioner eligible to operate as a provisional trauma center.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order (i) deeming JSCH's Application acceptable, verifying that the hospital is in substantial compliance with the requirements in section 395.4025, and (iii) approving JSCH to operate as a provisional Level II trauma center until the 2014-16 application cycle is concluded with finality vis-à- vis TSA 19. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 29th day of February, 2016.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the application filed with the Department of Health (“Department”) on March 31, 2017, by Galencare Inc., d/b/a Northside Hospital (“Northside”), to operate as a provisional Level II trauma center met the applicable criteria and standards under Part II, Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (2017),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64J-2.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department is an agency of the State of Florida created pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes. The Department’s mandate is to “promote, protect and improve the health of all people in the state,” and it has a primary responsibility for evaluating provisional trauma center applications submitted by acute care hospitals. §§ 381.001 and 395.40(3), Fla. Stat. Northside is a 288-bed acute-care hospital located in TSA 9, Pinellas County, Florida. Northside provides a wide range of services, including inpatient cardiovascular and neuroscience services. Northside has developed a trauma program and submitted an application to operate as a provisional Level II trauma center in March 2017. The Department’s preliminary determination to deny Northside’s application on May 1, 2017, is the subject of this proceeding. Bayfront is an acute-care hospital located in TSA 9, Pinellas County, Florida. Bayfront has been designated by the Department as a Level II trauma center. Northside’s Trauma Center Application Northside Submitted a Timely Letter of Intent In the summer of 2016, Northside received a letter from the Department notifying Northside of the opportunity to submit a letter of intent to become a trauma center. Northside timely submitted a letter of intent with the Department in September 2016. This letter indicated that Northside would seek approval from the Department to operate as a Level II trauma center. Northside was well-situated for a trauma center because of the resources and services already in place at the hospital. Moreover, Northside was prepared to open a trauma program because it already had extensive experience treating critically ill patients. After Northside submitted its letter of intent, the Department responded by sending Northside a notice accepting its letter of intent and providing information on the application process. The notice directed Northside to the Department’s trauma center application and contained instructions for the completion and submission of the application. Northside Established a Full Trauma Program after the Department Accepted its Letter of Intent Once Northside received the Department’s notice confirming acceptance of its letter of intent, it began making significant investments of resources and capital to develop its trauma program. It did so to ensure that its forthcoming application was compliant with the requirements set forth in DOH Pamphlet (DHP) 150-9 (the “Trauma Standards” or “DHP”), which is incorporated by reference in rule 64J-2.011. As part of the development of its trauma program, Northside hired Doreen Gilligan in October 2016 to serve as director of Trauma Services. The hospital also worked with Angie Chisolm to draw on resources from other approved trauma centers, such as trauma-related policies and procedures and best practices for trauma center operations. Northside’s expertise in advanced, life-saving care, including cardiovascular and neuroscience programs and its intensive care unit (“ICU”), made it a well-qualified candidate to open a new trauma center. Between October 1, 2016, and April 1, 2017, Northside invested over $4 million to develop its trauma program. Northside invested $2.5 million in physical plant improvements and equipment. These improvements included: A helipad, which is properly licensed by the Department of Transportation and FAA. The helipad is operational and Northside is already receiving patients from helicopters on a daily basis in its capacity as an acute- care hospital. Two state-of-the-art trauma resuscitation bays in the emergency department (“ED”) that are in immediate proximity to the helipad. These new trauma bays can accommodate up to four trauma patients at the same time. The expansion of the ICU to include 12 beds that are specifically designated for trauma patients. The expansion of one of the operating rooms because trauma patients often require care from multiple doctors simultaneously. The purchase of new equipment, including new ICU monitors, operating room equipment, and equipment to support physician subspecialists. The purchase of a blood track machine for the emergency department. This machine dramatically reduces the amount of time it takes for patients to receive blood transfusions. The purchase of a platelet function testing machine and a thromboelastography machine. These machines help identify where a trauma patient is bleeding. These machines also play a critical role in quickly stopping bleeding – one of the key functions that every trauma center must perform. The purchase of a second computed tomography (“CT”) machine dedicated solely to the provision of radiology services needed by trauma patients. Northside invested approximately $1.7 million in physician and staff employment and recruitment. This investment has enabled Northside to do the following: Provide continuous, around-the-clock trauma surgeon coverage, 7 days a week (beginning February 16, 2017). Provide continuous, around-the-clock anesthesiology coverage. Provide hospital coverage for the required 19 physician sub-specialty groups. These physicians are able to arrive at the hospital within 30 minutes or less. Hire more than 30 additional full-time nurses to meet the staffing requirements in the Trauma Standards. These hires have allowed Northside to provide a continuous, in-house presence of operating room nurses and technicians. Hire specialized administrative staff for the trauma program, including Doreen Gilligan (Director of Trauma Services), a trauma registrar, and a performance improvement coordinator dedicated solely to ensuring Northside’s trauma patients receive high quality care. Once Northside’s trauma program becomes operational, Northside plans to hire a second trauma performance improvement coordinator. Between January and March 2017, Northside provided over 5,000 hours of trauma training to its staff, including the CEO and CFO of the hospital. The major focus of this training was the Trauma Nursing Core Course (“TNCC”) for nursing staff, which is the foundation of emergency nursing education and ensures that the nursing staff can provide high-quality care for the most severely injured patients. The hospital implemented nursing education requirements which exceeded the Trauma Standards. Some of this training included actual operational practice using simulations and mock trauma drills. Northside implemented over 200 new facility policies related to trauma during this period. Northside subsequently trained its staff on these new programs. Northside made all of these investments prior to March 31, 2017, the date on which Northside submitted its application to the Department. Northside Timely Assembled and Submitted Its Trauma Center Application and Deficiency Response to the Department Northside’s application was prepared by a core team whose mission was to ensure that the application fully complied with the Trauma Standards. The key members of that team were Peter Kennedy, chief operating officer; Doreen Gilligan, director of Trauma Services; Dr. Erik Barquist, interim trauma medical director; and Angie Chisolm, assistant vice president of Trauma Services for HCA East and West Florida Divisions. The final application submitted to the Department encompassed over 10,000 pages of information. Because the application was too voluminous for any one person to prepare alone, each of the team members played an important role in ensuring the application addressed each Trauma Standard. Preparation of the application involved thousands of staff hours and required close cooperation with the physicians, staff, and community members. Northside timely submitted its trauma center application (“Northside Application”) to the Department on March 31, 2017. After receiving the Northside Application, the Department arranged for it to be reviewed by two outside experts, Dr. Lawrence Reed and Nurse Susan Cox. Both Dr. Reed and Nurse Cox have reviewed trauma applications on behalf of the Department in the past. On April 14, 2017, the Department sent Northside a letter notifying it of the deficiencies that Dr. Reed and Nurse Cox had identified (the “Deficiency Notice”). The Department provided a checklist (Department of Health Initial Provisional Review Checklist for Northside, April 5, 2017, hereafter referred to as the “Initial Checklist”) based on the Trauma Standards with boxes marked “Yes” or “No” to indicate whether the reviewers found evidence to demonstrate that each particular Trauma Standard and subpart was met. The checklist also contained written comments from the reviewers for subparts which were checked “No.” Of the more than 350 subparts that make up the Trauma Standards, the reviewers only identified 35 about which they had concerns or additional questions. Most of the comments from the reviewers consisted of simple requests for clarification. In some cases, the reviewers asked for information that Northside had already submitted with the initial application on March 31, 2017. Northside timely responded to each deficiency identified by the Department on April 21, 2017 (the “Deficiency Response”), five business days after receipt of the Deficiency Notice. The Deficiency Response was prepared by the same team that prepared the initial application. Much like the initial application, the team’s role was to ensure that each concern was addressed and that the application demonstrated that the hospital met the Trauma Standards. The Deficiency Response included 78 supporting exhibits consisting of hundreds of pages. The Deficiency Response was divided in two sections: (1) a narrative table; and (2) supporting exhibits to the narrative table. In the narrative table, Northside addressed each Trauma Standard subpart identified in the Initial Checklist as an area not met or an area of concern. The table was organized into three columns: the first reciting the subpart language; the second copying the reviewer concern from the Initial Checklist; and the third detailing Northside’s narrative response or explanation to each comment. The Deficiency Response was also reviewed by Dr. Reed and Nurse Cox. These reviewers determined that Northside addressed and corrected the vast majority of deficiencies identified in the initial review. Only three Trauma Standard subparts were identified as remaining areas of concern: Standard V(B)(3)(a)(1), Standard V(B)(3)(d), and Standard XVIII(G). Each of these issues was identified by Dr. Reed. Neither Dr. Reed nor Nurse Cox recommended to the Department that Northside’s application be denied. On May 1, 2017, the Department informed Northside that its application was not in compliance with the applicable Trauma Standards and would be denied (“Denial Letter”). The Denial Letter did not identify which (if any) of the Standards that the Department believed that Northside had not met. Instead, the Denial Letter attached a checklist indicating concerns with only three subparts. The Department now takes the position that Northside’s application is deficient because it did not satisfy Standard V(B)(3)(a)(1), Standard V(B)(3)(d), and Standard XVIII(G), although the Department has not stated whether each one of these Standards, standing alone, would have (in its view) warranted denial of the application. The Denial Letter did not afford Northside any opportunity to address the potential issues identified with respect to the three Standards. Instead, it informed Northside that its only options were to seek an administrative hearing challenging the Department’s denial or to submit a trauma center application the following year. Northside therefore did not submit any additional documentation to the Department. Northside’s Evidence Establishes That It Satisfied Each of the Three Standards the Department Claimed Were Deficient Standard