The Issue Whether University Community Hospital should be issued Certificate of Need Number 6936 to convert 20 acute care beds to 20 comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds.
Findings Of Fact UCH is a 424 bed acute care hospital located in northern Hillsborough County. UCH is the applicant for CON Number 6936 to convert 20 medical/surgical acute care beds to 20 comprehensive medical rehabilitation ("CMR") beds. Its service area is northern Hillsborough and eastern Pasco Counties. AHCA is the successor to HRS as the designated agency to administer the CON laws. UCH currently operates 404 acute care beds and 20 skilled nursing beds. Its services include an emergency room, open heart surgery, obstetrics, and a home health agency. From 1982 to 1990, UCH operated an inpatient comprehensive rehabilitation unit, certified by HRS and recognized by the Federal Health Care Finance Administration ("HCFA") as a 9-bed unit in 1984, and as an 18-bed unit from 1985 through 1988. Substantial renovation of the unit's sixth floor south wing, in 1987 and 1988, was intended to meet the standards of the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities ("CARF"). UCH was never actually CARF accredited. After the enactment of a CMR rule, HRS preliminarily determined that UCH was a "grandfathered" 9-bed provider of CMR services. That preliminary determination was successfully challenged in University Community Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 11 FALR 1150 (HRS Final Order 2/13/89), and the unit was closed in 1990. In September 1990, UCH applied for CON 6412 to convert 20 acute care beds to 20 CMR beds. That application was denied. University Community Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 14 FALR 1899 (HRS Final Order 4/15/92). NEED IN RELATION TO STATE AND LOCAL HEALTH PLAN Five preferences in the 1989 Florida State Health Plan relate to CMR programs and are applicable to the review of the UCH application. The first preference relates to applicants proposing the conversion of excess acute care beds to establish a distinct rehabilitation unit within a hospital. AHCA agrees that the UCH application is consistent with this preference. The second preference, favoring applicants proposing specialty inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation services not currently offered in the district, it not met. In District VI, three CMR providers have a total of 112 licensed beds, 111 beds in operation: 59 at Tampa General Hospital in Hillsborough County, 24 at Winter Haven Hospital in Polk County, and 28 at L.W. Blake in Manatee County. The third preference applies to the teaching hospitals. UCH is not a teaching hospital although it does have contracts with teaching institutions to allow students to gain clinical experience at UCH. See, Subsection 408.035(1)(g), Fla. Stat. (1992 Supp.). The fourth preference, is for applicants with a history of providing a disproportionate share of charity care and Medicaid patient days. The preference specifically requires qualifying hospitals to meet Medicaid disproportionate share hospital criteria. UCH is not a disproportionate share provider, and does not meet this preference. The fifth preference, for applicants with an existing comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility ("CORF"), is met. UCH planner's testimony was not refuted and AHCA concedes that UCH offers a number of therapies to outpatients. The June 1990 District VI Allocation Factors Report, prepared by the Health Council of West Central Florida, Inc., is the local health plan applicable to the review of this application. The first preference favors disproportionate share providers, and does not support the UCH application. See, Finding of Fact 10. UCH is entitled to the second local preference for the conversion of existing medical/surgical beds. See, Finding of Fact 7. The fourth preference is for existing providers of fewer than 20 beds seeking to add more beds and is, therefore, not applicable to the UCH application. POPULATION CONDITIONS AND NEED The third local preference, for additional rehabilitation services if existing ones are not meeting community needs, is the essence of the UCH claim that its services are needed. The local factor is also directly related to the criteria of Subsection 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code, Rule 59C-1.039(2)(b). The rule is as follows: Historic, current and projected incidence and prevalence of disabling conditions and chronic illness in the population in the Department service district by age and sex group; Trends in utilization by third party payers; Existing and projected inpatients (e.g., orthopedic, stroke and cardiac cases) in need of rehabilitation services; and The availability of specialized staff. Based on rule methodology for computing numeric need, there is zero need for additional CMR beds in District VI. That methodology is based on the assumption that there will be 3.9 CMR beds needed for every 1000 acute care discharges. In terms of population conditions, UCH has urged the consideration of the actual statewide use rate of 8.46 CMR admissions for every 1000 acute care admissions, which would equate to a need for an additional 132 beds in the District. In District VI, there are 6.67 CMR admissions for every 1000 acute care admissions which, considering projected population increases, equates to a need for 80 additional beds. According to UCH, CMR bed availability is a factor in determining utilization In District VI, there are 7 CMR beds per 100,000 people. UCH points to the actions of AHCA in approving an increase from 8 to 12 CMR beds per 100,000 people in District IX in the absence of any published numeric need. AHCA emphasizes that empty CMR beds exist in District VI, which had 1990-1991 occupancy rates of 72.07 percent, below the 85 percent minimum for approval of new beds absent not normal circumstances. Tampa General's rate was 82.77 percent, but Winter