Findings Of Fact VNA Healthcare Group of Florida, Inc. is a non- profit parent corporation with four health-related subsidiaries. Visiting Nurse Association, Inc. is a Florida not-for-profit corporation which is licensed and Medicare- certified to provide home health care in the District VII, counties of Orange, Seminole and Osceola. VNA Respite Care, Inc. (hereafter "VNA Respite") is a licensed and non-Medicare certified subsidiary of VNA Healthcare Group which presently Provides private duty nursing services across District borders to residents of Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Lake, Marion, Sumter, Volusia, Polk, and Brevard counties. VNA Respite currently has offices in Orlando, Sanford, Longwood, Kissimmee, and Leesburg. Community Health Services, Inc. d/b/a VNA of Brevard, provides licensed Medicare- certified home health services in Brevard County. VNA of Central Florida, Inc. is the Community Care for the Elderly program provided in Orange and Seminole counties. On or before December 15, 1985, Visiting Nurse Association, Inc. (A) timely filed a CON application to establish a Medicare-certified home health care agency in District III. The application clearly identified Leesburg, Lake County, Florida, which is within District III, as the existing base of operations for the proposed agency. VNA applied for a CON to make its existing local home health agency, VNA Respite, Inc. eligible for Medicare reimbursement. The application, identified as CON number 4356, was denied by the State Agency Action Report (SAAR) of July 16, 1986. VNA's was the sole home health care agency application reviewed in this batching cycle, which contemplated a July, 1987 planning horizon. Since that time, HRS takes the position that it cannot tell what the horizon would be because its rules and policies have been invalidated. (TR 270-271). HRS is the agency responsible for certification and licensure of home health agencies in Florida. A home health agency in Florida must obtain a CON from HRS before it can become eligible to receive Medicare reimbursement. Medicare is a federally funded health program for elderly and disabled persons. Medicare reimbursement of home health agencies is on a cost reimbursement basis with a cap for each specific discipline covered. Home health agency costs in excess of the Medicare caps must be absorbed by the home health agency. This affects financial feasibility of individual applicants. Conversely, it also insures that traditional concepts of price competition have no applicability to home health agencies to the extent they provide Medicare reimbursable services and further establishes that there is negligible impact on competition among these labor (as opposed to capital) intensive providers. On August 15, 1906, VNA timely petitioned for a formal administrative hearing to challenge the denial. The only issue at the final hearing was whether VNA should be granted a CON. Both parties agreed that the only criteria remaining to be litigated were Florida Statutes subsections 381.494(6)(c) 1,2, 3, 4, 9, and 12 and 381.494 (6)(c) 8 as it relates to the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district. Presently, HRS has no rule or policy designating a numeric methodology to determine the need for new home health agencies in any given district. Review of CON applications for home health agencies is based upon statutory criteria of Section 384.494(6)(c), the merits of the proposal, and the district need demonstrated by the applicant. At final hearing, VNA, through its expert in need analysis for purposes of CON review, Sharon Gordon-Girvin. Presented two numeric methodologies to calculate need in District III. The method represented as the state's policy or "approach" for determining need was based upon an invalidated proposed rule which is no longer utilized by HRS and which, although pronounced reasonable" by both Ms. Gordon-Girvin and Respondent's spokesman, Reid Jaffee, cannot be legitimately used here as a reasonable methodology. (See Conclusions of Law. The other methodology presented by Gordon-Girvin was the District III Health Council need methodology. Gordon-Girvin and Jaffee each opined that District III's methodology is a very conservative procedure because of its use of a 5 year horizon line to project home health agency need. It is applied on a county by county basis and reveals a need on each of Alachua, Columbia, Hamilton, Lake and Marion counties for 1989. Jaffee concedes these foregoing figures. The plan also reveals a net need in 1987 for an additional agency in Alachua, Lake, Hamilton, and Columbia counties and in 1988 for an additional agency in Alachua, Lake, Hamilton, Columbia, and Marion counties. The District III Health Plan provides for a separate sub-district for each county. However, a county basis for subdistricting District III is not required by statute or rule and no part of the District III Health Plan has been adopted by HRS as a rule. The SAAR addressed the entire district as the service area. Although District III's need methodology does not establish a need for a home health agency for every county within the District, it provides that there are some circumstances in which the local need methodology may be set aside. District III's Review Guidelines provide that additional home health agencies may be granted certificates of need for counties within District III if certain circumstances are documented. The Review Guidelines propose that if residents of a specific area have not had access to home health services for the past calendar year preceding the proposal for new services or residents of a county have not had access to home health services for the past calendar year preceding the proposal for new services due to a patient's ability to pay or source of payment and the CON applicant documents an ability and willingness to accept patients regardless of payment source or ability to pay, the applicant may be approved as an additional home health agency. Although not a rule, this portion of the District III Health Plan is probative of need. In the absence of numeric need, it recommends additional home health agencies based upon a demonstration of unmet need for Medicaid and indigent patients. As of the date of hearing, HRS resisted granting the CON to VNA primarily because of unspecified prior batched applicants still in litigation (TR 232-233). Applicants in litigation are neither approved nor established and their existence, even had it been demonstrated, which it has not, is irrelevant. HRS' post-hearing proposals submit that neither of the proposed need methodologies suggested by VNA is applicable here. HRS urges the determination that VNA has thereby failed to establish numerical need for an additional District-wide home health agency and further submits that there is no compelment substantial evidence of unmet need for Medicaid and indigent patients. However, by a prehearing stipulation ratified at hearing, HRS agreed that, Although DHRS agrees that there is a need in District III for at least 18 other home health agencies, it contends that VNA should be denied its application because of certain other deficiencies in its proposals. (TR 14) VNA's principal office for HRS Service District VII is in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. HRS witness, Reid Jaffee, was the HRS reviewer of VNA's CON application. He candidly admitted that HRS' initial denial was based in part on his Failure to note the existence of VNA's local base of operations for its proposed home health agency. Most of HRS' concerns and reasoning for denial contained within the SAAP were based upon Mr. Jaffe's erroneous cognitive leap that VNA intended to "cover" the entire 16 county geographic area designated as HRS District I II From its corporate headquarters in District VII. Actually, VNA seeks certification of its existing licensed home health agency in District III. VNA Respite, VNA's existing licensed but non-certified home health agency in Leesburg, Lake County, a county within HRS District III, was established in January, 1985, and licensed in July 1986. Its office has continuously been located in and has operated out of Leesburg, Lake County, Florida, and it has continuously provided, without Medicare reimbursement, the same types of home health services as VNA now proposes to provide for Medicare reimbursement if the sought-for CON is granted. If granted a CON, VNA proposes to initially provide medical home health care services to patients in Lake, Citrus, Sumter, Marion, and Alachua counties. Services will initially be coordinated through the existing office of VNA Respite in Leesburg, Lake County, Florida. VNA would later phase in the remaining counties of District III by establishing another base office located in Alachua County. Reid Jaffee stated HRS probably would not have any cause to oppose the CON on the basis of anticipated geographic problems impinging on feasibility or quality of care if the service area were Lake, Sumter, Citrus, and Marion counties serviced from the existing Leesburg, Lake County base. (TR 256-258). In the first year VNA estimates 6,000 visits. In the second year it estimates 12,000 visits. A visit" is defined as the provision of service to meet the needs of a patient at his place of residence. In their Leesburg office, VNA Respite has received an average of 10 calls per week for Medicare reimbursable services which they currently must turn down. VNA submitted corrected financial information because of some inadvertent errors that had been made in the initial application. This was accepted by HRS and permitted by the Hearing Officer because it did not constitute a substantial amendment. It will cost VNA a maximum of $50,000 in start-up costs to operate in District III, although many of these costs have already been met by VNA Respite's previous and existing presence in Lake County. The initial application mistakenly submitted VNA's actual operating budget for a two year period in the place in the application designated for start-up costs. VNA's charges for a visit in the existing service area would be $55 the first year and $60 per visit the second year. The corrected financials reflect a net income projection of $10,442 in the first year and of $19,078 the second year. The project is financially feasible on both a short and a long term basis. Significant economies of scale will be realized by virtue of VNA's size in District VII which affords and will afford VNA Respite in District III the benefits of centralized accounting, billing, personnel services, nurse education services, and quality assurance programs while the use of VNA Respite in Leesburg as a dispatching base will assume quick, quality responsiveness to District III patients' needs. In the past, VNA has never exceeded Medicare cost caps. The projected costs of the VNA application are less than the cost caps in effect for District III. VNA will be operating cost effectively in District III in part because its cost per visit will be less than the Medicare cap. VNA's proposed home health agency will operate with reasonable efficiency if it is phased in as projected by VNA planners and economic experts. VNA proposes to offer the full six-core range of Medicare reimbursable services. It will provide, among other services, skilled nursing and medical supplies, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, home health aid, and medical social services to patients in their homes. These are now offered out of VNA Respite's Leesburg office but are not Medicare reimbursable without a CON. VNA currently offers and proposes to offer high-tech home health services including enterostomal therapy, psychiatric nursing, parenteral-enteral therapy, and oncology and pediatric services. Additionally, homemakers and medical supply services are offered and are proposed to be offered. They are now, and if the application is granted, will continue to be made available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. VNA proposes a voluntary advocacy program. The program anticipates added support to service elderly patients by coordination of volunteers who make daily telephone calls to the elderly or visit them at home. A similar program is working successfully in VNA's District VII operation at the present time. No other similar program is offered by other existing District III providers. By competent, substantial evidence, VNA has demonstrated considerable community and professional health care provider support for approval of its application. VNA Respite has a modest but positive record of community involvement in the areas of citizen education and continuing medical education. It offers health fairs on a regular basis and offers blood pressure clinics and diabetic screening programs weekly. VNA offers special training programs for home health aides which meet the State criteria. Graduates of the program are then employable by any Florida home health agency. The program is taught by VNA's Director of Education and VNA staff members. VNA offers clinical nursing programs ( internships) to students of the nursing schools of the University of Central Florida and University of Florida for nursing, dietary, and medical social worker master level programs. VNA is also a community-based agency, that is, it is governed by a board of directors which is comprised of community members who without pay, serve on the board and set policy. The District Health Plan, Table Home Health 6 entitled "Estimate of Population in Need of Home Health Services District III 1984 and 1989" reveals that: The licensed and approved home health agencies in District III in 1984 were only able to meet 72 percent of the existing need for home health services in District III. In 1984 only 66 percent of the need for home health services was met by licensed and approved home health agencies in Lake County. In 1984 only 59 percent of the need for home health services was met by licensed and approved home health agencies in Marion County. In 1984 only 58 percent of the need for home health services was met by licensed and approved home health agencies in Alachua County. In 1934 only 51 percent of the need for home health services was met by licensed and approved home health agencies in Sumter County. There was no hint that more recent figures (i.e. figures for the calendar year immediately preceding the proposal) are in existence or available. There is no minimum amount of indigent care required by Statute or rule which must be provided by a Medicare-certified home health agency. VNA committed at formal hearing to serve the following mix of patients by payor class from its VNA Respite base in District III if a CON is granted: 37 percent Medicare; 7.2 percent Insurance; 2.5 percent Medicaid; 2.3 percent Indigent. This revised commitment is more than eight times greater than the other District III home health agencies average commitment of .28 percent for indigent and three times their average for Medicaid patients. There was uncontroverted testimony that occasionally in instances when a patient's funding has been depleted or a patient is temporarily off Medicare for some reason, other District III home health agencies have discontinued all or select services even though the patient was still in need of the services. The VNA Respite office in Leesburg has provided indigent care in many past situations despite its lack of Medicare and Medicaid funding. VNA proposes to expand its service area to include District III in part to meet the need it perceives in District III for a nonprofit charitable home health agency. VNA's application states a commitment to provide totally uncompensated care to indigents. This noble ideal has to be taken with a grain of salt, however. A more realistic commitment is contained in VNA's Mission Statement, which reflects the basic philosophy and direction for VNA. It states that based upon the financial ability of the agency through available charity monies, VNA will provide select services to those patients having medical need regardless of their ability to pay. Absent a greater demonstration of guaranteed public and private beneficiary funding than appears in this record, the former lofty goal cannot be accepted as credible. However, the latter Mission Statement may be taken as a credible and valid commitment which is reasonably capable of fulfillment by VNA Respite for the reasons set out in the next Finding of Fact. VNA's dedication to providing indigent care and its Mission Statement policy have been implemented beyond the ramifications set forth in the Mission Statement through a policy of VNA's board of directors which transfers proceeds from other VNA subsidiaries to meet the service requirements of the certified home health agency. This policy allows VNA to provide more charity care than that for which it has been reimbursed by charitable contributions. VNA is one of only two nonprofit licensed home health agencies in District III. Due to VNA's non- profit status, it has opportunities to obtain charity monies to provide care to patients who have no payment source. In District