V(B)(3)(a)(1) Standard V addresses the facility requirements relating to the emergency department. It includes requirements for a trauma resuscitation area, helipad, emergency physicians, support staff, and trauma flow sheet, among other criteria. This Standard also details the required qualifications for emergency room physicians who may provide care to trauma patients. Emergency room physicians must be board certified in emergency medicine or meet stringent alternate criteria demonstrating their qualifications. There are two ways to meet the alternate criteria. The first includes attestation from the trauma medical director that there is a critical need for the physician, completion of an accredited residency training program, documentation that the physician participated in the Advanced Trauma Life Support (“ATLS”) program, 48 hours of trauma-related continuing medical education in the past three years, evidence that the physician attends at least 50 percent of the trauma performance improvement meetings, evidence of membership or attendance at regional or national trauma meetings during the past three years, and attestation by the trauma medical director and emergency department director that the physician compares favorably with other physicians on the trauma call schedule. The second way for a physician to meet the alternate criteria is by providing evidence of board certification in a primary care specialty and attestation by the emergency department director that the physician has worked as a full-time emergency physician for three of the last five years. As part of its initial application, Northside provided the Department with staffing schedules for March, April, and May 2017, which documented the physicians on staff in the emergency room during those months and the shift times they would cover. Northside also submitted substantial evidence regarding the qualifications of each of these emergency room physicians. One of these emergency room physicians was Dr. Abraham Wilks. At the time it submitted its initial application, Northside believed Dr. Wilks met both paths of the alternate criteria. In preparation for the initial application, Dr. Wilks, working with Northside, went to extraordinary lengths to secure the seven required components under the first alternate criteria path. Northside also provided evidence that Dr. Wilks qualified under the second alternate criteria path since he was board eligible for family medicine and had been working as an emergency physician for the past five years. The staffing schedules submitted with Northside’s application on March 31, 2017, showed that Dr. Wilks was scheduled to be the sole physician provider for short periods of time on a limited number of days. During his review of the initial application, Dr. Reed concluded that Dr. Wilks did not meet either of the alternative criteria because he did not complete an emergency medicine residency and was no longer board-certified in family medicine. Because Dr. Wilks did not meet these qualification requirements in Standard V(B)(3) as an emergency department physician, he could not be the sole physician provider in the emergency department. After receiving the Deficiency Notice and Initial Checklist, Northside immediately took steps to address Dr. Reed’s comments. Northside’s leadership worked with the director of the emergency department to ensure that Dr. Wilks would not be the sole physician provider in the emergency room. After April 18, 2017, Dr. Wilks never served as the sole physician provider in the emergency room. The emergency department physician staffing schedule for April and May 2017, was updated to reflect these changes (“Updated Staffing Schedule”). The other physicians listed on the staffing schedule were appropriately qualified, and the staffing schedule provided for appropriate physician coverage. In its Deficiency Response, Northside noted these operational changes regarding Dr. Wilks and specifically addressed Dr. Reed’s concerns. Northside informed the Department that “Dr. Wilks has been removed from the ED Trauma assignment and will never be the single provider in the ED, effective immediately.” Dr. Reed agreed at his deposition that if Dr. Wilks were removed from the staffing schedule, Northside would be in compliance with Standard V(B)(3)(a)(1). The Deficiency Response also referenced a related exhibit, which Northside intended to be the amended staffing schedule. However, due to a clerical error, Northside’s Deficiency Response included the old staffing schedule from the initial application, which incorrectly showed Dr. Wilks as the sole provider for limited periods. The old staffing schedule contradicted the narrative explanation of Northside’s operational changes included in the Deficiency Response and was clearly submitted in error. Dr. Reed himself noted this contradiction: The response document also states that “Dr. Wilks has been removed from the ED Trauma assignment and will never be the single provider in the ED, effective immediately. However, it appears that Dr. Wilks is the only ED physician on site from 6a-8a on May 4, May 7, May 20, and May 21. Please clarify this contradiction.” The Department did not follow Dr. Reed’s recommendation. It never contacted Northside to ask why the staffing schedule listed Dr. Wilks as the sole provider for limited periods of time when Northside’s submission expressly stated that Dr. Wilks would no longer be the sole provider. Had the Department contacted Northside, it would have learned that the “old” staffing schedule had been submitted rather than the current and correct staffing schedule, i.e., the one that did not include Dr. Wilks as the sole provider. Thus, there can be no dispute that, as of April 18, 2017, (1) Northside’s operative emergency department staffing schedule was updated to reflect that Dr. Wilks would never be the sole provider; and (2) at all times, Northside’s emergency department was fully staffed by properly qualified emergency department physicians. Under these circumstances, the Department erred in taking the position that Northside did not satisfy Standard V(B)(3)(a)(1) simply because it mistakenly submitted an outdated staffing schedule to the Department in conjunction with its clear narrative explanation. Standard V(B)(3)(d) The physician qualifications included in Standard V also require that each physician maintain a current ATLS provider certification. The ATLS certification is required only of emergency department physicians and trauma surgeons because these are the physicians who treat trauma patients when they first arrive at the trauma center. One of the emergency department physicians included in Northside’s application is Dr. Joseph Nelson. Dr. Nelson also serves as the emergency department’s pre-hospital trauma care expert for the Committee of Emergency Preparedness and Readiness, meaning that he is the state’s expert on issues relating to the emergency care provided on-site before patients are brought to the hospital. Northside’s application included an extensive set of documents that established Dr. Nelson’s credentials, including the following: a compilation of Dr. Nelson’s certifications, proof of his osteopathic board certification, his Florida Department of Health medical license, his physician profile with the American Medical Association, proof of his continuing medical education hours, his letter of privileges at Northside, and his most recent ATLS certificate. Dr. Nelson’s ATLS certificate included a letter from ATLS that recognized Dr. Nelson for high scores on his written and practical tests and recommended that he apply to be an ATLS course instructor, an honor that is accorded only to doctors who attain the best performances at the training course. At the time Northside submitted its initial application, Dr. Nelson’s ATLS certification had recently expired and he was planning to take a course to renew his certification. Dr. Nelson was aware of the expiration before the submission and made a concerted effort to complete the course in advance by registering for a course in February 2017. However, the course Dr. Nelson was originally scheduled to take in February 2017 was cancelled due to a snowstorm. Because ATLS courses are in high demand and often full, Dr. Nelson was not able to immediately reschedule for a course in his region. After working with Northside and Angie Chisolm, he registered for another course to be held in Tallahassee on April 23, 2017. Northside included proof of his course registration with its initial application. In the Deficiency Notice and Initial Checklist provided by the Department, Dr. Reed noted that Dr. Nelson’s ATLS certificate had expired and acknowledged that he was scheduled to take his ATLS course on April 23, 2017. Dr. Reed asked the hospital to “provide evidence of successful completion of the ATLS course he is scheduled to take on 4/23/2017.” Dr. Reed did not ask the hospital to submit any further documentation before the certificate arrived. On multiple occasions, Northside sought clarification from the Department regarding how it should establish that Dr. Nelson was in compliance with Standard V(B)(3)(d). Before Northside submitted its initial application to the Department, it informed the Department that Dr. Nelson was registered for and planned to take the ATLS course on April 23, 2017, and asked for guidance regarding how it should establish that Dr. Nelson was in compliance with Standard V(B)(3)(d). The Department advised Northside to provide proof of registration with its initial application, and Northside did just that. Northside returned to the Department for guidance after receiving the Deficiency Notice and reminded the Department that Dr. Nelson planned to complete the ATLS course on April 23, 2017. Once again, the Department directed Northside to submit documentation of course registration and to later submit Dr. Nelson’s updated ATLS certificate when available. In its Deficiency Response, Northside reiterated that Dr. Nelson was registered for and scheduled to complete the ATLS certification course on April 23, 2017, just two days later. Based on the Department’s guidance, Northside also included Dr. Nelson’s ATLS course registration, which demonstrated that he was scheduled to take the course in Tallahassee on April 23, 2017, as well as email communication from the course host confirming that Dr. Nelson paid for and secured a seat at that course. Northside further indicated that it would provide evidence to the Department of Dr. Nelson’s ATLS recertification following successful completion of the course. Northside also informed the Department that if Dr. Nelson did not attend and pass the course on April 23, 2017, he would be removed from the call schedule effective May 1, 2017. Dr. Nelson successfully completed the course on April 23, 2017, and thus satisfied his ATLS requirement that day. Northside immediately confirmed with the ATLS coordinator that Dr. Nelson had passed the course and concluded that he was in compliance with Standard V(B)(3)(d). Dr. Reed’s review of Northside’s Deficiency Response stated: “Upon receipt of a copy of Dr. Nelson’s updated ATLS certification, compliance with this standard will have been met.” Northside subsequently received Dr. Nelson’s updated ATLS certification. It did not arrive at Northside until after May 1, 2017, due to normal delays in processing by the American College of Surgeons. At hearing, Northside presented Dr. Nelson’s updated ATLS certification reflecting his successful completion on April 23, 2017. In sum, Dr. Nelson was ATLS-certified as of April 23, 2017, which is before the Department’s May 1, 2017, deadline. Northside also provided a litany of information to the Department with its initial application and Deficiency Response detailing Dr. Nelson’s efforts to secure his ATLS certification. Northside therefore satisfied Standard V(B)(3)(d). Standard XVIII(G) Standard XVIII addresses quality management, which is one of the core requirements of a trauma program. Since the time that Northside began building its trauma program, it has prioritized quality management. Northside began developing its trauma quality management program in early December 2016. As part of this effort, Northside developed a trauma quality management plan, which is essential for any quality management program. Following the beginning of limited trauma-related operations on February 16, 2017, Northside held its first peer review meeting on February 22, 2017, to discuss patient treatment issues. Dr. Barquist attended these meetings and minutes were kept. Northside also began to hold nursing and ancillary staff meetings, known as trauma quality management (“TQM”) meetings, during this time. The