Haven's was 50.82 percent and L. W. Blake in Manatee County was 67.36 percent occupied. As AHCA also indicated, population projections and numeric need are calculated to determine future need. UCH has demonstrated that the geographic and economic accessibility of Winter Haven in Polk County is limited for patients from the UCH area. In part, the limitations result from the requirement of third party payers for CARF accredited facilities, when intense, inpatient rather than outpatient CMR services are needed. Winter Haven is not CARF accredited. In addition, during the time there was a low rate of utilization at Winter Haven, some licensed beds were not in service due to construction. Utilization in the first quarter of 1992 reached just under 80 percent at Winter Haven. UCH also claims that AHCA approved beds at Winter Haven based on the geographic inaccessibility of beds in Tampa. AHCA filed a Request for Official Recognition on February 3, 1993, which shows the award of beds to Winter Haven resulted from a stipulated settlement. UCH's Exhibit 9 does include the distance to Tampa as one of several factors considered in the agency's approval of the stipulated settlement with Winter Haven. L. W. Blake in Manatee County is also geographically inaccessible for Hillsborough County patients and their families, particularly the elderly proposed to be served by UCH. In addition, L.W. Blake's utilization increased to an average of 84 percent in the first quarter of 1992. Tampa General has 59 of its 60 CMR beds in service. All rooms at Tampa General are semi-private, necessitating same gender placements, except one isolation room. In addition, patients with similar injuries are grouped together. Tampa General is a regional referral center for vocational rehabilitation and a state designated center for head and spinal cord injuries. These factors limit the availability of Tampa General's beds to serve District VI residents, as does its occupancy rate of 85 percent. In the past, when UCH operated and then closed a CMR unit, there was no statistical impact on Tampa General. Currently, Tampa General has a waiting list and patients average a 9 day wait. For the reasons identified by UCH, including geographic and economic inaccessibility, the district incidence of CMR admissions as compared to acute care admissions, UCH has provided sufficient, credible evidence of the need for the services proposed by UCH in additional CMR beds in District VI. AHCA has amended its CMR rule to better predict need. Although it is not applicable to computing numeric need for this cycle, AHCA asserts that its new rule methodology is the alternative which should be used rather than other factors, such as the ratio of CMR beds to acute care admissions, or population. Under the new rule methodology, there is no numeric need for additional CMR beds in District VI. Assuming arguendo, that AHCA is correct, the other factors related to the accessibility and availability of services at the three existing providers could not be disregarded. PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY In this application, UCH proposes to operate a 20-bed CMR unit in the renovated space of the sixth floor south wing. That space currently is being used as an overflow area for 30 medical/surgical beds. UCH estimates total project costs of $248,596, with major expenses for consulting, legal, and accounting expenses, and $67,496 of the total or $3.66 per square foot for redecorating the renovated wing. No additional construction is anticipated. AHCA acknowledges that UCH has the funds to finance the project, but asserts that the costs are understated by $150,000 due to the failure of UCH to include construction costs to bring the wing into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities ACT ("ADA"). UCH notes, and AHCA concedes, that the rule requiring compliance with ADA standards was not adopted until a year after this application was filed. In addition, ADA compliance is required for new construction, not redecorating. AHCA also criticized UCH for omiting the cost of relocating 10 medical/surgical beds, after the conversion of 20 of the existing 30 beds to CMR beds. UCH asserts that the conversion or relocation of the 10 beds is properly an expense item in the project which would utilize the 10 beds and is included in other pending CON applications for difference services. Other CON projects however, are not certain to be approved. If none are, UCH's expert planner testified that the 10 beds will be located in a general surgical area which is being redecorated. UCH also maintains that as long as it can bring the CMR beds on line within the total project costs within the application, it should be allowed to do so, even if that involves shifting amounts among the various expense items. AHCA has not estimated the cost of relocating the 10 beds, nor contradicted UCH's alternative plans for covering that cost. UCH's projected total project costs are, therefore, accepted as reasonable. AHCA agrees that UCH could profitably operate a CMR unit, particularly, as proposed to provide stroke and orthopedic services to medicare patients. When UCH operated an 18-bed unit, occupancy ranged from 77 percent to 84 percent, with 80 to 85 percent of the patients transferring from UCH acute care beds. Projected charges, deductions from revenue, payor mix, and expenses are reasonable. AHCA did not dispute UCH's assertions that its proposal is the most cost-effective alternative for increasing district CMR beds, because no other provider could initiate such services without substantial construction costs, and that utilization of CMR beds is increasing. ADDITIONAL CON CRITERIA AND CMR PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS UCH, as acknowledged by AHCA, has a history of providing quality care and is accredited by the Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation. UCH has a staff physiatrist to serve as CMR Medical Director. The types of therapists needed to provide a coordinated multidisciplinary approach to rehabilitation are already on staff at UCH. The staffing and renovations of the wing in the late 1980's indicate that UCH will meet the requirements for CARF accreditation. UCH does not propose to offer CMR services as a joint venture with any other health care facility, nor does it propose to offer a service which is not available in adjacent districts. In fact, AHCA notes that District V providers had occupancy rates of 53.31 percent for 1990-1991. The agency's rule, however, places at issue the historic, current and projected population conditions in the Department service district by age and sex group.