VII, VNA typically receives monies from the public United Way and other private foundations. VNA`s dedication to service of indigents is reflected by its service in District VII. In District VII, in 1985, 70 percent of all charity visits were provided by VNA, although there were five other certified agencies. VNA maintains a professional advisory group which reviews the voluntary board's policy and VNA's provision of services. Such a professional advisory group is mandated under Medicare. It is made up of physicians and social workers but also includes lay members from the counties served. Qualifications for all members, but particularly for lay membership, was not sufficiently explored at hearing to make it possible to determine how "professional" the advisory group is, but it will be expanded to include representatives from District III counties if a CON is granted. VNA has established several internal departments and agency policies to insure a high quality of the home health services it provides. The intent behind VNA's Quality Assurance Department program is to oversee quality review controls and monitor nursing services through utilization and clinical record reviews to assure adherence to professional standards, corporate goals, and statements of policy (including the Mission Statement.) The evidence as to the implementation of each part of this lofty intent in actual practice in the Leesburg office of VNA Respite is hardly overwhelming, however, VNA has adequately demonstrated by competent substantial evidence that each VNA staff member receives a 3-week orientation upon initial employment and that after 3 months each staff member is evaluated by a quality assurance staff member accompanying the newcomer on home visits to review and verify the newcomer's clinical skills. It is also established that VNA's Community and Staff Education Department trains and orients staff and develops continuing medical education programs as discussed above. VNA publishes and provides its contract nurses and therapists with a detailed Policy and Procedure Manual, thereby providing further quality assurance, uniformity of care, and further staff training beyond that already described. The "track record" of its existing home health agency offices elsewhere provides some further insight for predicting the quality of care to be offered if the present CON application is granted. In 1985, VNA, Inc. made 144,000 visits or 48 percent of the total 297,000 visits made by home health agencies in Orange, Osceola, and Seminole counties. VNA, Inc. was formed in 1951 and has been Medicare-certified since 1966. Annual state licensing surveys conducted for VNA operations in Osceola, Orange and Seminole Counties have revealed either no deficiencies in operations or minimum deficiencies, none of which have ever addressed the quality of care provided. VNA demonstrated that accessibility of residents of certain counties within District III to certain types of core home health services is currently limited, particularly as to certain high-tech services and certain non- traditional forms of nursing. VNA has demonstrated that the 19 existing providers within District III have often failed to render certain types of high- tech and specialty nursing services within District III. It has been stipulated that two of the 19 existing providers have home offices located outside District III. They are Central Florida Home Health Service based in Volusia County and Gulf Coast Home Health Service based in Pinellas County. Lakeview Terrace Christian Retirement's CON and license limit it to providing home health care only to its residents, rather than to the general population of District III. Unfortunately, the evidence of record on the inaccessibility of services does not always follow the same county lines and this factor together with the variation of types of service which are sometimes inaccessible renders reaching any determination with regard to inaccessibility and unmet need on a District- wide basis difficult. The evidence is, however, clear that VNA has received a number of pediatric referrals because of the inability of other home health agencies to provide this nursing service. These remain a continuing need. Another continuing need is for long term intermittent visits which are difficult to obtain in District III, particularly11 for the elderly. Referrals to VNA Respite in District III have also been made from HRS in Lake and Marion Counties because of VNA's proven ability to provide otherwise inaccessible and unavailable high-tech services. Some of these latter referrals are somewhat remote in time from the date of hearing but there was no contrary HRS evidence that these situations of unmet need have alleviated. Seasonal fluctuations of population and the inadequacies of competing home health agency staffs put an increased strain on the existing District III home health agencies' ability to meet the current population's needs. VNA provides nurses specially trained and certified in a variety of the high-tech specialties. For example, VNA Respite in Leesburg offers certified enterstomal therapists, as well as certified intravenous (I.V.) therapy nurses with specialized training. From this specialization, it may be inferred that VNA is able to offer a higher level of care, increase the continuity of patient care, and decrease the amount of time necessary for each home visitation with certain patients within counties within a reasonable radius of Leesburg. VNA's application, as modified, satisfies the applicable planning guidelines established by the most recent District III Plan. There is negligible impact on competition in labor intensive providers such as home health agencies.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that HRS enter a Final Order granting VNA a CON to establish a District-wide home health agency as set forth in the proposal and conditioned upon its fulfilling its 2.3 percent indigent and 2. 5 percent Medicaid percentage commitments and upon phasing in its services in two stages, beginning with its first base at VNA Respite in Leesburg, Lake County. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of May, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 21st day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-3558 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the respective proposed findings of fact (FOF): Petitioners proposed FOF: 1-6 Covered in FOF 1. 8-14 Accepted but as stated subordinate to the facts as found. 15-17 Covered in FOF 16. 18 Accepted but subordinate to the facts as found. 19-21 Covered in FOF 17. Rejected as conclusionary and not supported by credible competent substantial evidence. Covered in FOF 18. Covered in FOF 16. Covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 14. 27-23 Covered in FOF 24. 29 Covered in FOF 18. 30-35 Covered in FOF 24. 36-37 Covered in FOF 18. 38 Rejected as a conclusion of law of facts as found 25-26. 39-40 Covered in FOF 16, 22 and 25. 41-52 Except as covered in FOF 16, 22, and 25-26, these proposals are subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found, or to the degree indicated in those FOF, are not supported by direct competent substantial evidence. 53-55 Except as covered in FOF 3, 25-26, these proposals are subordinate to the facts an found and unnecessary. 56-57 Covered in FOF 19. 58 Rejected as stated as not supported by the direct credible evidence as a whole. 59-68 Covered in FOF 22-23. Covered in FOF 21. Covered in FOF 20. 71-74 Subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found in FOF 21. 75-86 In large part these proposals are irrelevant for the reasons stated in the facts as found; that material which is not irrelevant is CUMULATIVE, subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. Additionally these proposals are so unsatisfactorily numbered or otherwise delineated as to be something apart from proposals of findings of ultimate material fact. See FOF 10, 19, and 27. 87-94 Covered in FOF 15. 95-96 Covered in FOF 14. 97-98 Subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. 99-101 Covered in FOF 15. 102-105 Rejected in part for the reasons set out in FOF 4 and 28 in part as not supported by the record as a whole and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. 106-110 Except as covered in FOF 7-12, 19, 22, and 25, and the conclusions of law (COL), these proposals are rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. 111. Rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. See FOF 2 and 8. 112-118 Except as covered in FOF COL, these proposals are the record as a whole. 7-12, 19, 22, aid 25, and the rejected as not supported by 119 Covered in FOF 2. 120 Covered in FOF 10-12 and the COL. 121-129 Except as covered in FOF 7-12 and 14, rejected as not 1-131 Supported by the record as a whole. Covered in FOF 22 and 25. 132 Covered in FOF 21-23. 133-134 Rejected as conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed FOF: Covered in FOF 2. Covered in FOF 5. Covered in FOF 6. Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2-3. Covered in FOF 16. Covered in FOF 17. Covered in FOF 21. Covered in FOF 3. Covered in FOF 2-3. Covered in FOF 4. Covered in FOF 7. Covered in FOF 8-12. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Leo P. Rock, Jr., Esquire Linda D. Schoonover, Esquire Suite 1200 201 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801 John Rodriguez, Esquire, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the applications for certificates of need to establish Medicare-certified home health agencies filed by Aaction Home Health Care, Inc. (Aaction) and Nursing Unlimited 2000, Inc. (Nursing Unlimited), on balance, satisfy the applicable review criteria so as to entitle either or both to award of a certificate of need.
Findings Of Fact The Applicants Nursing Unlimited 2000, Inc., was formed for the purpose of obtaining a certificate of need for a Medicare certified home health agency, and to serve as the entity into which would be merged certain existing licensed non-Medicare certified home health agencies in Dade County. Aida Salazar-Rebull is a co- founder, director, officer, and shareholder of Nursing Unlimited, and she currently owns, operates, and serves as the administrator of LTC Professional Consultants, Inc. (LTC), a licensed non- Medicare certified home health agency in Dade County. Ms. Salazar will serve as Nursing Unlimited’s administrator, and after CON approval will merge LTC into Nursing Unlimited and continue its current operations. Elia Murias is also a co- founder, director, and shareholder of Nursing Unlimited, and she currently owns and operates Nursing Love & Care, a licensed non- Medicare certified home health agency in Dade County. Upon CON approval, Ms. Murias, a registered nurse, will serve as Nursing Unlimited’s director of nursing, and will merge the operations of Nursing Love & Care into Nursing Unlimited. For the past 12 years LTC has provided home health care services directly to Medicaid and private pay patients, and to Medicare patients through contracts with Medicare certified agencies. LTC is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO), which accreditation will be transferred to Nursing Unlimited. Since its inception, the number of patients served by LTC has increased every year. LTC enjoys an excellent reputation among local health care providers and patients. LTC’s continual growth over the past ten years, coupled with the letters of support in the application, demonstrate a record of providing high quality care to underserved communities and population subgroups. LTC currently provides home health services in northwest, west central, central, and east central Dade County, and as Nursing Unlimited will serve the same geographic area. LTC places particular emphasis on its service to underserved population subgroups such as Hispanics, Haitians, Blacks, low-income clients, and HIV-positive patients. Nursing Unlimited will continue to serve those population subgroups. Although approximately 53 percent of the Dade County population is Latin, only two of the over 30 existing Medicare certified home health agencies are Latin owned and operated. LTC and Nursing Love & Care are Latin owned and operated, as would be Nursing Unlimited. The entire staff of LTC is bilingual, and some staff are multi-lingual, as would be the staff of Nursing Unlimited. Approval of Nursing Unlimited's application would enhance the availability and accessibility of services to the Latin community. Aaction Home Health Care, Inc. (Aaction), is an existing home health care agency providing services in Dade County since approximately 1988. Like Nursing Unlimited, Aaction's target population is the Hispanic community of Miami and Hialeah. The geographical area which Aaction now serves and will continue to serve at an enhanced level, if approved, is a low- income, high crime and low education area. Aaction's success in those difficult areas is based on its ability to recruit and retain indigenous staff who know the problems. Over 30 letters of recommendation and support, mostly from Hispanic physicians, are attached to Aactions's application and attest to the agency's past and anticipated future service in the community. Aaction has applied for JCAHO accreditation. Need Analysis The review of CON applications must be in context with the criteria set forth in Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to the parties’ prehearing stipulation, both applicants satisfy all of the applicable review criteria, except this: The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing home health care services in District 11. Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Aaction and Nursing Unlimited both contend there is a need in District 11 for at least two new or additional Medicare certified home health agencies. Each asserts that both CON applications can and should be approved; their respective applications are not mutually exclusive, and accordingly, they need not be comparatively reviewed with one another. The focus of the sole remaining criterion at issue, Subsection 408.035(1)(b), is on existing home health care providers. As acknowledged by AHCA in its State Agency Action Report (SAAR), in pure numbers the instant CON application proposals would increase availability and access in District 11. There is no AHCA rule formula or methodology to determine a numeric need, nor is there a fixed need pool applicable to this proceeding. In the absence of an Agency numeric need rule, the applicants each proposed reasonable need methodologies within their applications. AHCA did not propose any need methodology at hearing. AHCA's former home health agency numeric need methodology rule was invalidated because it was anti-competitive, understated potential actual need, and failed to consider health care economics, efficiency and cost containment. Principal Nursing v. AHCA, DOAH No. 93-5711RX (Final Order January 26, 1994); AHCA v. Principal Nursing Services, Inc., 650 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (Affirmed the Final Order as to the need methodology, but reversed as to other portions of the rule unrelated to the issues here). Nursing Unlimited, through Michael Schwartz, applied the invalidated need methodology to demonstrate that even under that excessively conservative approach, at least 2 additional home health agencies are needed in District 11. When the applications were filed the most current home health visit utilization data was for calendar year 1994. The number of visits in 1994 was divided by the age 65+ population to determine a use rate, i.e., the number of home health visits per 100,000 population. The 1994 use rate was applied to the projected age 65+ population growth for the three horizon years of 1995-1997, a projection of 102,039 more patient visits in 1997 than there were in 1994, based on population growth alone. Next, Mr. Schwartz determined a cost-efficient agency size (CEAS) by determining from a review of District 11 existing home health agencies the point at which the average cost per home health visit was less than the statewide average cost per visit. In this case, the result was a CEAS of 34,973, which was divided into the number of projected new visits in the horizon year 1997 resulting from population growth alone, which calculation shows a numeric need for three new home health agencies in District 11. At the time the CON application was filed there was one approved, but not yet licensed home health agency, which was subtracted by the applicant from the net need figure, thus resulting in a net need for two new agencies. The recent historical data shows that home health care visits have been on the increase, both in terms of visits per 100,000 population and in terms of visits per patient. The amount of time spent by patients in the hospital is decreasing, which translates into increased need by patients for visits from home health agencies. The need for home health will continue to increase because it is a cost-effective alternative to nursing home placement and hospital care. Home health care