directors of each department at the hospital attended these meetings, as well as the chief operating officer and chief financial officer. The objective of these meetings was to operationalize the more than 200 trauma-specific policies and procedures put in place during the trauma program development. Any issues identified in these meetings were addressed immediately with the whole trauma staff to ensure program-wide compliance. To demonstrate compliance with this Standard, Northside submitted nearly 400 pages of documents with its initial application. These included Northside’s Trauma Performance Improvement and Patient Safety Plan, policies and procedures, and peer review minutes. As part of its application, Northside submitted the minutes of its peer review meetings at which quality management issues were discussed. Even though Northside was not receiving trauma alert patients from local emergency medical services (something it could not do prior to becoming a provisionally approved trauma center), it routinely conducted quality management activities with regard to patients in the hospital with trauma injuries. With this patient population, Northside employed its trauma improvement processes to identify areas in which there was room for improvement in care, and to determine how education, training, and equipment could be enhanced to improve care for similar patients in the future. In his review of Standard XVIII(F), Dr. Reed affirmed that Northside held quality management meetings at which the following issues were discussed: The subject matter discussed, including an analysis of all issues related to each case referred by the trauma service medical director to the trauma program manager, cases involving morbidity or mortality determining whether they were disease related or provider related and the preventability, and cases with other quality of care concerns. A summary of cases with variations not referred to the committee. A description of committee discussion of cases not requiring action, with an explanation or each decision. Any action taken to resolve problems or improve patient care and outcomes. Evidence that the committee evaluated the effectiveness of any action taken to resolve programs or improve patient care and outcomes. Northside also submitted documents addressing Standard XVIII(G). This subpart addresses a quarterly report prepared by the trauma quality management committee which must be submitted to the Department by approved trauma centers 15 days after the end of each quarter. If approved as a provisional trauma center, Northside would have submitted its first quality report to the Department on August 15, 2017. The report, which is only submitted by provisionally approved and verified trauma centers, must include information related to patient case reviews, select clinical indicators, and patient complications. The report is only made available by the Department to approved trauma centers; it is not provided to applicants. The report form is not referenced in any Department rule, the Trauma Standards, or the Department’s website. However, to establish that Northside was prepared to provide the required report once it received provisional approval, Northside obtained a copy of the template from an affiliated operating trauma center and included that template in its application. Because it was not an approved trauma center, Northside ultimately submitted a detailed template of the quality report to be submitted following approval as required. The detailed template included blank fields with the quality indicators selected by the Department and the hospital, benchmarking data points, patient complications, and case review information. The fields in the report regarding patient complications and case review information can be taken directly from the peer review minutes, which Northside submitted with its initial application and were located directly in front of its detailed template. In his review of Northside’s initial application, Dr. Reed concluded that Northside provided much of the required evidence, demonstrating “an active and effective trauma quality improvement program” and met the vast majority of subparts in this Standard. However, regarding Standard XVIII(G), Dr. Reed identified deficiencies on the basis that “[a] template of a report was submitted, but there were no cases recorded.” Dr. Reed confirmed that he reviewed the peer review minutes Northside submitted with its application. In response to Dr. Reed’s comment, Northside submitted updated templates with additional information. The quality indicator and benchmarking templates were populated with data from its trauma registry regarding the patients with traumatic injuries that the hospital had treated since February 16, 2017. In addition to these documents, which specifically addressed Standard XVIII(G), Northside also submitted more peer review minutes from subsequent meetings since the initial application, which were included directly in front of Exhibit 75. Dr. Reed ultimately concluded that Northside had not demonstrated compliance with Standard XVIII(G)(1)-(3). That conclusion, however, is unsupportable by the evidence at hearing. Dr. Reed acknowledged that Northside’s Deficiency Response provided the “quarterly data regarding the state required indicators and the additional institution-specific indicators.” The only reason he believed that Northside’s application remained deficient was that it did not “address the individual case quality review issues required in Standard XVIII.G.1-3.” This conclusion is undermined by Dr. Reed’s recognition-–as reflected in his review of Standard XVIII(F)-–that Northside was conducting case quality reviews. In his deposition, Dr. Reed agreed that Northside’s Deficiency Response “did include information regarding the number of cases and indicators and that sort of thing.” Indeed, Dr. Reed’s true concern appears to have been that Northside’s “numbers,” i.e., the number of patient cases reviewed by Northside, were “still kind of thin.” But Dr. Reed himself recognized that prior to the time that a trauma center application is provisionally approved and the trauma program begins treating trauma alert patients, a trauma program is unlikely to have a large number of patient cases to review. The Department’s view that Northside did not satisfy Standard XVIII(G) is not supported by the evidence. The section of the quality report addressing individual case reviews is simply a summary of the information contained in the hospital’s peer review minutes-–and Northside conducted the required peer review meetings. Northside demonstrated at hearing that it was capable of preparing a table summarizing its peer review cases and the corrective action taken for each case. All the information contained in the completed table was taken verbatim from the peer review minutes that Northside submitted with its initial application and Deficiency Response. If approved, Northside was prepared to submit the quarterly report as required on August 15, 2017. Thus, at worst, Northside did not copy and paste information from one place to another. To the extent possible, Northside complied with this Standard. The Department’s review of an earlier trauma center application confirms that the Department should not have determined that Northside did not satisfy Standard XVIII(G). In April 2016, the Department approved an application to operate as a provisional Level II trauma center submitted by Jackson South Community Hospital. As part of its approval, the Department-- based on a review by Dr. Reed--determined that Jackson South met each of the requirements in Standard XVIII(G). However, Jackson South only submitted hospital policies, promising to prepare and submit the required quality report if approved. Jackson South did not submit any quality report or even a template of such a report. Despite submitting far less evidence demonstrating compliance, Dr. Reed did not note any deficiencies for this Standard with regard to Jackson South’s application. The Department ultimately approved the application. Dr. Reed confirmed that Northside’s quality management program was significantly more developed than the one for Jackson South Community Hospital that Dr. Reed himself had recommended be approved only two years earlier. At hearing, Chief Dick could not explain the inconsistency. In sum, the Department erred in concluding that Northside had not satisfied Standard XVIII(G) because Northside had an active and effective quality management program that involved thorough case reviews and Northside demonstrated that it was capable of submitting the required forms once its program was approved and its fully operational. Contemporaneous Emails Demonstrate That the Department Denied Northside’s Application for Reasons Having Nothing to Do with the Merits of Northside’s Program The Department’s decision to deny Northside’s application was not made in a vacuum. On April 28, 2017-–only two days before the Department sent Northside the Denial Letter-– a circuit judge in Leon County entered an order (“Injunction Order”) temporarily enjoining Northside from operating as a trauma center and enjoining the Department from permitting Northside to operate as a provisional trauma center. This injunction was based exclusively on issues of administrative law and did not in any manner address the merits of Northside’s application. In fact, the Department strongly opposed the injunction. The injunction did not prevent the Department from approving Northside’s application. The Department’s internal correspondence demonstrates that the injunction led the Department to deny Northside’s application, presumably because it was concerned about the ramifications of provisionally approving Northside’s application while the injunction was pending and Northside could not begin trauma center operations. On April 28, 2017, just hours before the Injunction Order was issued, Kate Kocevar, head of the Department’s Trauma Section, emailed Dr. Reed’s final conclusions to Chief Dick and informed her that in her opinion “Northside Hospital appears to have passed the reviewers [sic] survey and will be granted Provisional status.” Chief Dick confirmed at hearing that her initial impression based on Ms. Kocevar’s email was that Northside passed the survey. Later that day, Chief Dick received the injunction order and immediately emailed other Department personnel, “[l]ooks like the letter to Northside will not be going out on Monday as originally written.” Three days later, on May 1, 2017, the Department sent Northside the Denial Letter, notifying the hospital that its application had not met the Trauma Standards and would be denied. Given the looming injunction order, the Department’s internal correspondence, and the fact that the three alleged deficiencies are minor, at the very most, the Department’s decision to deny the application was apparently motivated by an administrative decision that it should not approve an application while the injunction was in place-–not by any genuine concerns regarding the merits of Northside’s program. Northside Has Expended, and Continues to Expend, Millions of Dollars to Maintain an Operational Trauma Program Northside has continued to maintain its trauma service capability, including retaining physicians and staff, while proceeding with its challenge of the Department’s preliminary denial. As part of its readiness efforts, Northside’s quality management program remains in place, meaning that Northside is still holding peer review and quality improvement meetings. Maintaining a continued state of readiness to initiate operations as a provisional Level II trauma center will cost Northside approximately $13 million this year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that Northside met its burden of establishing that its trauma center application met the applicable standards, and awarding provisional Level II status to the applicant. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 20th day of December, 2017.
The Issue Whether proposed rules 64J-2.010, 64J-2.012, 64J-2.013, and 64J-2.016 of the Florida Administrative Code (“the Proposed Rules”) are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2016).1/