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered issuing Certificate of Need No. 6936 to University Community Hospital to convert 20 medical/surgical acute care beds to 20 comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds in District VI. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 19th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-5107 University Community Hospital Accepted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Finding of Fact 4. Accepted in Finding of Fact 5. Accepted in Finding of Fact 5. Accepted in Finding of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1 and 5. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Accepted in Finding of Fact 6. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Accepted in Finding of Fact 18. Accepted in Finding of Fact 18. Accepted in Finding of Fact 18. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 19. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20 through 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 16. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 21. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 21. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 6-16. Accepted in Finding of Fact 8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 20. Accepted in Finding of Fact 20. 28. Accepted in Finding of Fact 21. 29. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 21. 30. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. 31. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. 32. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. 33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 24. 34. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 24. 35. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 24. 36. Accepted in Finding of Fact 23. 37. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 23. 38. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 23. 39. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 23. 40. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 23. 41. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 23. 42. Accepted in Finding of Fact 23. 43. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 23. 44. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 23. 45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 23. 46. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 23. 47. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 24. 48. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 24. 49. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 24. 50. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7 and 27. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Accepted in Finding of Fact 30. Accepted in Finding of Fact 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26 and 28. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. Accepted in Finding of Fact 27. Accepted in Finding of Fact 27. Accepted in Finding of Fact 27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27 and 32. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 30. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 30. Accepted. Accepted in Finding of Fact 32. Accepted and subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. Agency For Health Care Administration 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. 2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. 3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. 4. Accepted in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Accepted in Finding of Fact 5. 6. Accepted in Finding of Fact 6. 7. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1 and 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26 and 28. Accepted in Finding of Fact 27. Accepted in Finding of Fact 32. Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Accepted in Finding of Fact 5. Accepted in Finding of Fact 6. Accepted in Finding of Fact 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 10. Rejected in Finding of Fact 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected in Finding of Fact 16. Accepted in Finding of Fact 13. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected in Findings of Fact 20 and 22. Accepted in Finding of Fact 15. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected in Findings of Fact 20-23. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8, 17 and 19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Accepted in Finding of Fact 16. Accepted in Finding of Fact 16. Rejected in Findings of Fact 20-23. Rejected in Findings of Fact 20-23. Accepted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected in Finding of Fact 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 18. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Rejected in Finding of Fact 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 16. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 21. Accepted in Finding of Fact 16. Conclusion Rejected in Findings of Fact 20-23 and 29. Accepted in Finding of Fact 16. Accepted in Finding of Fact 32. Accepted in Finding of Fact 20. Accepted in Finding of Fact 20. Rejected in Finding of Fact 29. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29 and 4. Rejected in Finding of Fact 29. Accepted in Finding of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21-24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21-24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21-24. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 24, and Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4, 21 and 32. Rejected in Findings of Fact 4, 21, and 32. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 21. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 21. Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. Accepted in Finding of Fact 9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 9. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 29. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 29. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 29. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Rejected in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 28. Rejected in Findings of Fact 27. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 21. Accepted in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected in Finding of Fact 27. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Issue not reached. See Finding of Fact 27. Issue not reached. See Finding of Fact 27. Issue not reached. See Finding of Fact 27. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 28. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 29. Rejected in Findings of Fact in 21-24. Rejected in Finding of Fact 23. Accepted, except last sentence in Findings of Fact 21-24. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Lesley Mendelson, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Post Office Box 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Based upon an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent, and a later addendum, petitioner received Certificate of Need Number 1460 in February of 1981 granting the petitioner the authority to construct 126 additional general medical/surgical beds but to only license and operate 72 of such beds. The instant proceeding involves petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need to license and operate the remaining 54 beds which have been previously constructed under Certificate of Need Number 1460. St. Joseph's Hospital is a 649-bed full service major referral hospital in Hillsborough County owned and operated by the Franciscan Sisters of Allegheny. Its services include a comprehensive community mental health center, a comprehensive pediatric unit with 88 beds, a radiation therapy center, a 60- bed community cancer center, cardiac catheterization, cardiac surgery and a large and active emergency room. It serves a considerable number of indigent patients and participates in the Medicaid and Medicare programs. Petitioner is now requesting permission to license the regaining 54 beds which were authorized to be constructed pursuant to Certificate of Need Number 1460. The project involves no additional construction or renovation inasmuch as all 126 beds previously authorized have been completed. No capital expenditure will be required in order to place the 54 beds into operation. If the Certificate of Need is granted, petitioner intends to create two specialty medical/surgical units: a 32-bed cardiac surgical unit to accommodate patients from the open heart surgical program and a 22-bed medical unit for psychiatric patients requiring medical treatment. There currently are no other beds available in the hospital to convert for use for the psychiatric patient or for the cardiac surgical unit. Petitioner has been operating, on occasion, at occupancy levels in excess of 90 percent. At times, it has been necessary to place non-emergency patients in the emergency room and have them remain there until beds become available. There are sometimes up to 40 patients on the waiting list for elective surgery. Due to the shortage of empty beds, petitioner cannot now admit new members to its medical staff. Steady operation of the hospital at occupancy levels exceeding 90 percent can have an adverse effect upon the efficiency of the nursing staff and the quality of care offered to patients. Because the bulk of projected growth in Hillsborough County is expected to occur in the center and northwestern area of the county, it is anticipated that the pattern of utilization of petitioner's facility will continue. While the licensing of the 54 additional beds involves no capital expenditure on petitioner's part, it is estimated that, if petitioner is not permitted to license these beds, a total yearly loss of over $3.8 million will be experienced. This figure is the sum of lost net revenues from the beds in the amount of $87,339 and lost net ancillary revenues in the amount of $2.36 million, as well as the absorption of $232,750 in yearly depreciation costs and $1.14 million in committed indirect costs. Petitioner anticipates a loss per patient day, calculated at 100 percent occupancy, of $16.82 if the licensing of the beds is not approved. This would result in an increase of current patient charges by 9.1 percent in order to maintain petitioner's budgeted profit margin. Petitioner is located in HRS District VI which, at the time of the hearing, was composed of Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. Some 81 percent of all beds in the District are located in Hillsborough County. As of the time of the hearing, the District had 3,899 licensed acute care beds, with 606 additional beds having been approved but not yet operational. The generally accepted optimum utilization rate for acute care beds is 80 to 85 percent. For District VI, the overall utilization rate is below the optimum level. In Manatee County, utilization of acute care beds is at 78.3 percent. In Hillsborough County, the utilization level is at 77.4 percent, with the major referral hospitals experiencing a higher level of utilization than the smaller community hospitals. Rule 10-5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code, contains the governing methodology for