services are less costly than care received in hospitals, in nursing homes, or on an outpatient basis. Thus, allowing greater access to home health services should reduce the overall cost of health care to payors, including Medicare. To address this trend Michael Schwartz offered a realistic, yet still conservative, numeric need projection which assumes an increased use rate beyond that which is based on population increase alone. Mr. Schwartz considered the cumulative increase in visits that occurred over the three-year period 1991-1994 and projected this forward to the horizon year of 1997. Although federal Health Care Finance Agency (HCFA) data suggests that visits will grow nationally at seven percent per year. Mr. Schwartz assumed only a seven percent increase over three years, which resulted in a growth of approximately 180,124 visits by 1997, and which divided by the CEAS yields a need for 5.2 new agencies. In hindsight, the conservative nature of this projection is apparent from a review of utilization data which has become available since the filing of the CON application. For example, rather than a growth in visits of 180,000 over the period 1995-1997, there was an actual increase of over 410,000 visits in 1995 and 1996 alone. Utilization data for 1997 is not yet available. Aaction presented three separate need methodologies in its application prepared by Mark Richardson. The first two methodologies applied a static use rate based on visits in 1994 to the projected population to determine total visits at the planning horizon. Recognizing that cost efficiencies maximize at an approximate range between 30,000 and 90,000 visits per year, Aaction divided the total projected visits by a conservative CEAS of 50,000. These methodologies yielded a need in District 11 for two additional home health agencies at the planning horizon. Using a CEAS of 30,000 visits would yield a need for three agencies instead of two. AHCA has recently determined that static use rates are inappropriate. (Allstar Care, Inc., etc. vs. AHCA, DOAH No. 96-4064, Final Order November 4, 1997). Nonetheless, application of over-conservative methodologies in this case can help counter the agency's unsubstantiated assertion that many visits are fraudulent or unnecessary. In its third methodology, Aaction assumed more realistically that home health use rates would continue to increase as suggested by historic data. In order not to overstate the potential growth rate, Aaction used a rate equal to one-half of the 1993-94 actual growth rate. Utilizing a 50,000 visit CEAS, this methodology yields a need of 7 to 9 new home health agencies in District 11 at the planning horizon. Using a 30,000 visit CEAS yields a net need for over 15 new home health agencies. Recalculating the need formulas by application of the now available 1995 and 1996 data, using a growth rate at 50 percent of the actual rate, and a CEAS of 50,000 visits, results in a need for 7 to 8 new agencies. If the static use rate were applied, the need would be 5 to 6 new agencies. Application of Aaction’s initial need methodologies with a static use rate based on 1996 utilization data yields a need for over 5 new agencies when a 50,000 visit CEAS is used. If a 30,000 visit CEAS is utilized, these methodologies yield a net need for 9 new home health agencies. Applying Aaction’s third methodology (i.e., utilization projected to increase at 50 percent of the actual increase between 1995 and 1996) yields a net need for over 7 or over 12 new agencies, depending on whether a 50,000 visit or 30,000 visit CEAS is applied. There are other indications of need for additional home health agencies in District 11. For example, a review of 1996 utilization data reveals that District 11 has only 1.7 home health agencies per 100,000 population, which is the lowest ratio of any district in the state. The average of all districts is 2.4 home health agencies per 100,000 population. Both applicants proposed fair and reasonable need methodologies which demonstrate a need in District 11 for at least 2 additional home health agencies, and potentially more. There is, therefore, a need for at least 2 more Medicare- certified home health agencies in District 11. Approval of both applications will increase the availability and accessibility of home health services in the proposed service areas within Dade County. Home health services are typically delivered in close proximity to the location of the agency and providers. Nursing Unlimited’s agency location is in the center of a large Latin and Haitian population, with the nearest Medicare certified home health agency approximately 15 miles away. Aaction's commitment is to a population that is difficult to serve. Local population accessibility to the proposed home health services would be increased by approval of both applications. Medicare-certified agencies apply their own admission criteria and decide whether to accept patients, leaving some patients in need and without access to services in the applicants' service area. An informal survey directed by Michael Schwartz suggests there are existing agencies which refuse to treat AIDS patients, that do not provide services at night and on weekends, and that refuse to treat people in poverty areas. The targeted Medicare-eligible population would enjoy enhanced accessibility and availability of home health services by both applicants, if approved. The addition to the district of a Medicare-certified home health agency (Nursing Unlimited) which utilizes a JCAHO- approved centralized case management system would also tend to enhance the availability, accessibility, and adequacy of services provided in the district. When non-Medicare-certified agencies receive a request to care for Medicare patients, the request must be forwarded to a Medicare-certified entity, which in turn will contact the patient. The non-Medicare agency may then be authorized under subcontract to contact and serve the patient and to bill the Medicare-certified agency for its services. In turn, the Medicare-certified agency will add on its overhead and forward a higher bill to Medicare. This process also results in delays in patient treatment. Approval of these applications would likely result in better patient care, without delays, and at lower costs. AHCA has determined that eliminating such subcontract arrangements will eliminate an unnecessary level of administrative costs. AHCA also discourages subcontract arrangements which remove direct control of patient care from the Medicare certified entity. See Allstar Care, supra. District 11 home health visits increased by 410,000 visits in 1995 and 1996. A projection of 600,000 new visits during 1995 through 1997 is reasonable. Nursing Unlimited and Aaction each project approximately 25,000 visits during their second year of operation. Approval of these applicants would not adversely impact the utilization of existing home health providers in the district. Both applicants here will specifically enhance access by the needy Hispanic population. AHCA offered no competent evidence to contradict the conclusions of the applicants' experts, nor did it effectively challenge the accuracy, validity, or reliability of the methodologies they employed. AHCA's expert and sole witness, James McLemore, is an application review specialist who candidly admitted he has no experience in the development of need methodologies but relies instead on the expertise of health care planners such as Mr. Schwartz or Mr. Richardson. Mr. McLemore's anecdotal testimony regarding fraudulent or phantom visits, and AHCA's concern that both state and federal agencies are investigating fraud in the home health care business, raise compelling licensing issues but are insufficient to defeat otherwise convincing evidence in favor of these certificates of need.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter its final order granting CON No. 8428 to Nursing Unlimited 2000, Inc. and CON No. 8432 to Aaction Home Health Care, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Manthei Broad and Cassel 1130 Broward Financial Center 500 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Moses E. Williams Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3400 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 R. David Prescott Ruthledge Ecenia Underwood Purnell and Hoffman, P.A. Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether a license should be issued to the Intervenor to operate a home health agency in Palm Beach County, Florida. Intervenor contends that it is not required to obtain a Certificate of Need to operate in Palm Beach County because it is excluded from Certificate of Need requirements by a "grandfathering" provision. Petitioner contends that the Intervenor is not exempt from the requirement of obtaining a Certificate of Need and that a license should not have been issued allowing Petitioner to operate in Palm Beach County. Intervenor contends that Petitioner has no standing to attack Intervenor's license and that the Petition for Hearing was not filed in a timely manner.
Findings Of Fact This proceeding is an offshoot of a long and bitter feud between former business partners. Two couples, the Collisters and the Schacks, together established a home health agency that provided services in Broward County, Florida. The agency was set up to provide skilled nursing and other therapeutic services to homebound patients in their place of residence. The agency was incorporated as "A Associated Home Health Agency, Inc." on February 26, 1974. It thereafter provided services to homebound patients in Broward County. To facilitate payments for the agency's Medicare or Medicaid patients, the agency obtained a provider identification number from the Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The federal department issued the agency Provider Identification No. 10-7093. Sometime in late 1974 or early in 1975, the agency opened an office in Palm Beach County and began serving patients there. The Broward County office operated as the parent office of the Palm Beach County office. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued provider No. 10-7305 to the Palm Beach office operating as a suboffice of the Broward County office. The provider number was issued to the Palm Beach County office on June 18, 1975. The relationship between the Schacks and the Collisters deteriorated shortly after the expansion into Palm Beach County. The Schacks were operating the Broward County office, and the Collisters were operating the Palm Beach County office. The two offices began to operate independently of each other from the point of view of day-to-day operations beginning in December, 1975, when an accountant was hired for the Palm Beach County office. From then on, agency patients in Broward County were served by the Schacks, operating out of the Broward County office. Agency clients in Palm Beach County were served by the Collisters, operating out of the Palm Beach County office. For more than a year after December, 1974, the parties continued to operate legally as A Associated Home Health Agency, Inc., with a parent office in Broward County and a suboffice in Palm Beach County. While this was their legal umbrella, the parties operated independently of each other subsequent to December, 1974. The parties were unable to work out a settlement of their difficulties. There is some question as to whether they both ever signed any document that outlined how an ultimate separation should occur. Whether they both signed it or not, the parties acted as if a memorandum dated February 18, 1976, set the terms of their separation. Under this memorandum, the Schacks agreed not to compete in Palm Beach County, and the Collisters agreed not to compete in Broward County. Basically, each office would retain its balance sheets for November 30, 1975. The Broward office would be allowed to keep the logo, and the Palm Beach County office would keep the existing corporation. The Broward County office would form a new corporation. The Schacks filed Articles of Incorporation for a new corporation on June 30, 1976. The Certificate of Incorporation was issued July 1, 1976. The Schacks incorporated as "Associated Home Health Agency, Inc." Thereafter, the Collisters continued to operate in Palm Beach County as "A Associated Home Health Agency, Inc." (Petitioner). The Schacks continued to operate in Broward County, Florida, as "Associated Home Health Agency, Inc." (Intervenor). The parties had not entered into any agreement as to who would retain the provider identification numbers that had been issued by the Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The Palm Beach County office could not continue to operate under Provider No. 10-7305 because it was a provider number for a suboffice. After July 1, 1976, the Palm Beach County office could not have been considered a suboffice of the Broward County office. The parties apparently quarreled about this with the federal agency. The federal agency recognized that the original provider number (10-7093) could have been assigned to the original corporation, then housed in Palm Beach County. In order to minimize confusion, however, it assigned the original provider number to Intervenor and issued a new provider number (10-7154) to Petitioner. It appears that the federal agency's reason for assigning the original provider number to the Intervenor was simply to avoid confusion. It does not appear that the federal agency had any intention of granting any special rights to either party by choosing to assign the original provider number to Intervenor. The Schacks and the Collisters operated thereafter for some years without bothering each other. The Intervenor annually applied for licensure to operate in Broward County in 1978 and 1979. In 1980, however, despite its covenant not to compete in Palm Beach County, the Intervenor applied for a license to operate in Broward, Dade and Palm Beach Counties. The application was denied. The Intervenor did the same thing with respect to the year June 1, 1981, to May 31, 1982. This application was also denied. Intervenor did the same thing for the June 1, 1982, to June 30, 1983, year. Intervenor's application for licensure in Dade and Palm Beach Counties was denied by letter dated May 5, 1982. Intervenor requested an administrative hearing to challenge that denial. Intervenor provided some additional documentation to the Department and ultimately submitted a new application to be licensed to operate in Palm Beach County. The Department issued a license allowing Intervenor to operate In Broward and Palm Beach Counties on July 8, 1982. The executive director of the Petitioner became aware sometime in July, 1982, that Intervenor was operating in Palm Beach County. He wrote to the Department, which replied that on July 8, 1982, Palm Beach County was added to the service area of Intervenor. The Department's reply was dated July 19, 1982. It did not advise Petitioner that it had any right to a hearing respecting the licensure of Intervenor in Palm Beach County. Through counsel, Petitioner requested a clarification and stated that misrepresentations had been made in Intervenor's application. Further correspondence with the Department did not generate any explanation until, by letter dated October 26, 1982, the Department advised Petitioner that it had a right to request an administrative hearing with regard to the licensure of Intervenor in Palm Beach County. This letter was the first notification to Petitioner that it had a right to hearing with respect to Intervenor's licensure in Palm Beach County. The letter advised Petitioner that it could request a hearing within thirty days of receipt of the letter. Petitioner requested a formal hearing within that period and also filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Circuit Court in Leon County, Florida. Upon the filing of the request for hearing, the Department forwarded the matter to the office of the Division of Administrative Hearings, and this proceeding ensued. The Intervenor has been operating in Palm Beach County since the Department issued a license on Jul 8, 1982. Petitioner has suffered a loss of business and a loss of revenue as a result of Intervenor's operations in Palm Beach County. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that Intervenor has suffered from its reliance upon licensure by the Department so that the Department should now be estopped from denying licensure in Palm Beach County. While money has been spent to set up Intervenor's business in Palm Beach County, it was not Intervenor's money. There is no evidence that Intervenor or any government agency made any expenditures for Intervenor to operate in Palm Beach County prior to the time that Petitioner requested a hearing. Furthermore, it was Intervenor itself which euchred the Department into issuing a license without notifying Petitioner and others. In its application for licensure to operate in Palm Beach County, Intervenor stretched the facts and stated that it had done business in Palm Beach County prior to April 30, 1976. This was not true.