Findings Of Fact Background on Trauma Centers A “trauma center” is “a hospital that has been verified by the department to be in substantial compliance with the requirements in s. 395.4025 and has been approved by the department to operate as a Level I trauma center, Level II trauma center, or [a] pediatric trauma center ” § 395.4001(14), Fla. Stat. Trauma centers must have a wide array of resources at their disposal at all times. For example, a trauma center must have approximately 30 specialists such as trauma surgeons, neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and anesthesiologists. A trauma center must also have specially trained nurses, advanced imaging and diagnostic equipment, dedicated operating rooms, a blood bank, specialized nursing units, and a helipad. Many of the personnel working in trauma centers have special training. Trauma surgeons have one or two additional years of critical care training followed by another year of training in emergency surgery or acute care surgery. Trauma center nurses typically have three additional years of training/education. In short, a trauma center is a hospital that has made a substantial investment in order to have the resources and personnel capable of caring for trauma patients. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64J-2.001(15) defines a “trauma patient” as “any person who has incurred a physical injury or wound caused by trauma and who has accessed an emergency medical services system.” Trauma injuries commonly occur as a result of motor vehicle accidents, falls from height, gunshot wounds, and stab wounds. See § 395.4001(18), Fla. Stat. (defining a “trauma victim” as “any person who has incurred a single or multisystem injury due to blunt or penetrating means or burns and who requires immediate medical intervention or treatment.”); Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.001(12) (defining “trauma” as “a blunt, penetrating or burn injury caused by external force or violence.”). Trauma injuries are a leading cause of death for those ranging in age from 1 to 45. Hospitals with emergency departments (i.e., acute care hospitals) are capable of treating patients on an emergency basis. However, they would not necessarily have constant access to all of the resources mentioned above. In addition, acute care hospitals have not gone through the statutory process of being approved by the Department to operate as a trauma center. § 395.4001(14), Fla. Stat. (defining a “trauma center” as “a hospital that has been verified by the department to be in substantial compliance with the requirements in s. 395.4025 and has been approved by the department to operate as a Level I trauma center, Level II trauma center, or pediatric trauma center, or is designated by the department as a Level II trauma center pursuant to s. 395.4025(14).”). See also § 395.401(1)(k), Fla. Stat. (mandating that “[i]t is unlawful for any hospital or other facility to hold itself out as a trauma center unless it has been so verified or designated pursuant to s. 395.4025(14).”).3/ In general, a patient in danger of imminent death from a trauma injury is likely to have a better chance of survival if he or she is treated in a trauma center as opposed to an acute care hospital. The Parties The Department is the state agency charged with implementing the laws governing the regulation of trauma centers. See § 395.40(3), Fla. Stat. (noting “[i]t is the intent of the Legislature to place primary responsibility for the planning and establishment of a statewide inclusive trauma system with the department. The department shall undertake the implementation of a statewide inclusive trauma system as funding is available.”); § 395.401(2), Fla. Stat. (mandating that “[t]he department shall adopt by rule, standards for verification of trauma centers based on national guidelines . . . .”); § 395.4015(1), Fla. Stat. (mandating that “[t]he department shall establish a state trauma system plan.”); § 395.402(2), Fla. Stat. (mandating that “[t]he department shall review the existing trauma system and determine whether it is effective in providing trauma care uniformly throughout the state.”). Of particular relevance to the instant case is the legislative mandate that the Department shall adopt rules governing the number of trauma centers that can be operated in Florida. See § 395.402(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (mandating that “[t]he department shall allocate, by rule, the number of trauma centers needed for each trauma service area.”). Those rules (see, e.g., rule 64J-2.010) determine how many trauma centers can be in a particular trauma service area (“TSA”). The Legislature has assigned each county in Florida to a TSA, and there are currently 19 TSAs in Florida. See § 395.402(4), Fla. Stat. With regard to Petitioners, Shands Jacksonville operates a Level I trauma center in TSA 5, which consists of Baker, Clay, Duval, Nassau, and St. Johns Counties. Tampa General operates a Level I trauma center in TSA 10, which consists of Hillsborough County. Lee Memorial operates a Level II trauma center in TSA 15, which consists of Charlotte, Glades, Hendry, and Lee Counties. Bayfront Health operates a Level II trauma center in TSA 9, which consists of Pinellas and Pasco Counties. St. Joseph’s Hospital operates a Level II trauma center and a pediatric trauma center in TSA 10, which consists of Hillsborough County. As for the intervenors, JFK Medical Center is a licensed acute care hospital that has submitted a letter of intent to the Department so that it can apply to operate a Level II trauma center in TSA 17, which consists of Palm Beach County. Orange Park operates a provisional Level II trauma center in TSA 5, and Jackson South operates a provisional Level II trauma center in TSA 19, which consists of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. The meaning of the term “provisional trauma center” will be explained below. The Statutory Scheme Governing Trauma Centers As noted above, each of Florida’s 67 counties has been assigned to one of 19 TSAs, and the 19 TSAs play an important role in the location of trauma centers throughout the state. See § 395.4025(1), Fla. Stat. (providing that “[f]or purposes of developing a system of trauma centers, the department shall use the 19 trauma service areas established in s. 395.402. Within each service area and based on the state trauma system plan, the local or regional trauma services system plan, and recommendations of the local or regional trauma agency, the department shall establish the approximate number of trauma centers needed to ensure reasonable access to high-quality trauma services.”); § 395.402(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (providing that the Department “shall allocate, by rule, the number of trauma centers needed for each [TSA].”). The Florida Legislature has mandated that every TSA “should have at least one Level I or Level II trauma center.” § 395.402(4)(b), Fla. Stat. However, there is a state-wide, statutory cap of 44 trauma centers. § 395.402(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (mandating that “[t]here shall be no more than a total of 44 trauma centers in the state.”). Hospitals seeking approval to operate trauma centers must complete a rigorous review process, and that process begins with a potential applicant submitting a letter of intent to the Department by October 1 of a particular year. See § 395.4025(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (providing that “[t]he department shall annually notify each acute care general hospital and each local and each regional trauma agency in the state that the department is accepting letters of intent from hospitals that are interested in becoming trauma centers. In order to be considered by the department, a hospital that operates within the geographic area of a local or regional trauma agency must certify that its intent to operate as a trauma center is consistent with the trauma services plan of the local or regional trauma agency, as approved by the department, if such agency exists. Letters of intent must be postmarked no later than midnight October 1.”). By submitting a letter of intent, a hospital does not become obligated to subsequently file a fully fledged trauma center application. Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.012(1)(a) (providing that “[t]he letter of intent is non-binding, but preserves the hospital’s right to complete its application by the required due date if an available position, as provided in Rule 64J-2.010, F.A.C., exists in the hospital’s TSA.”). “By October 15, the department shall send to all hospitals that submitted a letter of intent an application package that will provide the hospitals with instructions for submitting information to the department for selection as a trauma center.” § 395.4025(2)(c), Fla. Stat. Applications from hospitals seeking to operate trauma centers must be received by the Department by the close of business on April 1 of the following year. Once the Department receives a trauma center application, it conducts “a provisional review of each application for the purpose of determining that the hospital’s application is complete and that the hospital has the critical elements required for a trauma center.” § 395.4025(2)(c), Fla. Stat. The Department’s provisional review includes, but is not limited to, an examination of whether an applicant has: the equipment and facilities necessary to provide trauma services; (b) personnel in sufficient numbers and with proper qualifications to provide trauma services; and (c) an effective quality assurance process. See § 395.4025(2)(c), Fla. Stat. “After April 30, any hospital that submitted an application found acceptable by the department based on provisional review shall be eligible to operate as a provisional trauma center.” § 395.4025(3), Fla. Stat. A hospital that has been approved to operate as a provisional trauma center can immediately begin providing care to trauma victims. From an operational perspective, there is no difference between a provisional trauma center and one that is fully verified. Between May 1 and October 1 of the year following the filing of the letter of intent, the Department conducts an in- depth evaluation of all the applicants that were deemed eligible to operate as provisional trauma centers. § 395.4025(4), Fla. Stat. Then, between October 1 of the year following the filing of the letter of intent and June 1 of the next year, a review team of out-of-state experts assembled by the Department makes “onsite visits to all provisional trauma centers.” The out-of-state experts utilize a survey instrument developed by the Department that includes “objective criteria and guidelines for reviewers based on existing trauma center standards such that all trauma centers are assessed equally.” § 395.4025(5), Fla. Stat. That survey instrument also includes “a uniform rating system that will be used by reviewers to indicate the degree of compliance of each trauma center with specific standards, and to indicate the quality of care provided by each trauma center as determined through an audit of patient charts.” § 395.4025(5), Fla. Stat. Even if a hospital satisfies all of the requirements to operate a trauma center, there must be a need for a trauma center in the relevant TSA. See § 395.4025(5), Fla. Stat. (providing that “hospitals being considered as provisional trauma centers shall meet all the requirements of a trauma center and shall be located in a trauma service area that has a need for such a trauma center.”). (emphasis added). The Department, based on recommendations from the review team, selects trauma centers by July 1 of the second year following the filing of the letter of intent. § 395.4025(6), Fla. Stat. Following this initial approval, “[e]ach trauma center shall be granted a 7-year approval period during which time it must continue to maintain trauma center standards and acceptable patient outcomes as determined by department rule.” Id. An approval, “unless sooner suspended or revoked, automatically expires 7 years after the date of issuance and is renewable upon application for renewal as prescribed by rule of the department.” Id. Also, “[n]otwithstanding any provision of chapter 381, a hospital licensed under ss. 395.001-395.3025 that operates a trauma center may not terminate or substantially reduce the availability of trauma service without providing at least 180 days’ notice [to the Department] of its intent to terminate such services.” § 395.4025(8), Fla. Stat. There are currently 33 approved trauma centers in Florida. Unless the statewide cap of 44 in section 395.402(4)(c) is amended or removed, the Department can only approve 11 more trauma center applicants. Assessment of Need for Trauma Centers under the Current Rules The Department must annually assess Florida’s trauma system, including the number and level of trauma centers needed for each trauma service area. See § 395.402(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (requiring the Department to “[r]eview the number and level of trauma centers needed for each trauma service area to provide a statewide integrated trauma system.”); § 395.402(3), Fla. Stat. (mandating