determining acute care bed needs of the various Districts. Applications for new or additional acute care hospital beds in a District will not normally be approved if approval would cause the number of beds in that District to exceed the number of beds calculated to be needed. Application of the Rule's formula to District VI results in a total acute care bed need of 3,622 projected for the year 1988. Given the 4,505 existing and approved beds in the District, there are 883 excess beds in District VI under the Rule's formula methodology for projecting need. The 1982 Health Systems Plan adopted by the Florida Gulf Health Systems Agency makes no bed need projections for other specialty medical/surgical beds," but shows no need for medical/surgical beds. Rule 10-5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code, provides that other criteria may result in a demonstration of bed need even when the formula approach illustrates no need for beds. When additional beds are approved pursuant to other criteria, those beds are counted in the inventory of existing and approved beds in the area when applying the bed need formula to review future projects. The formula methodology does account for the inflow and outflow of patients in a specific area. While Rule 10-5.11(23) permits the Local Health Councils to adopt subdistrict bed allocations by type of service, the Council for District VI had not adopted its local health plan as of the date of the hearing in this matter. The Rule itself simply addresses the need for general acute care bed needs in the future.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to license 54 acute care medical/surgical beds be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ivan Wood, Esquire David Pingree Wood, Lucksinger & Epstein Secretary One Houston Center Department of Health and Suite 1600 Rehabilitative Services Houston, Texas 77010 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1323 Winewood Boulevard, Suite 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Applicant, LMHS The applicant, LMHS, is a public, not-for-profit health care system, created in 1968 by special act of the Legislature. A ten-member publicly elected board of directors is responsible for overseeing LMHS on behalf of the citizens of Lee County. LMHS does not have taxing power. LMHS is the dominant provider of hospital services in Lee County. LMHS operates four hospital facilities under three separate hospital licenses. The four hospital campuses are dispersed throughout Lee County: borrowing the sub-county area descriptors adopted by LMHS’s health planning expert, LMHS operates one hospital in northwest Lee County, one hospital in central Lee County, and two hospitals in south Lee County.1/ At present, the four hospital campuses are licensed to operate a total of 1,423 hospital beds. The only non-LMHS hospital in Lee County is 88-bed Lehigh Regional Medical Center (Lehigh Regional) in northeast Lee County, owned and operated by a for-profit hospital corporation, Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA). LMHS has a best-practice strategy of increasing and concentrating clinical specialties at each of its existing hospitals. The LMHS board has already approved which specialty service lines will be the focus at each of its four hospitals. Although there is still some duplication of specialty areas, LMHS has tried to move more to clinical specialization concentrated at a specific hospital to lower costs, better utilize resources, and also to concentrate talent and repetitions, leading to improved clinical outcomes. Currently licensed to operate 415 hospital beds, Lee Memorial Hospital (Lee Memorial) is located in downtown Fort Myers in central Lee County. The hospital was initially founded in 1916 and established at its current location in the 1930s. In the 1960s, a five-story clinical tower was constructed on the campus, to which three more stories were added in the 1970s. The original 1930s building was demolished and its site became surface parking. Today, Lee Memorial provides a full array of acute care services, plus clinical specialties in such areas as orthopedics, neurology, oncology, and infectious diseases. Lee Memorial’s licensed bed complement includes 15 adult inpatient psychiatric beds (not in operation), and 60 beds for comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR), a tertiary health service.2/ Lee Memorial is a designated stroke center, meaning it is a destination to which EMS providers generally seek to transport stroke patients, bypassing any closer hospital that lacks stroke center designation. Lee Memorial operates the only verified level II adult trauma center in the seven-county region designated AHCA district 8. Lee Memorial also is home to a new residency program for medical school graduates. At its peak, Lee Memorial operated as many as 600 licensed beds at the single downtown Fort Myers location. In 1990, when hospital beds were still regulated under the CON program, Lee Memorial transferred its right to operate 220 beds to establish a new hospital facility to the south, HealthPark Medical Center (HealthPark). One reason to shift some of its regulated hospital beds to the south was because of the growing population in the southern half of Lee County. Another reason was to ensure a paying patient population by moving beds away from Lee Memorial to a more affluent area. That way, LMHS would have better system balance, and be better able to bear the financial burden of caring for disproportionately high numbers of Medicaid and charity care patients at the downtown safety-net hospital. That was a reasonable and appropriate objective. HealthPark, located in south Lee County ZIP code 33908, to the south and a little to the west of Lee Memorial, now operates 368 licensed beds--320 general acute care and 48 neonatal intensive care beds. HealthPark’s specialty programs and services include cardiac care, open heart surgery, and urology. HealthPark