The Issue Pursuant to the Stipulation, the factual issues to be determined are: Whether DHRS' initial agency action in denying CON #4912 to Home Care was substantially justified; Whether special circumstances existed which would make an award of fees and costs unjust. Whether this action was initiated by a state agency within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)3, Florida Statutes. The ultimate issue for determination is whether Petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act (FEAJA), for fees and costs incurred in DOAH Case No. 87-2150.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to a Stipulation entered into by the parties, filed on November 10, 1988, the parties have admitted and/or stipulated that: DHRS' initial agency action was to deny CON #4911 to Home Care for the establishment of a Medicare home health agency to serve patients in Walton and Okaloosa Counties, Florida. After preliminarily denying Home Care's CON application, DHRS was required by statute or rule to provide Home Care with a clear point of entry to a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Home Care's Petition for Attorney's Fees was timely filed after Respondent, DHRS, filed a Final Order in this case on July 26, 1988, sustaining Home Care's position that it should be awarded CON #4911. Home Care is a "small business party" within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(d)1.b., Florida Statutes. Home Care is a "prevailing party" within the meaning of section 57.111(3)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Home Care incurred reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in Case No. 87- 2150, at least in the amount of $15,000. The following findings are based upon the record presented: Home Care filed its timely petition in this fee case after Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS") entered a final Order on July 26, 1988, in Case No. 87-2150 granting Home Care a certificate of need ("CON") to operate a home health agency. DHRS' Final Order was a reversal of its original position on Home Care's application which was initially denied by DHRS. A formal administrative hearing was held before the undersigned on the issue of whether Home Care was entitled to a CON. The pleadings, transcripts, and exhibits in that proceeding, Case No. 87-2150, have been duly considered in regard to whether DHRS' actions were substantially justified in initially denying Home Care's application. The parties have stipulated that those documents shall constitute part of the record in this proceeding. The following findings are based upon the record in Case 87-2150 and the findings made in the Recommended Order entered in that case and adopted by the agency's final order. DHRS is the state agency responsible for administering the State Health Planning Act pursuant to Sections 381.701 through 381.715, Florida Statutes. (a) At the time DHRS denied this application, it did not have any published rule or policy on the methodology for determining need. Its original rule was successfully challenged and in 1984 DHRS attempted to promulgate a new rule. This proposed rule was invalidated in 1985 because it was based upon a use rate methodology and contained arbitrary criteria. Subsequently, DHRS published an interim policy which it used to assess home health care CON applications. The interim policy was applied to the first batch of applications in 1986 and used a rate population methodology which projected the number of Medicare enrollees using home health care services. The projected number of users was multiplied by the average number of visits per medicare home health care user. See Paragraph 15 of Recommended Order, Case No. 88-4763F. This interim policy was defended by DHRS in the First DCA in December 1986. In the summer of 1986, representatives of the Florida Association of Home Heath Agencies complained to the governor's office about the interim policy. After meetings between the staff of DHRS and the Governor's office, the Department abandoned the interim policy. No change occurred in the medical or financial factors which would warrant a change in policy. Additional applications had to be approved by Ms. Hardy's superiors. Home Care filed a Letter of Intent on October 8, 1986, and a CON application for a Medicare-certified home health agency in Okaloosa and Walton Counties on December 15, 1986. This was application CON Action No. 4911. DHRS published its notice of denial of CON Action No. 4911 in a letter to counsel for Home Care dated April 30, 1987. No specifics were given regarding the grounds for denial. Applicants at that time had been asked to give DHRS an unlimited extension of time within which to render a decision on their applications. Those who refused had their applications denied and were required, similar to Home Care, to demonstrate an unmet need based upon the broad statutory criteria found in Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. DHRS characterizes the procedure above as a free form action utilizing the statutory criteria found in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. DHRS argued in Case No. 87-2150 that its incipient policy looks at the actual need by applying the 13 statutory criteria and bases its conclusion upon information collected from local home health service providers and the local health council. The denial of Home Care's application by DHRS does not state how DHRS applied the statutes to Home Care's application in order that Home Care or others could ascertain a developing standard. DHRS admitted that it did not have any rule upon which to adjudicate the application and DHRS did not present any credible evidence in support of its denial in Case No. 87-2150. DHRS did not adduce evidence supporting its denial because it was DHRS' policy to place the burden of proving both the facts and the methodology on the applicant. The deposition of Joseph Mitchell was introduced and made a part of this record. Mitchell's testimony is clear that, although there is a possibility Home Care could recoup some portion of the costs of litigation in medicare reimbursement as a cost of organizing and establishing the business, it is not certain that Home Care would be compensated because there is a cap on all reimbursable costs above which Medicare will not reimburse a provider and such legal expenses might not be allowed. See Deposition of Mitchell, page 76-78. Intervenors Choctaw Valley Home Health Agency and Northwest Florida Home Health Agency submitted a proposed order in this action seeking a dismissal of Home Care's petition for attorneys' fee and costs as to any relief from the Intervenors.
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services should grant petitioners' applications for certificates of need for the establishment of Medicare certified home health agencies in Hillsborough and Polk Counties, Florida.
Findings Of Fact HRS thereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact set forth in the recommended order except for the last sentence of paragraph 32 and paragraph 33. See discussion in ruling on exceptions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of laws, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order granting and issuing CON Nos. 3605 and 3606 to Medical Personnel Pool. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, 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 25th day of April, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner J & J seeks a Certificate of Need to establish a new home health agency in the Tampa Bay area to serve the residents of Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, and Manatee Counties for an estimated project cost of $85,000. All necessary funding for the project is to be supplied by petitioner's parent, Johnson and Johnson. It is the expressed intent of J & J to provide only specialized patient services in the home to those patients who are acutely ill and in need of intensive or intermediate level clinical services in lieu of hospitalization. J & J intends to serve early hospital discharge patients who require more than single follow-up or maintenance care after discharge. It does not seek to provide maintenance-level care to patients, and would refer such patients to another home health agency. J & J does not intend to become a part of hospital rotation lists utilized to refer the less acutely ill homebound patient to a home health agency. J & J proposes to hire full-time clinical specialty certified registered nurses to provide services to ten general categories of patients. The specific diagnoses or treatment modalities which J & J expects to provide include cerebrovascular accident (CVA or stroke) with and without paralysis, oncology and chemotherapy, hyperalimentation, enteral therapy, respiratory therapy, intravenous antibiotics, other nutritional services and neuro-ortho. These proposed services are intended to be a replacement for more expensive in- hospital health care. J & J intends to accept only those patients within the above classifications who are sick enough to require home health care in lieu of hospitalization, and not those who can be treated strictly on an outpatient basis. The key factor for acceptance of a patient by J & J is not the diagnosis of the patient, but is the patient's acuity level. J & J has an ongoing research program to develop additional clinical specialty home health services based upon physician input, technical developments end patient needs. One of its reasons for establishing a home health agency in the Tampa Bay area is because J & J's national corporate headquarters are to be located in Tampa and this proximity would facilitate its research and development efforts. J & J has staffed its existing home health agencies in Texas and California, and proposes to staff its Tampa agency, with full-time nurses with acute care experience. Orientation continuing education programs for nurses are planned. The nurses are to be either certified as clinical specialists or develop their clinical expertise through J & J's own internal privileging program. The proposed new agency, as do the existing Texas and California agencies, will have its own pharmacist, therapists, dieticians, social workers and certified home health aides. It will also operate its own pharmacy and will provide and deliver durable medical equipment and supplies. Nurses will be on duty and/or on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As noted above,' J & J seeks to serve those patients who require special expertise in their care. Planning for discharge will begin during the patient's hospitalization and there will be a patient screening process before a patient is accepted. An assessment of the patient's home and family life will be made to determine that conditions are suitable for treatment and recovery at home. A registered nurse is to be assigned as the "primary nurse" to coordinate the patient's plan of care with the clinical specialist, therapists and physician. The patient's physician is to be given a weekly report of the patient's progress. An elaborate charting and recordkeeping system is anticipated and is provided at J & J's existing home health agencies. A prospective, con current and retrospective quality assurance program is to be instituted which involves a quarterly internal review and a utilization review by physicians. Based upon statistics which illustrate that 26,800 patients for every one million population group are discharged annually in the ten classifications which J & J seeks to serve, J & J predicts it can treat 1,430 patients per year in the four- county area. These figures are based on nationwide statistics and are not site-specific to the four-county area. J & J presently owns and operates three existing agencies in Texas and California. Certificates of need for home health agencies are not required in those states. The Dallas/Ft. Worth center opened on April 4, 1983, and had, as of the time of the hearing in this matter, a daily patient census of 70. The Houston center opened on April 11, 1983, and had a daily patient census of 60. The daily patient census at the Los Angeles center, which opened on July 6, 1983, was 60. These existing agencies also accept only specialty care patients who can receive services in lieu of hospitalization. The Texas centers have rejected as many as 47 percent of their referrals because the patients either did not meet the medical criteria for the J & J system, because of their home situation or, in some instances, because of financial reasons. In California, the charge for a visit by a registered nurse is $75.00, while the charge for a therapist visit is $65.00. The charges in both Texas centers are, and the proposed Florida center will be, $65.00 for a registered nurse's visit and $55.00 for a therapist's visit. All these charges are higher than the current cap or limit for Medicare reimbursement. The Petitioner's projected cost for an R.N. visit is $52.40. This cost is higher than the current Medicare cost cap for skilled nursing services. After the Florida four-county agency becomes fully operational, J & J projects that only 23 percent of the patients it serves will be Medicare patients. It is anticipated that the remaining patients will be primarily private pay, privately insured or self-insured patients who will be attracted to the J & J program because of its cost-savings potential. The existing operations in Texas and California serve 60 to 70 percent Medicare patients. These percentages are expected to decline due to J & J's efforts to educate and convince private reimbursers to use J & J's services in lieu of hospitalization. A large public relations firm has been retained by J & J to communicate with insurers end the medical community regarding the benefits of clinical, specialized home health care, especially as a replacement for hospital care. The patient mix of most of the existing licensed home health agencies in the four-county area is in excess of 95 percent Medicare. A license and certificate of need are only required under Florida law for home health agencies which serve Medicare patients. At least some of the existing agencies have accordingly severed their operations into those which serve and those which do not serve the Medicare patient. J & J does not believe it would be feasible to open its four-county agency as an unlicensed and uncertificated agency to serve only private pay patients because it believes that licensure will be helpful in convincing private insurers to use its agency. Also, a patient may begin his treatment as a non-Medicare patient, but bay later qualify for such benefits, and J & J desires to provide a continuity of treatment. Although J & J's proposed charges and costs are higher then the Medicare reimbursement system currently allows, J & J will attempt to obtain a waiver of the Medicare cap by demonstrating the highly specialized nature of the services it provides and by illustrating that J & J's home health care is in lieu of more expensive hospital care. Although J & J does not plan to serve all patients regardless of their ability to pay, it has and will continue to provide care to indigent and medically indigent patients. Approximately 20 such patients have been served in the existing agencies in Texas and California. There are approximately thirteen licensed home health agencies in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco end Manatee Counties. Eleven of these agencies are members of FAHHA, a voluntary association whose membership is comprised of home health agencies licensed by the State of Florida. Though some of the existing agencies have expanded their operations by the opening of new submits in other areas, there have been no Certificates of Need issued to any new home health agency in the four-county area since 1978. The intervenor Gulf Coast provides home health services in Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties, as well as Hernando County, through six different offices. In addition to providing maintenance and homemaker services to its patients, Gulf Coast provides most, if not all, the same specialty services proposed by J & J. Their patients include CVA patients with and without paralysis, oncology patients of which two are receiving I.V. chemotherapy at home and several hyperalimentation patients. Gulf Coast provides enteral and respiratory therapy, as well as I.V. antibiotic services. Its staff, which includes approximately 90 professionals, 140 ancillary staff and 50 contract personnel, includes socialists in the areas of pulmonary nursing, enterostomal therapy, oncology and psychiatric nursing. Gulf Coast has recently started an I.V. certification program for its nurses. Approximately one-third of the nurses have bad a year or more of prior experience in critical care units. A registered nurse is on-call 24 hours a day. Quality control assurances include monthly utilization review, both in-house and by a physician. Gulf Coast makes arrangements with local vendors and suppliers for all durable medical equipment and pharmaceutical supplies needed by its patients. It has experienced an annual growth in its average daily census of between 15 and 20 percent, and its administrators feel that it has the capacity to expand its services, even with its present staff, in the event of greater demand for the more specialty-type services proposed by J & J. Gulf Coast's current Medicare cost cap for registered nursing services is approximately $48 to $50 per visit. Its actual costs for such services, for which it is reimbursed, are approximately $37 or $38 per visit. The Intervenor Manasota is one of six licensed home health agencies in Manatee County. All its patients are Medicare patients, and some 70 percent of its referrals are hospital referrals from the two existing hospitals in Manatee County-- Manatee Memorial Hospital and Blake Hospital. In addition to maintenance level and homemaker services, Manasota has provided more specialized services to patients including nasogastric, gastrostomy, stomal, enterostomal and I.V. antibiotic therapy. It has the staff and capacity to provide chemotherapy and hyperalimentation, but has not bed any physician request for those services for their