that the Department must consider the following during its annual reviews: recommendations of regional trauma agencies; stakeholder recommendations; the geographic composition of an area; historical patterns of patient referral and transfer in an area; inventories of available trauma care resources; population growth characteristics; transportation capabilities; medically appropriate ground and air travel times; recommendations of the Regional Domestic Security Task Force; the actual number of trauma victims currently being served by each trauma center; and other appropriate criteria). As noted above, the Legislature has empowered the Department to adopt rules governing the procedures and process by which it will determine which applicants will be selected for designation as trauma centers. See § 395.4025(13), Fla. Stat. (providing that “[t]he department may adopt, by rule, the procedures and process by which it will select trauma centers. Such procedures and process must be used in annually selecting trauma centers and must be consistent with subsections (1)-(8) except in those situations in which it is in the best interest of, and mutually agreed to by, all applicants within a service area and the department to reduce the timeframes.”). The rules governing trauma centers are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64J-2 (collectively referred to as “the Current Rules”). With regard to the instant case, rule 64J-2.010 is particularly relevant and details how Level I and Level II trauma centers will be allocated among the 19 TSAs. On an annual basis beginning on or before August 30, the Department implements the process set forth in rule 64J- 2.010 by conducting the annual assessment mentioned above and assigning a score to each TSA. The process in rule 64J-2.010 begins by evaluating each TSA pursuant to the following criteria: (a) population; median transport times; (c) community support; (d) severely injured patients discharged from acute care hospitals; (e) Level I trauma centers; and (f) number of severely injured patients. For each of the aforementioned criteria, points are assigned to each TSA based on data from the annual assessment. The point scales associated with each criterion are designed to measure the need in each TSA for trauma center services. For example, a TSA with a population of less than 600,000 would receive 2 points, and a TSA with a population of greater than 2,400,000 would receive 10 points. TSAs with populations between those two extremes would receive 4, 6, or 8 points. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.010(1)(a)1. As for median transport time, a TSA with a median transport time of less than 10 minutes would receive 0 points. In contrast, if the median transport time in a TSA was greater than 41 minutes, then that TSA would receive 4 points. TSAs with median transport times between those two extremes would receive 1, 2, or 3 points. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J- 2.010(1)(a)2. After a TSA’s total score is determined, the Department compares that score to the scale in rule 64J- 2.010(1)(b) which provides that: The following scoring system shall be used to allocate trauma centers within the TSAs: TSAs with a score of 5 points or less shall be allocated 1 trauma center. TSAs with a score of 6 to 10 points shall be allocated 2 trauma centers. TSAs with a score of 11 to 15 points shall be allocated 3 trauma centers. TSAs with a score of more than 15 points shall be allocated 4 trauma centers. In the Current Rules, rule 64J-2.010(3) contains a table setting forth the results based upon the March 24, 2014, Amended Trauma Service Area Assessment. For example, the table in rule 64J-2.010(3) indicates that TSA 1 consisting of Escambia, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, and Walton Counties has a need for one trauma center. In contrast, the table indicates that TSA 19 consisting of Dade and Monroe Counties has a need for three trauma centers. The Department Changes Its Interpretation of “Need” In October of 2014, Orange Park filed a letter of intent indicating its desire to operate a trauma center in TSA 5. Because the Current Rules indicated that there was no need for an additional trauma center in TSA 5, the Department rejected Orange Park’s letter of intent. That action was consistent with a determination that the numeric “need” derived from rule 64J-2.010 establishes the maximum number of trauma centers that are needed in a particular TSA. In 2015, Orange Park submitted another letter of intent to operate a trauma center in TSA 5. The Department accepted that letter of intent even though the numeric “need” derived from rule 64J-2.010 for TSA 5 had not changed. That action was consistent with a determination that the numeric “need” derived from rule 64J-2.010 establishes the minimum number of trauma centers that are needed in a particular TSA. After the Department approved Orange Park’s application to operate as a provisional Level II trauma center in TSA 5, Shands Jacksonville challenged that decision, and Administrative Law Judge W. David Watkins issued a Recommended Order on January 27, 2017, concluding that Orange Park’s application must be denied. In the process of doing so, ALJ Watkins also concluded that “[t]he Department’s policy of accepting letters of intent and trauma center applications irrespective of need as established in rule 64J-2.010, constitutes an unadopted rule and is contrary to its validly adopted rules and statute.” Shands Jacksonville Med. Ctr., Inc., d/b/a UF Health Jacksonville v. Dep’t of Health and Orange Park Med. Ctr., Inc., DOAH Case No. 16-3369 (Recommended Order Jan. 27, 2017). Through the Proposed Rules, the Department is seeking to formalize its new interpretation of the term “need” as meaning the minimum number of trauma centers needed in a particular TSA. Assessment of Need under the Proposed Rules During the final hearing in this matter, Department employees described the Department’s impetus for changing its determination of how the term “need” as that term is used in chapter 395, part II, should be interpreted. For instance, the Department’s mission is to promote, protect, and improve the health of those living and visiting Florida. Because approximately 31 percent of severely injured patients were treated at acute care hospitals rather than trauma centers in 2013, the Department believes that there are an insufficient number of trauma centers in Florida. Also, as one or more trauma centers are added to a particular TSA, the Department observed that the number of trauma centers “needed” in that TSA under rule 64J-2.010 would decrease. This decrease would occur because median transport times and the number of severely injured patients discharged from acute care hospitals would decrease with the addition of trauma centers to that TSA. Accordingly, the Department deems the formula in rule 64J-2.010 to be a “diminishing” formula. As explained by Sue Dick, the Department’s Interim Division Director for the Division of Emergency Preparedness and Community Support (and former Chief of the Tallahassee, Florida Fire Department): [W]e saw the numbers required in a certain trauma service area diminishing because care was better. That’s what led us to go, wait a minute, that can’t be a maximum number because we are going to end up at a point where we say a maximum number is zero. So that’s when we started to look at the allocation and say, what we are really determining is how many more should they have to ensure that all patients are reaching median transport time in less than 10 minutes and very few patients are being discharged from acute care hospitals. That’s what led to the logic behind revisiting this rule and this formula. On September 1, 2016, the Department proposed a series of amendments to rules 64J-2.010, 64J-2.012, 64J-2.013, and 64J- 2.016. The Proposed Rules would implement the Department’s new policy of deeming the calculations pursuant to rule 64J- 2.010(1)(b) to represent the minimum number of trauma centers needed in a particular TSA rather than the maximum number of trauma centers allowed in that TSA. For instance, the Proposed Rules’ version of rule 64J- 2.010(1)(b) would amend the current version of rule 64J- 2.010(1)(b) to read as follows: “[t]he following scoring system shall be used to determine the minimum number of allocate trauma centers needed within the TSAs. Also, the Proposed Rules would add a subsection (4) to rule 64J-2.010, which would state that “[t]he allocation of trauma centers, as described in subsections (1) through (3) of this rule, is the minimum allocation needed and shall not affect existing verified trauma centers seeking renewal of their verification status pursuant to subsection 395.4025(6), F.S., . . . .” (emphasis added). The Proposed Rules would amend rule 64J-2.012(1)(a) to read as follows: “[t]he letter of intent is non-binding, but preserves the hospital’s right to complete its application by the required due date if, subject to the trauma center limit in paragraph 395.402(4)(c), F.S., an available position, is open as provided in Rule 64J-2.010, F.A.C., exists in the hospital’s TSA.” As a result, there would no longer be TSA-specific caps in rule 64J-2.010, and the statewide cap of 44 trauma centers in section 395.402(4)(c) would be the only numeric cap on trauma centers. The same result would flow from the Proposed Rules’ amendment to rule 64J-2.013(7): The department shall make a final determination on whether to approve or deny a hospital’s extension request only after the provisional review of all other trauma center applications in the hospital’s TSA are completed, and it has been determined that the number of trauma centers and Provisional Ttrauma Ccenters, in the hospital’s TSA is less than or equal to the allocated number of trauma centers allowed by paragraph 395.402(4)(c), F.S. positions available for that TSA. Finally, subsection (12) of rule 64J-2.013 would become subsection (11) and be amended as follows: A hospital receiving an extension greater than 12 months shall have its extension denied or terminated if the number of trauma centers and or Provisional Ttrauma Ccenters in the hospital’s TSA equals or is greater than the number of trauma centers provided in paragraph 395.402(4)(c), F.S available positions allocated to the TSA, resulting in the denial of its application and the department will inform the applicant of its right to a Section 120.57, F.S., hearing regarding this denial. Because the Proposed Rules would result in the calculations pursuant to rule 64J-2.010(1)(b) representing the minimum number of trauma centers needed in a particular TSA rather than the maximum number of trauma centers allowed in that TSA, the Department could conceivably approve every applicant in that TSA so long as the statutory cap of 44 trauma centers in section 395.402(4)(c) would not be exceeded. The Proposed Rules also establish a tie-breaker system if the sum of provisional trauma centers found eligible for selection by the Department and the number of existing trauma centers would exceed the statutory limit established in section 395.402(4)(c). The tie-breaking criteria would consider the following: (a) whether the TSA in question already has a Level I or Level II trauma center; (b) the level of service that the applicants propose to provide; (c) the number of severely injured patients treated by the applicants; and (d) approval by a Department-approved trauma agency plan. Chief Dick testified that the Department would exercise discretion to ensure that a TSA that already had the minimum number of trauma centers under the Proposed Rules would not receive an additional trauma center if the statutory cap of 44 would be met or exceeded and another TSA lacked the statutory minimum of one: Q: Now, I want to explore a little bit one of the answers that you gave to Mr. Reynolds regarding how the [Proposed Rules] would work in conjunction with the statutory cap of 44 and the requirement for assignment of a trauma center to each TSA. Let me ask you a hypothetical. If there [are] 43, when you get to the point when there [are] 43 trauma centers that are opened around the state but there is still not one in Collier County, how does it work at that point as a potential new applicant comes in? A: If they are not in Collier County, they won’t be verified. We have a statutory obligation to meet the minimum of one per TSA, so – at a statutory cap of 44. So logic would state then as part of that 44, it includes one per TSA. So if there are 43 and there are none in TSA 17, we would have to reserve that spot until such point as there is one at a minimum in TSA 17, which is Collier, I believe. Q: Would that likewise be