is a designated STEMI3/ (heart attack) center, a destination to which EMS providers generally seek to transport heart attack patients, bypassing any closer hospital lacking STEMI center designation. HealthPark also concentrates in specialty women’s and children’s services, offering obstetrics, neonatal intensive care, perinatal intensive care, and pediatrics. HealthPark is a state-designated children’s cancer center. HealthPark’s open heart surgery, neonatal and perinatal intensive care, and pediatric oncology services are all tertiary health services. In 1996, LMHS acquired its third hospital, Cape Coral Medical Center (Cape Coral), from another entity.4/ The acquisition of Cape Coral was another step in furtherance of the strategy to improve LMHS’s overall payer mix by establishing hospitals in affluent areas. Cape Coral is located in northwest Lee County, and is licensed to operate 291 general acute care beds. Cape Coral’s specialty concentrations include obstetrics, orthopedics, gastroenterology, urology, and stroke treatment. Cape Coral recently achieved primary stroke center designation, making it an appropriate destination for EMS transport of stroke patients, according to Lee County EMS transport guidelines. The newest LMHS hospital, built in 2007-2008 and opened in 2009, is Gulf Coast Medical Center (Gulf Coast) in south Lee County ZIP code 33912.5/ With 349 licensed beds, Gulf Coast offers tertiary services including kidney transplantation and open heart surgery, and specialty services including obstetrics, stroke treatment, surgical oncology, and neurology. Gulf Coast is both a designated primary stroke center and a STEMI center. NCH NCH is a not-for-profit system operating two hospital facilities with a combined 715 licensed beds in Collier County, directly to the south of Lee County. Naples Community Hospital (Naples Community) is in downtown Naples. NCH North Naples Hospital Campus (North Naples) is located in the northernmost part of Collier County, near the Collier-Lee County line.6/ The Petitioner in this case is NCH doing business as North Naples. North Naples is licensed to operate 262 acute care beds. It provides an array of acute care hospital services, specialty services including obstetrics and pediatrics, and tertiary health services including neonatal intensive care and CMR. AHCA AHCA is the state health planning agency charged with administering the CON program pursuant to the Health Facility and Services Development Act, sections 408.031-408.0455, Florida Statutes (2013).7/ AHCA is responsible for the coordinated planning of health care services in the state. To carry out its responsibilities for health planning and CON determinations, AHCA maintains a comprehensive health care database, with information that health care facilities are required to submit, such as utilization data. See § 408.033(3), Fla. Stat. AHCA conducts its health planning and CON review based on “health planning service district[s]” defined by statute. See § 408.032(5), Fla. Stat. Relevant in this case is district 8, which includes Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Lee, Glades, Hendry, and Collier Counties. Additionally, by rule, AHCA has adopted acute care sub-districts, originally utilized in conjunction with an acute care bed need methodology codified as Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.038. The acute care bed need rule was repealed in 2005, following the deregulation of acute care beds from CON review. However, AHCA has maintained its acute care sub-district rule, in which Lee County is designated sub-district 8-5. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-2.100(3)(h)5. The Proposed Project LMHS proposes to establish a new 80-bed general hospital on the southeast corner of U.S. Highway 41 and Coconut Road in Bonita Springs (ZIP code 34135),8/ in south Lee County. The CON application described the hospital services to be offered at the proposed new hospital in only the most general fashion--medical- surgical services, emergency services, intensive care, and telemetry services. Also planned for the proposed hospital are outpatient care, community education, and chronic care management --all non-hospital, non-CON-regulated services. At hearing, LMHS did not elaborate on the planned hospital services for the proposed new facility. Instead, no firm decisions have been made by the health system regarding what types of services will be offered at the new hospital. The proposed site consists of three contiguous parcels, totaling approximately 31 acres. LMHS purchased a 21-acre parcel in 2004, with a view to building a hospital there someday. LMHS later added to its holdings when additional parcels became available. At present, the site’s development of regional impact (DRI) development order does not permit a hospital, but would allow the establishment of a freestanding emergency department. The proposed hospital site is adjacent to the Bonita Community Health Center (BCHC). Jointly owned by LMHS and NCH, BCHC is a substantial health care complex described by LMHS President James Nathan as a “hospital without walls.” This 100,000 square-foot complex includes an urgent care center, ambulatory surgery center, and physicians’ offices. A wide variety of outpatient health care services are provided within the BCHC complex, including radiology/diagnostic imaging, endoscopy, rehabilitation, pain management, and lab services. Although LMHS purchased the adjacent parcels with the intent of establishing a hospital there someday, representatives of LMHS expressed their doubt that “someday” has arrived; they have candidly admitted that this application may be premature. CON Application Filing LMHS did not intend to file a CON application when it did, in the first hospital-project review cycle of 2013. LMHS did not file a letter of intent (LOI) by the initial LOI deadline to signify its intent to file a CON application. However, LMHS’s only Lee County hospital