patients. Manasota has experienced a significant decline in the number of new patients it has admitted end in its average daily census. This appears to be related to the reduction in the number of discharges from Manatee Memorial Hospital and the fact that Blake Hospital owns its own home health agency. The decrease in patient census et Manasota has resulted in an increase in its cost per visit from $32.50 to $41.00 per visit. The Medicare cost cap for Manasota is approximately $44.30. Manasota has the capacity to expand to serve an increased number of Medicare patients. Blake Home Health is affiliated with Blake Hospital in Manatee County, and receives 75 percent of its referrals therefrom. It is the policy of Blake Hospital to refer all discharged hospital patients who require home health care to Blake Home Health unless the attending physician has specifically designated a different agency. Blake is available to serve its patients 24 hours a day end has access to the hospital pharmacy. It presently renders services in the areas of enteral, stomal end parenteral therapy and handles cerebrovescular cases. While nurses are available to Blake Home Health to perform I.V. antibiotic therapy and chemotherapy, Blake has never been requested to perform such services. Independent Home Health is an existing licensed home health agency located in Clearwater, and was recently purchased by Morton Plant Hospital. Independent presently provides and has performed all the specialized, home health services proposed by J & J. It operates 24 hours a day, with a nurse on call after 5:00 p.m. Its quality assurance program involves a monthly nursing audit and quarterly utilization review by a physician. Its charge for nursing services is $40 per visit. Independent has the ability to expand to provide further services. Global Home Health Services, Inc. has five offices in the four-county area, with a total average daily census of approximately 400. Global performs almost all of the specialized services proposed by J & J and has never had a request for services in those categories that it was unable to fulfill. The number of patients receiving home chemotherapy and hyperalimentation is very few, due to lack of demand for such services. It is open seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Global charges $47.00 per nursing visit, and makes all arrangements for the ordering and delivery of supplies, durable medical equipment and pharmaceuticals. Global has the ability, even with its present staff to serve 20 or 305 more patients and to expand the range of services it presently provides. The Visiting Nurses Association of Hillsborough County (VNA) is a public non-profit home health agency that serves any patient regardless of age, race or ability to pay. It provides all the services which J & J proposes to offer, although only about 3 percent of its total patients receive these specialized services. The VNA has its own continuing education programs and also conducts training programs for other home health agencies, specifically in the areas of I.V. chemotherapy and I.V. antibiotics. VNA offers 24-hour services, and has the ability and capacity to expand to meet any increased need or demand for home health services. Its cost per nursing visit is about $29, and it charges $35 per visit. Its average patient census 1as increased from 212 in 1980 to 720 in 1983. The existing agencies rely heavily on referrals from hospital rotation lists. None of the existing agencies about which evidence was adduced at the hearing have their own pharmacy or durable medical equipment or supply services. Many agencies, if not most, use some independent contractor, therapists on an as-needed basis. While each of the existing agencies experienced a growth in their average daily census in the Veers between 1980 and 1983, some agencies experienced a slight decrease in the number of patients and visits during the six months immediately prior to the hearing. Increased home health utilization in the future is suggested due to the new Medicare reimbursement system for hospitals. This system is based upon diagnostic-related groups (DRG's) and the amount of reimbursement is based upon the average length of stay for a given diagnosis, regardless of the patient's actual length of stay. The former system reimbursed hospitals for their actual costs of treating a patient. The DRG system will provide hospitals with the financial incentive to discharge patients at the earliest possible point. It can be expected that demand for home health care services for more acutely ill early discharge patients will increase. Officials responsible for discharging patients from Tampa General Hospital and St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa were of the opinion that the existing home health agencies in Hillsborough County were doing a fine job in providing follow-up care of both chronically ill patients end those patients who are acutely ill with a good prognosis. While these persons were in favor of the adequate provision of more advanced and intensive home health care, they believe that their current needs are being met by the existing agencies.
The Issue The issues concern the question of the entitlement of Petitioner to the grant of a certificate of need (CON) to provide home health services in District III.
Findings Of Fact On December 15, 1986, Petitioner made application for a certificate of need (CON) to provide home health services in Citrus County, Florida. That application was denied by Respondent on December 14, 1987. The basis for denial as set out in Respondent's State Agency Action Report (SAAR) was to the effect that there was no demonstrated need when resort was made to the methodology suggested by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council in its 1986 District III Health Plan. (At that time Respondent did not have a methodology for determining need). It was felt that some advantage might be gained in serving the needs of underserved groups; however, there was limited information to demonstrate that existing home health agencies in the county could not meet the demands for service. Finally, it was stated that the referral agreement between Petitioner, as a source of clients from its hospital operation, and Intervenor as an existing home health care provider, to include use of Petitioner's employees in the provision of care, care which was as "hi-tech", as Petitioner could provide, was sufficient. Following the application denial, Petitioner filed a timely request for formal hearing under the authority set forth in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On February 17, 1988, Intervenor was allowed to intervene. Given that the Respondent did not have a rule methodology in place to consider this application when first filed or at the point in time where the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration, on May 12, 1988, Respondent moved, unopposed, to have the case returned to the agency to await the promulgation of a new home health rule. The motion was granted. On September 12, 1988, the new rule became effective as Rule 10- 5.011(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Which provided as follows: (d) Medicare Certified Home Health Agencies. Definitions. Home Health Agency. A home health agency is defined as a Medicare certified home health agency in accordance with subsection 381.702(10), F.S. Home Health Services. Home Health Services are defined in accordance with subsection 400.462(3), F.S. Home Health Services Provider. For the purpose of this rule, a home health services provider is defined as the person or corporate entity to which the certificate of need or license is issued. District. District means a service district of the department as established in subsection 20.19(5), F.S. Service Area. A certificate of need for the establishment of a home health agency shall authorize a home health services provider to locate a home health agency and serve persons anywhere within the district for which the certificate of need is awarded. Planning Horizon. The planning horizon is the anticipated time frame within which the agency is expected to be licensed. The planning horizon for applications submitted between January 1 and June 30 of each year, shall be July of the following year; the planning horizon for applications submitted between July 1 and December 31 of each year shall be January of the year following the year subsequent to the application deadline. Approved Home Health Agency. For the purpose of this rule, an approved home health agency is defined as a new agency within the district which holds a valid certificate of need and has not been licensed by the department one moth prior to the publication date of the semi-annual fixed need pool. Persons or corporations who do not operate Medicare certified home health agency in the district and are the holder of one or more certificate of need approvals within the same district, shall only be counted as one approval. Persons or corporations who do operate a Medicare certified home health agency in the district and are also the holder of a certificate of need approval for the same district, shall not be counted in the inventory of approved agencies. Quality of Care. Home health agencies regulated under this rule shall meet the minimum of care standards contained in HRS rules 10D-68, F.A.C. Need Methodology. The establishment of a home health agency by a provider who does not currently operate a Medicare certified home health agency in a district, shall require a certificate of need for the operation of a Medicare certified home health agency in the district. Applications for home health agencies shall be reviewed against all applicable statutory and related rule criteria. Applications for home health agencies shall not normally be approved unless a need is indicated in accordance with the formula under paragraph 3. The establishment of additional Medicare certified home health agencies, additional offices, mail drops, or any other physical presence by a Medicare certified home health services provider within the same district is not subject to a certificate of need. The need for the establishment of a new home health agency within the HRS district shall be determined twice a year. The net need for new Medicare home health agencies in each HRS district is calculated as follows: HHNN = ((PHHV - AHHV)/CEAS) - AHH Where: HHNN equals the Medicare certified home health agency net need. PHHV equals the projected number of home health agency visits for the respective district and planning horizon. The projected number of home health agency visits is calculated by multiplying the number of home health visits per 1000 population 65 years and over provided by the Medicare certified agencies in the district for the most recent year for which data available, by the projected population 65 years and over for the respective district. The population projections shall be based on the population projects issued by the Executive Office of the Governor available to the department 1 month prior to the publication date of the semi- annual fixed pool. AHHV equals the actual number of home health agency visits provided by all Medicare certified home health agencies in the district based on cost report data obtained from Medicare Intermediaries for the most recent year available to the department 1 month prior to the publication date of the semi-annual fixed need pool as specified in Rule 10-5.008(2), F.A.C. CEAS is the cost efficient agency size in numbers of visits at which economy of scale is achieved according to the data available to the department. If the fraction (PHHV - AHHV)/CEAS is .5 or exceeds .5, the fraction shall be rounded upward to the nearest whole number. CEAS shall be updated by the department annually and shall be determined by the department according to the following methodology: Rank all agencies by visit size, excluding hospital-based agencies. calculate the average cost for all visits for each remaining agency. Calculate the mean visit cost for all agencies, excluding hospital-based agencies, and two standard deviations from the mean for the remaining agencies. Eliminate agencies with average visit costs at or exceeding two standard deviations above and below the mean visit cost from further calculations. Array remaining agencies by visit size from low to high, and sort agencies into 4 groupings by visit size containing an equal or similar number of agencies, and calculate the mean cost for each groupings. Calculate the percentage reduction, if any, in mean visit cost for each grouping as compared to the previous grouping. Identify the agency size groupings which have a mean visit cost reduction of 5 percent or more compared to the mean visit cost of the previous groupings. Select the agency size grouping for which the last 5 percent or more reduction in mean visit cost is achieved prior to a grouping for which a less than 5 percent reduction is achieved as compared to the previous grouping and determine the median agency size for this grouping rounded to the nearest thousand. This agency size is defined as CEAS. AHH equals the number of approved home health agencies in the district. Preference shall be given to applicants proposing to provide home health care services to indigent persons and Medicaid patients. Preference shall be given to applicants proposing a comprehensive range of home health services if it is determined by the department that certain types of services are unavailable or that there is a shortage of certain types of home health service. Preference shall be given to applicants proposing to provide home health services and establish a physical presence underserved areas of the district. Data Reporting Requirements. Home health agencies regulated under this rule shall provide the following information to the department or its designee. The information shall be provided for the same reporting period covered by the annual cost reports submitted to the Medicare Intermediaries, and shall be submitted to the department or its designee at the same time the annual cost report is submitted to the Medicare Intermediary. The total number of patients served less than 65 years of age and 65 years of age and over by county of residence. The total number of visits provided by type of service. The total number of patients served by payment source including Medicaid, Medicare, and uncompensated care. As can be seen, this rule considers the need question district-wide as opposed to a county-by-county analysis in effect at the time of application by Petitioner. District III, which contains Citrus County, has fifteen other counties. The rule in its text is not found to be applicable per se to this application, although its underlying concepts arguably have an influence on the case outcome. While the Petitioner and Respondent urge that the rule does-have retroactive effect and the Intervenor disagrees, all parties acknowledge the logistical awkwardness of trying to employ the rule's terms in a literal sense. In fact, the rule cannot be used as it is written, for reasons to be explained and in any event neither of the proponents have exercised its terms in exact detail. When Respondent reviewed the application using a modified version of the new rule in the interest of what Respondent believed to be an equitable treatment of pending home health applicants who had waited for the rule to be enacted, it changed its position from one of recommended denial to recommended grant of the CON. The case was returned to the Division of Administrative Hearings and upon motion by the Intervenor, as granted, the Petitioner updated its application on December 5, 1988. This lead to the hearing on the dates previously described The updated information was provided to the other parties in this case. It was not given to the local health council for further review by that organization. Petitioner is a public not-for-profit healthcare organization created by state law. The hospital is governed by a Board of Trustees appointed by the Governor of the State of Florida. The proposed home health agency would be owned and operated by Petitioner. It treats indigent and Medicaid patients and other medically underserved groups. The hospital's mission is to serve the residents of the community regardless of their ability to pay. This approach would be continued in home health care. Petitioner provides high quality patient care and this could be expected to continue if a CON for home health care was granted. The quality assurance plan and mechanisms in place at Petitioner's hospital would be used in its home health agency to help assure high quality patient care. Petitioner would also develop a utilization review plan similar to what is in effect at the hospital that would help insure proper utilization of the home health agency. Petitioner is JCAH accredited and licensed by the State of Florida, and is currently in compliance with all State of Florida licensure requirements. Petitioner's home health agency would be a hospital-based home health agency, as opposed to a free-standing home health agency. There are benefits to being a hospital-based home health agency. The home health agency employees have the advantage of being part of the hospital's employment benefit package; the home health agency has the ability to tap into the expertise of the hospital in such areas as accounting, data processing, and so forth; discharge planning is easy to coordinate; and, the home health agency has the potential ability to use trained hospital personnel who have high tech skills and expertise and can provide services to the home health agency in their area of expertise. However, the suggestion that employees would be involved in both roles of hospital care and home health care is suspect in that certain employees such as nursing staff are not expected to fulfil that dual role and other employees such as the dietician were unable to consistently aid the patient in the home and carry out the duties in the hospital under an arrangement by which the Intervenor per agreement with the Petitioner sought to have continuation of services from the hospital to the home. If this could not be done, given the demands on the dietician in