the approach if you have a TSA where the methodology calculates there is a need for four, but there [are] only three that are opened, how would it work then? A: I think it would be responsible of the Department, as we view the results of this allocation methodology as setting a minimum need to ensure reasonable access to care, that we would withhold spots until such point as that minimum is met per TSA. So if we are at 42 and there is still not one in TSA 17, which we just spoke to, but in addition there is another TSA that has one but through our methodology, we really think they need a minimum of two, I believe it’s within the Department’s authority to withhold that second one as well. However, Chief Dick acknowledged in subsequent testimony that the discretion she relies upon does not originate from a statute or a rule: Q: I think we had put forth that there’s been some testimony concerning the hypothetical, the what if there’s more applications received by the Department in a cycle than there are statewide slots? So in other words, you’ve got enough applications that its’s going to pop you over the [statutory cap of] 44. Do you understand my hypothetical? ALJ: We are still talking about the [Current Rules]? Q: Under [the Proposed Rules]. ALJ: [Proposed Rules]. Okay. Q: Thank you. A: I understand what you are saying. Q: And would you agree that there’s nothing in the [Proposed Rules] that tells you what happens in that circumstance, if the number received in all of the TSAs will put you over the statewide number? A: There’s nothing in the proposed rule that states that if we receive more applications than there are available spots statewide, what we will do. Q: Correct. There’s no criteria or standards? A: No, those procedures are not outlined in the rule, no. Q: Similarly, there’s nothing in [the Proposed Rules] that would preclude that all of the open positions statewide could be in one TSA or two TSAs to the exclusion of others; there’s nothing that prevents that from occurring? A: Well, I think there is something that prevents that from occurring, and the first thing being that – the first thing we would look at is to ensure there is at least one trauma center in each TSA so we would be able to reserve that. And the other thing I think is where it speaks to a trauma service area, trauma service area that has a need, we would interpret that to mean a minimum need as determined by our allocation methodology. So I would say that if there are – if it were an issue of we were going to go over the 44 and there was a TSA that still did not meet their minimum as we’ve outlined in our proposed rule, that it would be within our prerogative of the Department to hold a spot for that TSA to meet that minimum. Q: When you say it would be within your prerogative, there is nothing in the statute that outlines that procedure you just discussed, that you would hold one in your back pocket and say, I need that one for Collier County? A: No. Q: There’s nothing in [the Proposed Rules] that says that? A: No, there’s been a number of hypotheticals presented, and I just don’t think you can craft a rule that would address every hypothetical. So, no, there’s nothing that speaks specifically to that, what our specific process would be under those specific circumstances. * * * Q: I understand. [The Proposed Rules set] a minimum and all – my only question is, there [are] no standards or criteria in [the Proposed Rules] that would identify how many above the minimum should be approved; the Department’s position is it would approve as many as are applied for, if they meet all the standards? A: And have the endorsement of the regional trauma agency, yes. The Potential Utility Associated with Adopting the Proposed Rules All parties have proceeded under the reasonable assumption that adoption of the Proposed Rules would lead to more trauma centers in Florida. The Department and Intervenors’ primary argument in support of the Proposed Rules is that more trauma centers will result in: (a) increased access to the specialized care available at trauma centers; and (b) less time needed to transport trauma patients to trauma centers. Undertriage occurs when a severely injured patient in need of trauma care is treated by an acute care hospital. In that circumstance, the patient does not receive the benefit of being admitted to a facility dedicated to treating severely injured patients. The January 6, 2016, Amended Trauma Service Area Assessment by the Department indicates that approximately 31 percent of severely injured patients in Florida received care in an acute care hospital rather than a trauma center in 2013. Dr. Mark McKenney, an expert in surgical care and trauma care, characterized undertriage as an access to care problem that could threaten one’s life: I don’t think that any of us would feel good to have a third of us, when we have a life- threatening injury, end up in a hospital that doesn’t have a trauma team, doesn’t have trauma nurses, doesn’t have a trauma intensive care unit, doesn’t have an operating room immediately available, doesn’t have a surgeon in the hospital 24/7 who can take care of this, and doesn’t have subspecialists who routinely take care of the traumatically injured patients. A third is just too high a number. With regard to transport times, trauma care professionals refer to a generally accepted clinical principle for rendering treatment known as “the Golden Hour.” Within one hour after a person is injured, all of the following should occur: (a) emergency personnel are notified, arrive at the injury scene, evaluate the patient, and transport the patient to a trauma center; and (b) the trauma center starts resuscitation; conducts another evaluation of the patient; and performs a life-saving procedure. According to the Department and Intervenors, the increased access to trauma centers and the decreased transport times associated with adoption of the Proposed Rules will save lives.4/ Petitioners’ response to that line of reasoning is that an increase in the number of trauma centers will lead to a decrease in the quality of care rendered to trauma patients. A trauma center needs to treat a certain number of severely injured patients in order for its personnel to remain proficient and for the trauma center’s quality of care to remain high. During the final hearing, Petitioners presented persuasive testimony that “practice makes perfect” with regard to the treatment of trauma patients. For instance, Dr. Steven Epstein, an expert in trauma surgery, credibly testified that trauma injuries require a different level of expertise and that experience acquired through treating less severe injuries does not necessarily translate to the treatment of trauma patients: If you have a set number of patients and you put another trauma center geographically close, what happens is that you will cut the number of patients going to each place, each trauma center. And expertise in the general surgery world, as well as the trauma world, is based on volume. Let me start with the general surgery world and then move toward trauma. We know that in general surgery, residencies right now, they are focusing on different areas of surgery: breast surgery, colorectal surgery, laparoscopic surgery, so that people become experts in these areas. The idea of the general surgeon is going away. The same thing occurs with trauma surgery. Only the expertise there is learned during a fellowship and then with practice. If you take, for instance, a gunshot, the anatomy, any general surgeon can take out a gallbladder, but not any general surgeon can handle a gunshot to the abdomen. The anatomy changes. It’s a much different case. So people who have done this on a regular basis have some idea how to do this. The – what I call the voyeur, you bring in a general surgeon to do some trauma because we don’t have enough trauma surgeons, doesn’t have this same expertise. And you wind up as really – it’s a patient problem. We are talking about it as a problem with hospitals, but this is a patient problem. If the doctor doesn’t know how to treat the patient, then the patient suffers. And I think in the end, that’s what happens when you dilute an expertise. And trauma, with the addition of all these hospitals, winds up diluting an expertise. * * * We, meaning the doctors at our hospital and several other hospitals, have always made an assumption we practice, we practice, we practice, and we get better. If you don’t have the patients – because they call it the practice of medicine. If you don’t have the patients to practice with, you are not going to maintain your expertise. And I use the example, for instance, of a gunshot. But we do blunt trauma where people are in auto accidents, they are in shock, how to get them out of shock. There’s this whole sequence of events that takes place. Nursing, how to take care of these patients. It’s quite complex and I firmly believe that dilution of this knowledge is very detrimental in the end to the patient.5/ In addition, an increase in trauma centers would make it more difficult for a trauma center to acquire and retain the trauma center personnel that must be constantly on site. Dr. Epstein testified that trauma surgeons are already a scarce resource, and that scarcity will only be exacerbated with the addition of more trauma centers. Also, Mark Valler, an expert in trauma center and acute care medical staff administration, credibly testified about how the addition of 10 or 11 trauma centers in Florida would impact an existing trauma center’s ability to retain its staff: But I am concerned that 10 or 11 opening statewide, there are going to be advertisements for trauma surgeons, for neurosurgeons, for trauma orthopedic doctors all over the place. People are going to be recruiting like crazy, and they are going to be recruiting in the state of Florida because the physicians already have a Florida state license, so there is going to be a huge, huge recruiting effort if all those centers actually get approved at one time. However, there was no persuasive evidence presented during the final hearing indicating that any recent openings of new trauma centers have resulted in existing trauma centers experiencing declines in patient volume that would negatively impact quality of care. Accordingly, Chief Dick testified that it would be irresponsible for the Department to not facilitate better access to trauma care when the Department has received no evidence that quality of care had suffered. During the final hearing, Petitioners frequently mentioned the theoretical possibility that adoption of the Proposed Rules could lead to an inordinate number of trauma centers opening in a single TSA. Given the substantial amount of resources needed to open and maintain a trauma center, it is unlikely that a rational hospital administrator would seek to open a trauma center in a particular TSA unless the volume of trauma patients would enable it to operate profitably. Nevertheless, the testimony and the evidence leads to an inference that adoption of the Proposed Rules would likely lead to more trauma centers in well-served TSAs and no increase for TSAs in need of more trauma care. The following testimony from Mark Richardson, an expert in healthcare facility and services planning, illustrates this point: Q: There’s been some suggestion, I think you may have heard this during your deposition, that there may be free market forces that would operate to prevent some of these adverse results that you are describing. Do you have an opinion as to whether free market factors would help to prevent the maldistribution or other issues that you described as being bad consequences? A: I do have an opinion. I think if you look in terms of the folks, whoever have applied via a letter of intent for the development of the additional trauma centers, those centers are not located in areas where there currently are longer transport times. Those centers basically are located in basically metropolitan areas where there are already appears to be good reasonable access to care. Basically it’s adding new programs where there’s already a pretty good network of care provided. * * * My point here is that if you look in terms of where these folks are, they are basically in the Jacksonville area; they are basically in the Miami-Dade, south Florida area; they are in the Orlando area; or they are in the Palm Beach and Broward area, where there already are a number of existing transplant programs, where, for example, specific to the median transport time, there’s no problem in those areas. This is not the Panhandle where there is a problem in terms of transport times. This is not north Florida in terms of north Florida area where portions of the area may have some problems. This is basically adding incremental trauma center capacity to locales where there already is adequate care. It is certainly possible that Petitioners’ fears about lower quality of care could be realized if there is nothing other than the statutory cap to prevent hospitals from opening an unlimited number of trauma centers in TSAs encompassing large metropolitan areas. After considering all of the evidence and testimony, the undersigned is of the opinion that it would be impossible to draft a set of rules that would satisfy the concerns/interests of all the relevant stakeholders.6/ The disagreement over the merit of the Proposed Rules boils down to striking a balance between “practice makes perfect” and providing the earliest opportunity for definitive care. In relation to each other, the Current Rules put more emphasis on “practice makes perfect,” and the Proposed Rules emphasize providing more access to care.