competitor, HMA, filed an LOI on the deadline day. LMHS learned that the project planned by HMA was to replace Lehigh Regional with a new hospital, which would be relocated to south Lee County, a little to the north of the Estero/Bonita Springs area. LMHS was concerned that if the HMA application went forward and was approved, that project would block LMHS’s ability to pursue a hospital in Bonita Springs for many years to come. Therefore, in reaction to HMA’s LOI, LMHS filed a “grace period” LOI, authorized under AHCA’s rules, to submit a competing proposal for a new hospital in south Lee County. But for the HMA LOI, there would have been no grace period for a competing proposal, and LMHS would not have been able to apply when it did. Two weeks later, on the initial application filing deadline, LMHS submitted a “shell” application. LMHS proceeded to quickly prepare the bulk of its application to file five weeks later by the omissions response deadline of April 10, 2013. Shortly before the omissions response deadline, Mr. Nathan met with Jeffrey Gregg, who is in charge of the CON program as director of AHCA’s Florida Center for Health Information and Policy Analysis, and Elizabeth Dudek, AHCA Secretary, to discuss the LMHS application. Mr. Nathan told the AHCA representatives that LMHS was not really ready to file a CON application, but felt cornered and forced into it to respond to the HMA proposal. Mr. Nathan also discussed with AHCA representatives the plan to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial, but AHCA told Mr. Nathan not to make such a proposal. Since beds are no longer subject to CON regulation, hospitals are free to add or delicense beds as they deem appropriate, and therefore, an offer to delicense beds adds nothing to a CON proposal. LMHS’s CON application was timely filed on the omissions deadline. A major focus of the application was on why LMHS’s proposal was better than the expected competing HMA proposal. However, HMA did not follow through on its LOI by filing a competing CON application. The LMHS CON application met the technical content requirements for a general hospital CON application, including an assessment of need for the proposed project. LMHS highlighted the following themes to show need for its proposed new hospital: South Lee County “should have its own acute care hospital” because it is a fast-growing area with an older population; by 2018, the southern ZIP codes of Lee County will contain nearly a third of the county’s total population. The Estero/Bonita Springs community strongly supports the proposed new hospital. Approval of the proposed new hospital “will significantly reduce travel times for the service area’s residents and will thereby significantly improve access to acute care services,” as shown by estimated travel times to local hospitals for residents in the proposed primary service area and by Lee County EMS transport logs. LMHS will agree to a CON condition to delicense 80 beds at Lee Memorial, which are underutilized, so that there will be no net addition of acute care beds to the sub-district’s licensed bed complement. AHCA’s Preliminary Review and Denial AHCA conducted its preliminary review of the CON application in accordance with its standard procedures. As part of the preliminary review process for general hospital applications, the CON law now permits existing health care facilities whose established programs may be substantially affected by a proposed project to submit a detailed statement in opposition. Indeed, such a detailed statement is a condition precedent to the existing provider being allowed to participate as a party in any subsequent administrative proceedings conducted with respect to the CON application. See § 408.037(2), Fla. Stat. North Naples timely filed a detailed statement in opposition to LMHS’s proposed new hospital. LMHS timely filed a response to North Naples’ opposition submittal, pursuant to the same law. After considering the CON application, the North Naples opposition submittal, and the LMHS response, AHCA prepared its SAAR in accordance with its standard procedures. A first draft of the SAAR was prepared by the CON reviewer; the primary editor of the SAAR was AHCA CON unit manager James McLemore; and then a second edit was done by Mr. Gregg. Before the SAAR was finalized, Mr. Gregg met with the AHCA Secretary to discuss the proposed decision. The SAAR sets forth AHCA’s preliminary findings and preliminary decision to deny the LMHS application. Mr. Gregg testified at hearing as AHCA’s representative, as well as in his capacity as an expert in health planning and CON review. Through Mr. Gregg’s testimony, AHCA reaffirmed its position in opposition to the LMHS application, and Mr. Gregg offered his opinions to support that position. Statutory and Rule Review Criteria The framework for consideration of LMHS’s proposed project is dictated by the statutory and rule criteria that apply to general hospital CON applications. The applicable statutory review criteria, as amended in 2008 for general hospital CON applications, are as follows: The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed. The availability, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant. * * * (e) The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district. * * * (g) The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness. * * * (i) The applicant’s past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. § 408.035(1), Fla. Stat.; § 408.035(2), Fla. Stat. (identifying review criteria that apply to general hospital applications). AHCA has not promulgated a numeric need methodology to calculate need for new hospital facilities. In the absence of a numeric need methodology promulgated by AHCA for the project at issue, Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e) applies. This rule provides that the applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory and rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.030 