the hospital duties at that time, then there is no reason to believe that it would be any easier to achieve if the hospital had a home health agency. None of the aforementioned benefits are significant improvements over existing conditions in Citrus County where home health care is provided by freestanding agencies. More specifically, Petitioner currently has physical therapists, respiratory therapists, dietitians, and social workers on its full-time paid staff that could conceivably be available to the home health agency. Since these persons are already full-time salaried employees of the hospital, it would not cost the home health agency any additional amount for these skilled persons to provide services to home health care patients, assuming the ability to meet the needs of hospital patients and home health care patients, again a real uncertainty. Petitioner's personnel would be available to assist in the development of policy and procedure manuals, quality assurance plan and utilization review plan for the home health agency. There are other possible economies in service that could be derived from Petitioner's operation of a hospital-based home health agency. These include: the hospital-based agency is easily accessible to physicians; discharge planning is facilitated due to the close cooperation of nursing, social worker, and home care provider while the patient is still in the hospital; services will be available 24-hours a day through the use of hospital switchboard and communications systems; and use of current medical records systems will mean a patient's entire medical history will be available to practitioners. Again, these arrangements do not afford a significant improvement over existing home health services. Petitioner has sufficient resources available to initiate and operate a hospital-based home health agency. Necessary staff can be employed to the extent they are not already working at the hospital. Petitioner is in sound financial condition. Petitioner would be able to hire a qualified administrator. Petitioner's projected payor mix of 88% Medicare, 3% Medicaid, 4% insurance and 5% indigent, is an admirable goal. However, there is some question about whether the projections of Medicare and indigent care levels of service will be achieved. Petitioner as a referral source from its hospital operations had not achieved those projected levels of referrals in the past. This is important because Petitioner expects to obtain its home health patients from the hospital referrals. Consequently to promote the grant of the CON premised solely upon the belief that underserved groups will be better off would not be warranted. The possibility exists that with greater awareness more underserved persons might be referred for home health care but nothing in this case points to any increased effort to publicize the availability of home health for the underserved to justify the optimistic levels the applicant predicts. In a home health agency, all of the patient services are provided in the patient home. Thus, the only space requirement is for office space for the administrative staff and working space for the employees to do their necessary paperwork. Petitioner Memorial Hospital has about 1,600 square feet of vacant space available in which to house the home health agency offices. This building is currently owned by Petitioner. There is no debt associated with this building, and the building has been fully depreciated. Contrary to the statement in its application, Petitioner has decided not to offer prescription delivery services. This is not a significant change. Intervenor is a licensed home health agency in Citrus County. It first became licensed by the State of Florida in February, 1986. Intervenor has been surveyed annually by Respondent since 1986. In each of these surveys, it received no deficiencies. Intervenor is a full-service home health agency. It offers a range of "hi-tech" home health services, including: skilled nursing services; physical therapy; occupational therapy; speech therapy; social services; home health aide services; dietary guidance; medical supplies; home IV therapy; parenteral nutrition; interostomal therapy; home phlebotomy and lab testing services; and respiratory care. It has offered these services since its inception. Intervenor provides some homemaker services during home health aide visits, such as cleaning, straightening, and laundry. Intervenor's personnel include registered nurses, certified home health aides, physician therapists, licensed physical therapist assistants, speech therapists, occupational therapists, a medical social worker who holds a masters in social work, interstomal therapists, nutritionists, and respiratory therapists. Intervenor offers quality of care and ensures continuity of care in the delivery of home health services. Petitioner has never complained that a patient could not be discharged quickly enough due to Intervenor's shortcomings in taking on home health services for the discharged patient. Intervenor makes every effort to coordinate its operations with Petitioner to ensure quality and continuity of care related to patients referred by the hospital. The service area of Intervenor is Citrus County. Until late 1988, about 70% of Intervenor's referrals came directly from Petitioner. On average, Intervenor provides about 28.6 home health visits per patient. Intervenor provides home health services to all patients regardless of ability to pay. Intervenor provides home health services to the following payor classes: Medicare, Medicaid, VA, workmen's compensation, private insurance, and indigent. Its CON contemplates 2% Medicaid and 3% indigent patients. Since opening in 1989, Intervenor has treated 985 patients. Of these 985 patients, only ten (10) have been indigent and fifteen (15) have been Medicaid patients. This works out to one percent (1%) indigent care and one and one half percent (1.5%) Medicaid care. Community Care publishes a brochure that advertises its services to the community. Nowhere in this brochure does it indicate that Community Care serves indigent patients. The brochure stresses that services will be provided through reimbursed coverage, either Medicare, insurance, or other reimbursement sources. On the other hand it does not require any deposit or up-front payment from new home health patients and has never refused a patient due to an inability to pay. As stated until recently a very substantial portion of the Intervenor's referrals came from Petitioner and levels of service to the underserved, that is, Medicaid and indigent, have been low. This ties back to the observation that the 3% Medicaid and 5% indigent projection of service made by Petitioner may not be any easier to achieve and probably less so than the 2% Medicaid and 3% indigent which Intervenor is committed to. This is supported by the fact that on the first 11 months in 1988, Petitioner referred less than 2% Medicaid and 1% indigent. Moreover, the District III average for existing agencies of services to these underserved groups is .8% Medicaid and 1.3% indigent. As alluded to before, in December, 1985, Petitioner and Intervenor entered into an agreement. Per that agreement, Petitioner would refer all home health patients to Intervenor unless a patient or physician specifically requested otherwise. The agreement provided that Petitioner would provide certain services and personnel to Intervenor in exchange for compensation. It was a two-year agreement with an automatic one-year renewal. Petitioner chose to extend the contract for three years through the latter part of 1988. Since late 1988, Petitioner rotates its hospital referrals in the instance where the patient, patient's family or physician did not specify which home health agency was preferred. This means that as many as seven agencies could be involved in the rotation if Petitioner gained a CON, with Petitioner having no greater share than the rest. At present, there are four providers, two in the rotation are from the ABC home health group, the Intervenor and Upjohn another home health provider. Petitioner would make five. To make seven, VNA and Gulf Coast Home Health Services who have come into Citrus County would be added. VNA is another provider with a history of service to underserved patients. In this connection, Petitioner argues that its equal treatment of existing providers and itself, if granted a CON, minimizes the adverse impact of another competitor arriving on the scene and allows existing providers who are for profit agencies to remain financially viable. This together with trends toward early release in DRG for the hospital inpatient sector; provision of home health care through the Catastrophic Healthcare Act, and the general trend in increased home health visits in Citrus County make it possible for both the existing providers and the Petitioner to survive in the market place, if you accept the point of view of those who favor the grant of a CON to Petitioner. In fact, the DRG situation and the Catastrophic Healthcare Act, as events, are too speculative to say what their influence will be in promoting greater use of home health services. Otherwise, the trend toward increased visits that have been pointed out are now being met with an increased number of providers to deliver those visits. This dilutes market share. The Petitioner's rotation system further dilutes market share, especially as to the Intervenor. Thus, the question is raised on the matter of whether the historical trend toward increased visits is enough to sustain the existing providers with the advent of the Petitioner's presence and choice to rotate referrals. On the whole, the Petitioner's influence on competition is not positive and is not acceptable. The Petitioner's projections concerning its own market acceptance are unrealistic and unacceptable. The projections in the original application and in the December 5, 1988 update to that application as to skilled visits per patient far exceed the experience in the service area, Citrus County. The applicant speaks in terms of 53 visits when the historical experience in the county is approximately 30. Nothing in the record of the hearing tends to support the idea that Petitioner can deliver such an excessive increase in visits. Additionally, estimates of total home health visits in the first two years of operation are generally out of line. The estimate by Petitioner ranges as high as 42,000, plus visits. Some of the items in that count are not comparable to referrals made out of the hospital at present. Examples of this incomparability are homemaker services, DME and the category listed as general items. Again, prescription service is no longer proposed thereby reducing the numbers. Nonetheless, the estimate is still excessive. This is made the more apparent when taking in account that by annualizing available data 464 patients were referred by Petitioner in 1988. In examining what had been referred out in 1988 in number of patients, the number of visits on average by history and the idea of rotation of referrals, Petitioner cannot achieve the performance level it predicts. Moreover, projections for population in 1990 and 1991, the furtherest years out given by Petitioner in support of its application, don't change this impression because the increases in population will not justify the Petitioner's projections on market share as a function of number of visits. The estimates of visits at 1990 and 1991 based upon 50% retention of referrals projected from Petitioner's hospital for home health services is unrealistic in that retention could be as low as 15% to 20%. Therefore, visits would be much less than 5,693 and 7,950 in 1990 and 1991, respectively. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 22.) The failing in the estimate of performance level means that the revenue projections are inaccurate. Although Petitioner is a not for profit institution, its proposed home health operation is not seen to be financially feasible in the short term or long view. The fact that approximately 80% of costs in a home health operation are variable and that home health delivery is cost-based reimbursed does not relieve the Petitioner from giving a more realistic estimate of those costs, its performance and net financial position. The effect of this failing leaves the record unclear and the trier of fact unconvinced concerning the true facts about this project's financial feasibility. The pro formas as written do not identify employee benefits ranging in costs from 25% to 30%. Transportation costs are not reflected. If other facts were favorable to Petitioner, there would be very little additional costs associated with the start-up of its operation. Only minor "sprucing up" would be necessary before occupying existing space. Excess office furniture is currently available at the hospital. The addition of Petitioner as a provider of home health services will not significantly advance variety or quality of care sufficient to justify the issuance of a CON. At present, existing providers offer a wide variety of home health services and provide quality care. The fact that the Petitioner is a hospital based not for profit institution, does not alter these findings. The addition of Petitioner promotes no positive influence in competition in the market place. The risk is presented that overall cost in the health care system can be increased if the Petitioner is added and the market place becomes overburdened. Based upon past experience, the Intervenor needs to achieve around 8,700 visits a year to be financially viable, and to break even. Petitioner's proposal together with other competitors in the market, some recently arrived, Upjohn, VNA and Gulf Coast Home Health Services jeopardize the ability to remain financially viable. Nothing can be done about the other competitors, but the issue of Petitioner's presence can be dealt with and should be rejected as an outcome. At a minimum the addition of Petitioner does not foster cost containment in that it could cause the existing providers to up requests for reimbursement nearer the caps in the Medicare segment at public expense. While there is a need for homemaker services in Citrus County, that fact doesn't justify the grant of a CON to Petitioner because it is willing to provide them. In home health care delivery there is credible evidence that initial economies of scale occur between 6,000 to 9,000 visits per annum. There is a serious question about the Petitioner's ability to achieve that level of performance under the facts found previously. When initially reviewing the compliance of the application with the 1986 District III Health Plan, in addition to problems of compliance with the need methodology in that plan, Petitioner did not respond to the need for home health services in Hamilton County and expansion of the range of services in Columbia and Suwannee Counties. These counties are within District III. These latter items concerning the other counties do not hinder the Petitioner's attempt to gain a CON because at present the decision to grant or deny a CON is on a district-wide and not county-by-county basis. Therefore, in theory, the Petitioner could serve Hamilton, Columbia and Suwannee Counties. Admittedly, that is unlikely given the proximity of these counties to Citrus County. More importantly, there has been no showing that some other applicant entitled to comparative review with the Petitioner sought to serve the other three counties putting into effect the local planning guidelines on priorities for grant of a CON. Likewise the local planning council methodology is of no moment. It deals with a county-wide analysis, not a district-wide analysis of need. The district-wide concept applies in this case per the change in the method of assessment that was fostered by the agreement to wait for the Respondent to enact a rule methodology and with that delay the tacit acceptance of the idea that approved and licensed home health providers could expand their services throughout the district. By contrast the fact that the local council reported that 148% of need was being met in Citrus County is telling and works against Petitioner. Finally, the support of the application by the local council as advisor to the Respondent is noteworthy but cannot overturn the adverse facts in this hearing which cause the application to be rejected. Petitioner is basically in compliance with the Florida State Health Plan in effect at the time of application except for the question of whether the Petitioner can achieve the aforementioned economies of scale at 6,000 to 9,000 visits per annum and the possible adverse influence on existing providers in maintaining economies of scale. Rule 10-5.0111(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, supra, is the product of a considerable effort by Respondent to establish a balanced method of measuring the need for additional home health care providers in the various districts throughout the state. Unfortunately, it has limited utility in trying to resolve this controversy. The proponents of the use of the rule point out that nothing in the rule states that it cannot be applied retroactively to the case facts. Intervenor reminds us that nothing says it can be applied in that way. As hinted before, the rule cannot be seen to apply retroactively as it is written to render a defensible projection of need at the theoretical planning horizon of January, 1988. First, the service area in December, 1986 through January, 1988 was in reality Citrus County, not the district. There is no way to postulate who might have taken advantage of the opportunity to serve the overall district and come into Citrus County from outlying counties within the district because that was not allowed as a matter of right back then as it is now in the terms of the rule. The present situation has shown that there is such interest in coming into Citrus County with the addition of Upjohn, VNA and Gulf Coast Home Health Services. Next, the idea of who would have been shown as approved as a home health agency taking into account the January, 1988 planning horizon cannot reasonably be ascertained. The annual fixed need pool publication did not occur such that one could see who had