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA), is a publicly owned hospital corporation with corporate offices located in Naples, Florida. It owns and/or operates 17 hospitals in the United States, including 2 owned facilities in the State of Florida, and one which it operates for the State under contract. Psychiatric service is limited in scope. Charter Medical Corporation, operating 66 hospitals, owns and operates Charter Glade Hospital, a 104-bed specialty psychiatric hospital located in Ft. Myers, Lee County, Florida. The facility is located approximately 2 miles west of I-75 and approximately 22 miles north of the site identified by HMA for its facility. As an existing facility in the service area, it has intervened herein to protest any award of a Certificate of Need to a competing facility, here, HMA proposed hospital. THE FACILITIES Of Charter Glades' 104 beds, 80 are licensed as short-term psychiatric beds, of which 56 are utilized for adults and 24 for adolescents. The remaining 24 beds are licensed as short-term substance abuse beds. It draws approximately 91 percent of its patients from Lee County, where it is located, and the remaining 9 percent from Collier County, contiguous to the south. It also operates an outpatient program in Naples, Florida, further south in Collier County, and utilizes substantial marketing and advertising programs within Collier County to inform and attract patients from that area. HMA proposes to establish a 50-bed, freestanding, psychiatric hospital in Collier County, 30 beds of which will be on a unit dedicated to adult patients and 20 beds dedicated to adolescents. The facility is designed to be built on an 8 to 10 acre tract of land and due to efforts by HMA's vice president for psychiatric operations, Mr. Beatty, who has personally surveyed the northern Collier County area, at least one adequate tract of property, already appropriately zoned, with access to adequate roads and utilities, has been identified. The project was designed by Architect Bruce Hartwigson, a professional with over 20 years experience in the design of health care facilities. Construction is projected to take approximately 8 months from the beginning of construction, with the facility being ready for operations within one month after completion of construction. As designed, the facility will provide a state of the art atmosphere for the psychiatric patients. Design provides for a residential appearance with allowance for quiet space, counseling offices, and recreational and therapeutic areas in addition to patient rooms. The adult and adolescent units will be physically separated and those areas scheduled for use by both categories of patient, such as dining and recreation areas, will not be utilized by both at the same time. The building, consisting of approximately 47,670 square feet, will also include, in addition to those facilities described above, necessary support facilities including doctors' and nurses' offices, administrative and business offices, storage, educational and physical activities areas, a swimming pool, and various therapy and treatment/examination rooms, as well as a chapel, beauty and barber shops, and support activities. The design proposed provides good visibility from the nurses' station to the entire unit served by that facility. All outside doors and those between units will be secured. Outdoor courtyards will be enclosed by fences or walls, and security/seclusion rooms have been designed to promote patient safety. The design proposed by HMA, complies with all codes and regulations of state and local agencies, and the size and layout proposed is reasonable. NEED HRS District 8 includes Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Glades, Hendry, Lee and Sarasota counties. HMA's proposed facility will serve, primarily, Collier county. Collier county is located, along with Lee county, in the southernmost of two separate marketing regions within District 8. Currently, almost all psychiatric inpatient services provided in both Lee and Collier counties are provided by Charter Glade Hospital in Lee county, and in the limited psychiatric service at Naples Community Hospital in Collier county. These two facilities are the only facilities licensed to provide hospital inpatient psychiatric services in their respective counties and the services are substantially different. Whereas Charter Glade Hospital is a freestanding psychiatric facility, Naples Community Hospital is a general, acute care hospital with a hospital-based psychiatric unit. In the Naples Community Hospital psychiatric facility, the average length of stay is 7.8 days. Naples Community Hospital is currently licensed to operate a 32-bed short-term psychiatric unit, and an 11-bed substance abuse unit. Consistent with the terms of a Certificate of Need issued to Naples Community Hospital for the establishment of a satellite facility, the hospital has agreed to de-license 9 of the 32 short-term psychiatric beds and the 11 short-term substance abuse beds. At the time of the hearing, the psychiatric unit at Naples Community Hospital had 20 beds staffed. The unit is used by area psychiatrists primarily for providing crisis intervention and the treating of immediate symptoms. Crisis stabilization/intervention is a psychiatric service which in normal circumstances results in an average length of stay of between 10 and 12 days. It differs substantially from longer term care, available in a psychiatric hospital. Under the shorter term programs, the disturbed and disoriented patient does not have sufficient opportunity to benefit from the programs available in a more comprehensive long term program. In short, Naples Community Hospital's program is oriented primarily to short term treatment, and this would not be contradicted or duplicated by the proposed service to be offered by HMA in its facility. Additional psychiatric care is provided by the David Lawrence Center located in Naples, which is Collier county's comprehensive community mental health center. At this facility, psychiatric care ranges from outpatient care through group and family therapy, to inpatient crisis stabilization and residential treatment programs for substance abuse or mental health problems. As a part of its inpatient program, David Lawrence operates a 12-bed crisis stabilization unit and a 12-bed short-term residential treatment program, with the former operating at an average occupancy of 66 percent and the latter at an average occupancy of 70 percent. The average length of stay at David Lawrence Center is generally between 5 and 7 days, at which time the patient is generally released and medicated for outpatient care with the opportunity then existing to obtain appropriate therapeutic care from other sources. As a publicly funded facility, David Lawrence refers most paying patients to either Naples Community Hospital or Charter Glade. Little difficulty has been experienced in placing inpatient referrals with the exception of younger children. There is also a community health center operating 30 crisis stabilization and short-term residential treatment service beds located in Lee County. Since this facility's mandate includes providing provision of services for all of the southwest portion of District 8, some patients come from Collier county as well as Lee county. This facility also operates an adult residential treatment service, which has been funded to add an additional 80 to 100 beds in the foreseeable future. Other relevant resources, either actual or potential, include an adult residential treatment service funded to begin operation in Charlotte county, which will give access to geriatric psychiatric patients residing in Collier county, and the Naples Research and Counseling Center (The Willows), located in Collier county, whose program is primarily oriented to the treatment of bulimia and other food disorders. This facility, under the terms of its license, is primarily oriented to serving patients outside District 8, but may devote up to 3 percent of its total patient days to District 8 patients. Though it does serve as a resource, its impact on the need for psychiatric services in the southernmost portion of District 8 is minimal. Other outpatient psychiatric services available to Collier county residents include the activities of the six practicing psychiatrists located within the county, who provide outpatient services in conjunction with non- medical professionals. There is also psychologists and psychiatric social workers practicing within the county. In February, 1987, DHRS published projections for the January, 1992 Planning Horizon which revealed the net need for 61 short-term psychiatric beds in District 8. It was noted at the time that the short-term psychiatric bed need projection had not yet been adjusted for occupancy rates according to the terms of Rule 10-5.011(1)(o), Florida Administrative Code. The Agency thereafter promulgated Rule 10-5.008(2), which established the "fixed pool" concept for Certificate of Need Review. HMA submitted its application based on the 61-bed projection. Upon review of the applications, during which time the Agency calculated a net need numerically for 55 additional short-term psychiatric beds, DHRS denied HMA's application on September 9, 1987, even though a 55-bed need was established. Under the provisions of Rule 10-5.011(o)(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code, the Department determined the numeric need to be inapplicable, because the average annual occupancy rates for all existing adult short-term inpatient psychiatric beds in District 8 did not exceed 75 percent for the preceding 12 month period. By the same token, the same rate for adolescents and children did not exceed 70 percent for the same time period. DHRS's observation regarding occupancy rate thresholds was accepted by HMA's health planner. The difference between the 61-bed need published by DHRS initially and the 55-bed projection is an award of 6 short-term psychiatric beds to Venice Hospital. During the course of the hearing, and after HMA had presented its case in chief, the Department revised its numeric need calculation to reflect a 44- bed net need for January, 1992. This change was attributed to the mistaken assumption that 20 beds at Naples Community Hospital would be de-licensed. In reality, only 9 beds will actually be de-licensed. Under the terms of the Rule, gross need is calculated upon a standard of 35 beds per 1,000 population, and this figure must be reduced by the number of licensed and approved beds within the District. The proper count, therefore, should be a total of 295 beds including 23 at Naples Community Hospital instead of 12. HMA objected to the introduction of evidence relating to the change in numeric bed need on the basis that it had already presented its case in chief, and had not been advised of the change in advance. The basis for the original denial of HMA's application by the Department included as a important part thereof the fact that the occupancy standards outlined in the Department's Rules had not been met regardless of the bed need established by use of the methodology. This is as much a factor with a numeric need of 44, as it was with a numeric need of 55. The evidence did not establish that the occupancy rates had increased so as to meet the Department's standards. It is nonetheless appropriate for the Department to correct, at the hearing, an obvious miscalculation which goes to the very heart of the numeric need methodology. If accurate information is not included in the calculations under the methodology, then the methodology result is totally unreliable. Consequently, it is found that the appropriate bed need for the January, 1992 Planning Horizon is 44 beds. Turning to the question of occupancy