been approved, or held a CON, one month prior to that publication to serve the district. Although one could argue that the identification of the pool can be hypothetically set for the fall of 1986, problems with identifying the 1985 data to establish that pool based upon information that was available to the Respondent at the time to announce the pool or availability of a complete data set about 1985 at the point of hearing persist. Associated with this dilemma is the influence agency expansions into other counties would have on calculation of CEAS. In the area of CEAS the exact nature of that situation cannot be ascertained. It cannot because one doesn't know which existing providers might have determined to go out of the counties in which they had offered their services and into other counties to open new units. This would have some influence on the average agency size within the district, which in turn causes a possible different answer in deriving the number of needed providers by the use of the formula. All this makes the exercise of accurately setting the pool unlikely and it wasn't done in this hearing. In using the district-wide service analysis back in time to fit the Petitioner's situation, an application by VNA in District III, Alachua County, pending and denied in December, 1987, the same month as Petitioner's denial, was not comparatively reviewed with the Petitioner as the law would theoretically require. VNA was subsequently approved and is functioning now. Consequently, comparative review is no longer possible. On the topic of the 1985 data, which is mandated in exercising the rule, what data in this category was available in the fall of 1986 is uncertain. The data about 1985 presently held by the Respondent is incomplete. This incompleteness is in AHAV where visits in all categories cannot be shown for 1985. This tends to understate what the formula derives as an answer. The derived answer for needed agencies is .7, rounded up per terms in the rule is one agency if the other factors that were described are ignored. They should not be. Especially, compelling is the existence of VNA, Alachua County which could use up the net need of one agency. Concerning the applicants who waited for the Respondent to enact a rule who applied for a CON in the period June, 1985 through December, 1987, the Respondent modified the use of the rule. In its thinking to make certain that no applicant along that time continuum was treated unfairly, Respondent picked 1986 data and a July, 1988 planning horizon in deciding the question of need. The result in the Petitioner's case was to use inappropriate data and an inappropriate planning horizon, according to the rule. This produced an answer of 1.1 agencies rounded down to 1. This is the same answer as before and no purpose is served in criticizing the Respondent's choice to deviate from the terms of the rule. On balance the concept of this rule as opposed to the ability to use the rule per se may look appealing as an abstraction, but it is unappealing as a means to resolve the factual dispute. It superimposes a system of district review at a time of county level service. For that reason, it cannot answer the riddle of how many providers would have exercised the right to serve Citrus County from other counties in the district as they have begun to do when the rule took effect in September, 1988. Using the rule retroactively anticipates a planning horizon which is already past. In recognition of this anomaly the parties have spoken to the future in their proof through the years 1990 and 1991. This has been necessitated by the agreement to wait for the Respondent to enact a new home health rule. That future is not conducive to the grant of the CON on the facts in this case which are more instructive about the true need in the district than the exercise of the formula in some past period. Had the Petitioner chosen to reapply and fallen under the clear terms of the rule, the result might be different. It did not, and it must accept the results of that choice.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of facts found in the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which denies the request for Certificate of Need as applied for by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Boone, Boone, Klingbell Boone & Roberts, P.A. 1001 Avenida Del Circo P. O. Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Stephen M. Presnell, Esquire Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James C. Hauser, Esquire Joy Heath Thomas, Esquire Messer, Vickers, Caparello, French & Madsen, P.A. O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-0386 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Finding of Facts The first paragraph and the first sentence to the second paragraph are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentences within paragraph 2 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 3 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 4-7 are subordinate to facts found with exception the last sentence in paragraph 7 which is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 8 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 9 may express the statement of policy by the Respondent, but it is not an acceptable outcome in this instance. Paragraphs 10-12 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is an accurate portrayal of the facts as far as its goes; however, it does not account for the problems of imposing the new home health rule over the time period associated with the filing date in this application. Paragraphs 14-16 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 17 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 18 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 19 is not necessary to resolution of dispute. Paragraph 20 in all sentences except the latter is subordinate to facts found. The latter sentence is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 21 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 22 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 23 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 24 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 25 is true in that at the time the local health council examined the application there was an indicated need for home health for Medicare and indigent patients. That need is being met at present to the extent that those classes of patients have been made aware of the existence of the home health services. Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 27 and 28 are contrary to facts found. Suggestions in Paragraph 29 do not comport with the situation in Citrus County at present. Paragraph 30 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 31 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 32-36 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 37 and 38 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 39-43 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 44 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 45-51 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 52 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 53 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 54-56 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 57 is subordinate to facts found. As to Paragraph 58 it is uncertain whether the staff levels are adequate given the failure to accurately portray the volume of visits. In a related sense, Paragraph 59 as to salary level made to depicts the cost of those salaries, but it fails to include the benefits. Paragraph 60 is to general in its contention. It does not answer the failure to identify the more reasonable statement of staffing levels. Paragraph 61 is subordinate to facts found. The pro formas were not clear and the complementary proof offered at hearing did not confirm the assertion set out in paragraph 62. Paragraphs 63-65 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 66 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 67 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 68 is not necessary to the-resolution of dispute. Paragraph 69 depicts a situation that is to speculative to have relevance in this case. Paragraphs 70 and 71 are contrary to facts found. While the Paragraphs 72-74 accurately states the circumstance related to the intervenor in its initial involvement in the market. This situation has changed since that time and if Petitioner were to gain entry into the market the probability is that the intervenor's business would be seriously impacted. Paragraph 75 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 76 and 77 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 78 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 79-82 with exception of the last sentence in 82 are subordinate to facts found. The last sentence in paragraph 82 is not accepted. Paragraph 83 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 84 and 85 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 86 is true if one fails to take into account the advent of services by the intervenor and additional providers who has come into the market who are willing to undertake service to those patients. Paragraphs 87 and 88 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 89 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 90 and 91 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 92 is subordinate to facts found. In Paragraph 93, while it is true that Petitioner has an excellent record of service to the Medicaid population in Citrus County, it is unclear why Medicaid patients are not receiving sufficient home health services, compared to what one would expect the demand to be. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1-3 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 4-6 are contrary to facts found. Suggestion in Paragraph 7 is not a certainty and is not accepted in the fashion presented in these proposed facts. Paragraphs 8-10 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 11 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 12 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 13 and 14 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 15 is a true statement if other factors which have been discussed in the recommended order are not taken into account. Paragraph 16 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 17-19 are not sufficiently relevant to this case to be reported as facts. Paragraph 20 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 21 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 22 and 23 may be basically an accurate statement of the Respondent's policies; however, this arrangement is not satisfactory on this occasion. Paragraph 24 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 25 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 27 and 28 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 29 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 30 is true if the rule was found to be applicable. Paragraph 31 and 32 are not necessary to resolution of dispute. Paragraph 33 may be true in terms of the prospective use of the rule but is not influential in this case. Paragraph 34 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 35 is speculative and has little relevance absent a showing that the expansion into the other areas within the district offset new providers coming into Citrus County, to include the Petitioner. Paragraphs 36 and 37 are subordinate to facts found. The suggestion in paragraph 38 is a statement of limited value in that there are no other competitors in District III from other batches. Paragraphs 39-43 are subordinate to facts found. The first sentence to paragraph 44 is subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentence is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 45 and 46 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 47 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 48 is accurate as for as it goes; however, it fails to take into account the fact that the Intervenor began to provide home health care to indigent and Medicaid patients. Paragraph 49 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 50 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 51-53 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 54 is subordinate to facts found. 35 The suggestion in the first sentence of paragraph 55 is true. Again it fails to take into account the change in circumstances with the advent of the Intervenor's services. The second sentence is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 56 is not in meaningful contribution to the fact finding in the context of the overall facts reported in the recommended order. Paragraphs 57 and 58 are subordinate to facts found. Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Facts Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 3-5 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 6 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 7 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 is; not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 9 through the first sentence in paragraph 16 are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentences in paragraph 16 are not necessary to the resolution in dispute nor is the first and last sentences within paragraph 17. The other sentence within paragraph 17 is subordinate to facts found. The first sentence in paragraph 18 is subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentences are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 19 through the first sentence of paragraph 23 are subordinate to facts found. The second sentence in paragraph 23 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute nor is paragraph 24. Paragraph 25 in all sentences save the last is subordinate to facts found. The last sentence is not necessary to resolution of dispute. Paragraph 26 through all sentences in paragraph 30 except the last sentence are subordinate to facts found. The last sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The first sentence of paragraph 31 is subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentence is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 32 and the first sentence to paragraph 33 are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentence in paragraph 33 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 34 and the first sentence of paragraph 35 subordinate to facts found. The last sentence in paragraph 35 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 36 through the first sentence of paragraph 38 are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentence in paragraph 38 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 39 cannot be utilized in that the rule in question was not provided to the Hearing Officer under official recognition and is unavailable to confirm the assertion set out in that paragraph. Paragraphs 40 through 43 are subordinate to facts found. The suggestions in paragraphs 44 through 45 are contrary to the impression of the Hearing Officer. Paragraphs 46 through 48 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 49 and 50 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 51 and 52 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 53 through 55 as an approach to resolving factual disputes are rejected. Paragraph 56 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 57 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 58 is not in keeping with the analysis of this case and the facts found in the recommended order nor is paragraph 59. Paragraphs 60 through 65 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 66 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 67 and the first two sentences within paragraph 68 are subordinate to facts found. Remaining sentences within paragraph 68 are not in keeping with the analysis performed in the fact finding within the recommended order. Paragraph 69 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 70 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 71 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 72 through 76 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 77 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 78 and 79 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 80 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 81-86 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 87 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 88 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 89-91 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 92 through 94 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 95 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 96 through 101 in the first sentence to that paragraph are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentences in paragraph 101 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 102 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 103 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 104 and 105 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 106 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 107 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 108 through 116 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 117 and 118 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 119 through 122 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 123 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 124-126 are subordinate to facts found. Suggestion in paragraph 127 that the rotation system will not be employed is rejected. The remaining contents within that paragraph are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 128 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 129 through 133 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 134 is contrary to the facts found. Paragraph 135 is contrary to the facts found. Paragraph 136 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute.
The Issue Whether Petitioner Hospice of Palm Beach County, Inc. (Hospice) is entitled to a certificate of need (CON) from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Respondent, (HRS) in CON Action No. 3702 for a home health agency in Palm Beach County and the District IX service area?