levels, statistics compiled for District 8 for the years 1984 through 1987, reflect that district wide, the average occupancy for 1984 was 54.7 percent; for 1985, 69.22 percent; for 1986, 59.29 percent; and for 1987 through October, 59.12 percent. Though the health plan does not call for sub-district districting, if one looks at the two major facilities located in the Lee and Collier counties, that is Naples Community Hospital and Charter Glade Hospital, the average for those two is 51.35 percent, with Charter Glade at 33.2 percent. For 1985, the two had an average occupancy of 55.75 percent; for 1986, an average of 49.92 percent, and for 1987, an average of 50.81 percent. Therefore, no matter how it is looked at, either on a district wide basis or considering only the two counties, the average occupancy is well below the 75 percent standard for adults or 70 percent for adolescents. Under the provisions of the DHRS Rule, when numeric need has not been established, no new beds will "normally be approved." It has long been settled that this means that if other circumstances exist which indicate the need, outside of the numeric calculation, for additional beds, DHRS may consider and award them. The occupancy rates catalogued above would be one possible example of abnormal circumstances, if they had exceeded the Rule standards. Another is the access standard, contained in Rule 10-5.011(o)4g, which provides that short- term, inpatient hospital psychiatric services should be available within a maximum travel time of 45 minutes, under average travel conditions, for at least 90 percent of the service area population. As was stated above, service area means the entire District 8. It was clearly established at final hearing that more than 90 percent of the District 8 population is within a 45 minute travel time of short-term, inpatient hospital psychiatric services with only 6.3 percent falling outside that parameter. In fact, the local health plan indicates that 90 percent of the district population falls within 30 minutes travel time. Other real factors which may be considered are the shortage of psychiatrists in the area, in both counties, and a definite shortage of psychiatrically trained nurses in both counties. It has been shown, however, that physicians, like nature, abhor a vacuum. If facilities are available, medically trained personnel will generally gravitate to the area of availability, and it is consequently found that these two factors are not controlling. OTHER FACTORS The issue of the financial feasibility of the project is always pertinent. HMA proposes to develop this project, utilizing 20 percent equity contribution, and 80 percent debt financing. HMA has access to a $75,000,000.00 line of credit and financing drawn on that line would be at prime rate. It is estimated that costs and fees associated with financing will total approximately $57,000.00. The method of funding and the proposed interest expense and fees are considered reasonable. The applicant proposes to charge an all-inclusive rate of $398.00 per patient day in the first year and $415.00 per patient day in the second year. These are not contested and are considered reasonable. During the first year, total deductions of $508,000.00 include contractual allowances of $400,000.00, plus a bad debt allowance of approximately $100,000.00. Intervenor contends that HMA's bad debt factor of 4 percent is unrealistic, and Charter Glade's experience of 5 percent would be more reasonable. An adjustment of that nature would total $41,600.00, which is not particularly significant when compared against the overall project estimated yearly income. The second year's proposed revenue deductions of $716,500.00 are also contested by the Intervenor on the basis of what it considers unrealistic projections, but again, there is insufficient evidence to indicate HMA's projections are unreasonable. Intervenor has contested many of the line items on HMA's pro forma statement. Whereas HMA projects a 4 to 5 percent per year inflation rate for salaries and benefits, Intervenor suggests that an inflation rate of 6 percent would be more appropriate. Supplies and expenses figures should be increased according to Intervenor, who also contends that HMA's projected depreciation and other expense is understated, as were the projected pre- opening expenses. If all adjustments suggested by the Intervenor were to be made, HMA's facility would lose $588,000.00 in its second year of operation, in the event HMA's projected second year occupancy of 55 percent were to be realized. Intervenor contests this, contending that because of lack of bed need and lack of demand, it is doubtful HMA will achieve the projected occupancy and its position is well taken. The growth rate in the two county area is projected to be a sum equivalent to 19.6 percent of the 1980 population. Applying this same figure to the average daily census for the two existing facilities reveals an additional 12.4 patients per day available to HMA, if one assumes Naples Community Hospital and Charter Glade would continue to serve the existing population base. The 12.4 patient census would constitute a 25 percent occupancy rate, as opposed to 55 percent. In light of the currently existing occupancy rates, it is found that HMA's projected 55 percent occupancy rate at year two is overly generous and would likely not be achieved in light of the various factors discussed previously. While the criticisms and suggested adjustments by the Intervenor as to expense and salary items are considered unconvincing, there is some question, in light of proposed occupancy rates, whether Petitioner can operate the facility feasibly within two years. There is, however, little doubt that HMA would construct a quality facility and operate it in such a manner as to meet, if not exceed, all state standards. Its prior record would tend to establish that. Proposed staffing ratios are reasonable and consistent with industry standards, and the programs incorporated within the proposal are appropriate and reasonable. HMA has access to adequate capital resources to fund the construction and operate it for the first several years. There is some question, however, as to whether adequate, qualified staff can be recruited in sufficient numbers. HMA proposes to serve indigent patients in numbers sufficiently high to meet its proportionate share of indigent mental health problems within the service area. There was some evidence, through the deposition of Dr. Mack, which tends to indicate that from time to time, psychiatrists practicing in Collier county have difficulty from a logistical standpoints securing inpatient placement for their psychiatric patients at Charter Glade, and there can be little doubt that the distribution of psychiatric beds in District 8 is unbalanced, with far more beds in the northern portion of the district than in the south. Whether this justifies construction of a new psychiatric hospital in Collier county, however, is another matter. The evidence clearly indicates that the short- term beds at Naples Community Hospital are not fully utilized and the occupancy rates would tend to indicate that the demand within the two counties, as it currently exists and is proposed to exist within the framework of the Planning Horizon, is currently being met. Another legitimate factor to be considered is the adverse impact construction of a new facility, such as proposed by HMA, would have on the existing Charter Glade facility which, more than any other existing facility, provides the same service. Evidence of record indicates that Charter Glade gets 85 percent of its patients from Lee county, in which it is located, and 17 percent of that number comes from that area of Lee county, south of the Charter Glade facility. In addition, 9.3 percent of Charter Glade's patients come from Collier county. Adding the south Lee county patients to the north Collier county patients, accounts for approximately 23.75 percent of Charter Glade's total patients. (.17 X .85 .1445 + .093 .2375) If HMA's new facility were to draw 50 percent of that figure, approximately 12 percent of Charter Glade's total patient days would be lost. (.2375 X .50 .11875) In 1987, Charter Glade's charge per day was slightly in excess of $431.00, which resulted in a net profit of slightly over $105,000.00. Were Charter Glade to lose approximately 12 percent of its patient days, the net adverse effect to its revenue picture would be substantial.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Health Management Associates, Inc.'s application for Certificate of Need Number 5170 to establish a 50-bed, freestanding, short-term psychiatric hospital in Collier county be denied. Recommended in Tallahassee this 30th day of June, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4741 The following constitutes my ruling on Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties hereto, consistent with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. For HMA: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Irrelevant. 4 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6 - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15 - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. First and third sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence is irrelevant. 18. First and second sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Third sentence is irrelevant. 19 - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Cumulative. 25 - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a finding but a restatement of evidence. Accepted. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence rejected as a restatement of evidence. 30 - 37. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a restatement of evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. 42 - 43. Accepted. 44 - 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47 - 48. Accepted. 49. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 50. Irrelevant. 51 - 53. Accepted and incorporated herein. 54 - 58. Accepted and incorporated herein. 59 - 61. Accepted and incorporated herein. 62. Accepted and incorporated herein. 63 - 69. Accepted and incorporated herein. 70. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 71 - 81. Accepted and incorporated herein. 82. Rejected. 83. Irrelevant. 84. Accepted. 85 - 87. Rejected as an overstatement of the situation as it exists. By DHRS: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3 - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9 - 10. Accepted. 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12 - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. By Charter Glade Hospital: 1 - 4. Not Findings of Fact but Introduction. 5 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. Accepted. 10 - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13 - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16 - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18 - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21 - 22. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 26 - 27. Accepted. 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29 - 34. Accepted and incorporated herein. 35 - 36. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 39 - 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Remainder is irrelevant. Accepted. 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44 - 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47. Irrelevant. 48 - 51. Accepted and incorporated herein. 52. Accepted and incorporated herein. 53 - 55. Accepted and incorporated herein. 56 - 59. Accepted and incorporated herein. 60 - 65. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 68 - 70. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 71 - 72. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 75. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a recitation of and comment on the evidence. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of and comment on the evidence. 81-83(o). Accepted in part by HMA and commented on in Recommended Order. 84 - 86. Not a Finding of Fact but a speculative projection. 87 - 89. Accepted and incorporated herein. 90. First sentence accepted - Second sentence rejected as a restatement of evidence designed to bolster first sentence. 91 - 94. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: John F. Gilroy, III, Esquire Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Haben and Culpepper Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John Rodriguez, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Michael Cherniga, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, Laface & Richards 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