Findings Of Fact Hospice provides special interdisciplinary services, including medical, psychological, spiritual, counseling and volunteer services, for persons in the terminal stages of illness. Hospice is licensed by HRS as a hospice under Chapter 400, Part V, Florida Statutes. Hospice has been qualified by the United States Health Care Financing Administration for participation in the Medicare hospice program. See Part 418, 42 Code of Federal Regulations. Hospice was the first hospice program in Florida to be accredited by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH) as a hospice. JCAH accreditation includes approval of the home care component of Hospice's service. HRS has approved issuance of a certificate of need (CON No. 3693) for the establishment by Hospice of its own 24-bed freestanding inpatient facility. Hospice's inpatient facility will be the first free- standing hospice facility in Florida. Hospice's present service area is within Palm Beach County. Hospice's service area reaches from the southern border of Boynton Beach in Palm Beach County north to the Martin County line. Hospice's service area also extends west within the County to include service to Belle Glade, a multi-ethnic rural community. Approximately 25 percent of Hospice's patients are medically indigent, with little or no ability to pay for care. Over 28 percent of Hospice's patients in fiscal 1985 were members of ethnic minorities. Hospice was one of five applicants in its "batching" cycle seeking a certificate of need to establish a home health agency within local health District IX. The others were Palm Beach Gardens Home Health Agency (CON #3699), MEA (CON #3700), Coastal Health Corporation (CON #3701) and Medical Personnel Pool of Treasure Coast, Inc. (CON #3706). (A sixth applicant, Medical Personnel Pool of Palm Beach, Inc., CON #3698, was granted a certificate in an earlier cycle and not considered by HRS in this batch.) By letter dated June 14, 1985, HRS indicated that it had determined to deny Hospice a certificate of need to establish a home health agency in Palm Beach County. Hospice's substantial interests are affected by HRS' determination of denial. Section 400.601(3), Florida Statutes (1985), requires Hospice to provide care to terminally ill patients regardless of ability to pay, and to make such care available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Unless Hospice receives a certificate of need to establish a home health agency, it is ineligible for licensing by HRS under Chapter 400, Part III, as a home health agency and corresponding certification as a Medicare home health service provider. See § 400.462(2), Fla. Stat. (1985). Without a certificate of need for home health care, Hospice's financial ability to serve its hospice patients is not as great as it might be if it held such a CON. Without certification as a home health agency, Hospice cannot presently collect any reimbursement for home health care of medically indigent Medicaid patients. Hospice often experiences difficulty in collecting even private insurance payments for home health care of patients with such insurance. Hospice will suffer injury in fact as a result of HRS' determination and its interests are among those regulated by this action. Hospice filed a timely petition for a Section 120.57 administrative proceeding concerning HRS' decision on CON Action 3702. Prior to the decision in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Johnson and Johnson Home Health Care, 447 So.2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), HRS followed a rule generally precluding the issuance of a certificate of need for a new home health agency until the average daily census of each existing home health agency within the same service area had reached 300 patients. This rule was known as the "Rule of 300." In Johnson and Johnson, supra, the First District Court of Appeal struck the "Rule of 300" as arbitrary and inconsistent with Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, which lists numerous criteria for evaluation of CON applications. In particular, the Court noted, the "Rule of 300" did not allow new agencies "where existing agencies are able but unwilling to provide services of a particular type or for a particular class of patients." 447 So.2d at 362. After the "Rule of 300" was struck, a statewide task force was created to develop new criteria to evaluate CON applications for new home health agencies. The statewide association of hospices, Florida Hospices, Inc., attempted to participate in the development of new criteria, but did not participate in this process. On April 5, 1985, HRS proposed new rule criteria for home health agency evaluations, which were the subject of a proposed rule challenge in September 1985 before the Division of Administrative Hearings. This proposed rule was struck down as invalid on March 12, 1986. These new criteria were proposed for use in addition to other relevant statutory and applicable rule criteria." In acting on the five CON applications in Hospice's "batch," HRS applied its invalidated proposed rule criteria and determined that within District IX as a whole (which includes Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee, St. Lucie and Palm Beach Counties), no new home health agencies were needed. However, in its analysis of the five applications in this batching cycle, HRS also stated that the District IX Local Health Council had indicated that Palm Beach County should be considered a separate subdistrict for home health agency evaluation. Although it found no need for new home health agencies in District IX as a whole in its analysis of this batching cycle, HRS, using its own newly proposed rules, found an existing need for two new home health agencies in Palm Beach County. HRS stated in its June 14, 1985, letter that Hospice's application was denied for the following reason: Use of the methodology developed by the special statewide work group to determine the need for home health agencies in District IX shows no numeric need for additional agencies in this district. HRS has determined for purposes of this proceeding that the following need exists in District IX for home health agencies, indicating a net need of five new agencies in District IX and a net need in Palm Beach County for five new agencies: Application Submittal Date: 12/84 Planning Horizon: 7/86 District 9 1986 (July) population: 65+ = 257,346 District 9 1986 (July) population: <65 = 809,845 1. 257,346 x .0578 = 14,875 Projected use for 65+ population 2. 809,845 x .00058 = 470 Projected use for <65 population 3. (14,875 + 470) x 33.3 = 510,989 Projected visits 7/86 4. 9,000 + (510,989 x 270) - 24,330 5. 410,989 9,000 ? 21,000 = 24 Agencies needed in District 9 for 7/86 24 Agencies - 19 licensed and approved = 5 Agencies needed in District 9 Subdistrict Allocation: Need: Indian River Projected 2 Existing 1 Net 1 Martin 2 2 0 Okeechobee 0 1 (1) Palm Beach 18 13 5 St. Lucie 2 2 0 This need is related solely to the planning horizon of July 1, 1986 established by HRS for Hospice's CON batch and other home health applications filed before the end of 1984. This need is not related to the later planning horizons applicable to District IX home health agency CON applications filed after 1984. Therefore, applicants in batches following Hospice's, which was the last batch submitted in 1984, are not substantially affected by this determination of need. For the purposes of this hearing, there are only two (2) denials by HRS of certificates of need for home health agencies in District IX and proposing service in Palm Beach County in CON batches prior to Hospice's (Joseph Morse Geriatric Center, CON Action No. 3621; A Professional Nurse, CON Action No. 3492) that have been challenged in administrative proceedings and are still pending without Final Order in those proceedings. Thus, Hospice's CON application as a home health agency is, in the worst case, third in line for licensure as a home health agency in District IX, without regard to the special circumstances of Hospice's case and assuming these denials by HRS are reversed in final agency action. Since there is a need for more than 3 new home health agencies in District IX and Palm Beach County based on the planning horizon applicable to Hospice's batch and no other valid request is pending in Hospice's batch, there is a numeric need for granting a CON to Hospice as a home health agency. There is a special need for access within Hospice's actual service area in Palm Beach County to home health services for the terminally ill, which services are provided by a hospice as opposed to existing or other proposed traditional home health agencies. There is additional need for access by the medically indigent to home health services within Hospice's service area in Palm Beach County, and within Palm Beach County in general. The 1985 District IX Hospice Services Plan provides that hospices generally should be licensed as a special type of home health agency. Of all pending applicants in this and the immediately prior batching cycles since 1984 seeking a certificate of need to provide home health services in Palm Beach County, Hospice is committed to providing the greatest percentage of its services for Medicaid and other medically indigent patients, in accordance with the State Health Plan. Hospice, due to its existing and proposed provision of home health services to the medically indigent, its service in Belle Glade, and its service to AIDS patients, as well as its services to the elderly, serves the need for care of low-income persons, medically underserved groups and the elderly. Hospice can provide higher quality of home health care to the terminally ill in its service area than any other existing home health provider or current applicant for a certificate of need to provide home health services in Palm Beach County. Hospice offers a new type of home health service within its service area for terminally ill patients and their families, including a special pediatric program for children with irreversible diseases. This type of service is an alternative to inpatient care, nursing home and traditional home health services. The applicant home health agencies affiliated with hospitals in District IX in Hospice's batching cycle have not shown that they can achieve greater economies or improvements of service than Hospice. Hospice provides the following research and health educational facilities: a) rotational internships for fourth- year medical students at the University of Miami Medical School; training for R. N. candidates at Florida Atlantic University; research support service to the Tropical Disease Center and Palm Beach County Public Health Department through Hospice's care for AIDS patients in the Belle Glade area; d) training for graduate students in psychology at Florida Atlantic University; e) training for seminary students at St. Vincent's Seminary in Boynton Beach; f) training for candidates for master's degrees in social work from Florida State University; and g) designation as second research and training site by the International Hospice Institute, an international research and professional education accrediting institution. No other home health agency in Palm Beach County provides or has proposed to provide the research or educational facilities referenced in the preceding paragraph. Hospice proposes to control its home health agency rather than to allow the home health agency to control its hospice functions. Hospice will have a positive effect on the clinical needs of health professional training in hospice care and related services in District IX and will make such training available to health professional schools. Hospice's proposal, which is based on a conservative growth projection of its historical patient service care needs, demonstrates the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of Hospice's non-profit project goals. Hospice's provision of home health services under a certificate of need will have a positive effect on the costs of and charges for home health services for the terminally ill and their families. Due to its inpatient hospital capability, Hospice is a regional resource and teaching center for the care of the terminally ill. Hospice has a positive impact on competition among providers of care to the terminally ill. Hospice has a positive impact on promotion of quality assurance due to its accreditation by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. No other home health agency in District IX is accredited by that national joint commission for provision of home health services. According to HRS' own determination, the District IX health plan calls for evaluation of home health services needs within the subdistrict of Palm Beach County. Under HRS' determination, that county subdistrict needs five additional home health agencies without regard to the special needs of the terminally ill. In addition, the 1985 District IX plan for hospice health services provides that hospices should be licensed as special home health agencies. Nothing in the 1985 District IX Health Plan suggests that "surplus" home health agencies in other District IX counties can provide access to service needed by the terminally ill and their families within Palm Beach County. According to HRS' determination, the provision of the State Health Plan addressing home health services deals with access of Medicaid and medically indigent patients to home health services. Hospice's proposal meets this goal of the State Health Plan because Hospice will provide 25% of its care to the medically indigent, even if Medicare reimbursement is available as a result of CON approval and home health agency licensure. On a percentage basis, Hospice proposes to provide 3 times more home health care services to the medically indigent than any other District IX applicant in its batching cycle and even a greater incidence than any District IX home health agency applicant in the immediately preceding batching cycle. Hospice's proposal also satisfies other goals and priorities of the State Health Plan not considered by HRS, including but not limited to the continued fostering of the hospice care alternative, potential increased provider participation in the Medicaid home health services program, and creation of funding mechanisms for hospice care of the medically indigent. Hospice is the only hospice program located within Palm Beach County providing and proposing to provide home health care to terminally ill patients and their families in its service area. Hospice can provide a higher quality of home care for the terminally ill than any other existing home health care provider in Palm Beach County due to its accreditation by JCAH and qualification for the Medicare hospice program including home health services. Hospice's home health care, due to provision of additional hospice services, and continuity of home health personnel serving each patient and patient family, is also more appropriate for the terminally ill than other traditional home health services. Hospice's on-call home health personnel must, by Hospice policy, reside no farther than 30 minutes from patients to be served on a round-the-clock basis. The 1985 District IX Health Plan endorses the 30-minute travel maximum for provision of hospice care at home. Even prior to Hospice's provision of service in Belle Glade, nearly one-third of Hospice's patients were members of ethnic minorities. The Belle Glade area served by Hospice is populated by ethnic minorities in need of home health care service. Hospice's development of a special program to serve AIDS patients in Belle Glade and throughout Palm Beach County will make needed home health care available to this underserved group. Other home health agencies recognize the special type of home health care provided by Hospice through their referrals to it. The existence of the Gold Coast Home Health Agency serving Broward County was the basis for HRS' determination that of all five applicants, only Hospice did not meet the criterion in Section 381.494(6)(c)6, Florida Statutes, evaluating the need for special services in adjoining areas. Both traditional and hospice-based home health agencies exist in adjoining District IX areas. Hospice has at present a paid staff of 33 and approximately 270 volunteers. As shown in its financial statements submitted with its application, Hospice has a broad base of community support sufficient to achieve its goals with the aid of the Medicare reimbursement mechanism. Since home health care is a vital component of hospice care, the operation of a home health agency by a hospice is both logically and philosophically a natural outgrowth of the developing hospice movement in the United States. Hospice has excellent prospects for the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its project, especially if the regular Medicare reimbursement mechanism is made available. Hospice served more than 565 patients in fiscal 1985 and currently serves approximately 110-20 patients per month. Its estimated patient census used to calculate its 1985 and 1986 operating income and expenses in its CON application, therefore, is based on historical data and is conservative. Since Hospice has received approval for the first free- standing inpatient facility for the terminally ill in Florida, it will serve as a regional resource and training center for care of complex cases. Hospice, unlike any other applicant, will offer services complementary to home health care not available in adjacent service districts. Hospice's market entry as a licensed home health agency should stimulate other hospices to seek to meet the rigorous JCAH standards. Hospice provides many services not offered by traditional home health agencies at per visit charges that are competitive with those presently charged by those agencies. Hospice's market presence encourages competition among all home health agencies serving Palm Beach County, particularly for care of patients who are terminally ill or in the near-final stages of a catastrophic illness.