also applies. This rule elaborates on “health care access criteria” to be considered in reviewing CON applications, with a focus on the needs of medically underserved groups such as low income persons. LMHS’s Needs Assessment LMHS set forth its assessment of need for the proposed new hospital, highlighting the population demographics of the area proposed to be served. Theme: South Lee County’s substantial population The main theme of LMHS’s need argument is that south Lee County “should have its own acute care hospital” because it is a fast-growing area with a substantial and older population. (LMHS Exh. 3, p. 37). LMHS asserts that south Lee County’s population is sufficient to demonstrate the need for a new hospital because “by 2018, the southern ZIP codes of Lee County will contain nearly a third of the county’s total population.” Id. LMHS identified eight ZIP codes--33908, 33912, 33913, 33928, 33931, 33967, 34134, and 34135--that constitute “south Lee County.” (LMHS Exh. 3, Table 4). Claritas population projections, reasonably relied on by the applicant, project that by 2018 these eight ZIP codes will have a total population of 200,492 persons, approximately 29 percent of the projected population of 687,795 for all of Lee County. The age 65-and-older population in south Lee County is projected to be 75,150, approximately 40 percent of the projected 65+ population of 185,655 for all of Lee County. A glaring flaw in LMHS’s primary need theme is that the eight-ZIP-code “south Lee County” identified by LMHS is not without its own hospital. That area already has two of the county’s five existing hospitals: Gulf Coast and HealthPark. In advancing its need argument, LMHS selectively uses different meanings of “south Lee County.” When describing the “south Lee County” that deserves a hospital of its own, LMHS means the local Estero/Bonita Springs community in and immediately surrounding the proposed hospital site in the southernmost part of south Lee County. However, when offering up a sufficient population to demonstrate need for a new hospital, “south Lee County” expands to encompass an area that appears to be half, if not more, of the entire county. The total population of the Estero/Bonita Springs community is 76,753, projected to grow to 83,517 by 2018--much more modest population numbers compared to those highlighted by the applicant for the expanded version of south Lee County. While the rate of growth for Estero/Bonita Springs is indeed fast compared to the state and county growth rates, this observation is misleading because the actual numbers are not large. LMHS also emphasizes the larger proportion of elderly in the Estero/Bonita Springs community, which is also expected to continue to grow at a fast clip. Although no specifics were offered, it is accepted as a generic proposition that elderly persons are more frequent consumers of acute care hospital services. By the same token, elderly persons who require hospitalization tend to be sicker, and to present greater risks of potential complications from comorbidities, than non-elderly patients. As a result, for example, as discussed below, Lee County EMS’s emergency transport guidelines steer certain elderly patients to hospitals with greater breadth of services than the very basic hospital planned by LMHS, “as a reasonable precaution.” Projections of a Well-Utilized Proposed Hospital Mr. Davidson, LMHS’s health planning consultant, was provided with the proposed hospital’s location and number of beds, and was asked to develop the need assessment and projections. No evidence was offered regarding who determined that the proposed hospital should have 80 beds, or how that determination was made. Mr. Davidson set about to define the proposed primary and secondary service areas, keeping in mind that section 408.037(2) now requires a general hospital CON application to specifically identify, by ZIP codes, the primary service area from which the proposed hospital is expected to receive 75 percent of its patients, and the secondary service area from which 25 percent of the hospital’s patients are expected. Mr. Davidson selected six ZIP codes for the primary service area. He included the three ZIP codes comprising the Estero/Bonita Springs community. He also included two ZIP codes that are closer to existing hospitals than to the proposed site, according to the drive-time information he compiled. In addition, he included one ZIP code in which there is already a hospital (Gulf Coast, in 33912). Mr. Davidson’s opinion that this was a reasonable, and not overly aggressive, primary service area was not persuasive;9/ the criticisms by the other expert health planning witnesses were more persuasive and are credited. Mr. Davidson selected six more ZIP codes for the secondary service area. These include: two south Lee County ZIP codes that are HealthPark’s home ZIP code (33908) and a ZIP code to the west of HealthPark (33931); three central Lee County ZIP codes to the north of HealthPark and Gulf Coast; and one Collier County ZIP code that is North Naples’ home ZIP code. Mr. Davidson’s opinion that this was a reasonable, and not overly aggressive, secondary service area was not persuasive; the criticisms by the other expert health planning witnesses were more persuasive and are credited. As noted above, the existing LMHS hospitals provide tertiary-level care and a number of specialty service lines and designations that have not been planned for the proposed new hospital. Conversely, there are no services proposed for the new hospital that are not already provided by the existing LMHS hospitals. In the absence of evidence that the proposed new hospital will offer services not available at closer hospitals, it is not reasonable to project that any appreciable numbers of patients will travel farther, and in some instances, bypass one or more larger existing hospitals with greater breadth of services, to obtain the same services at the substantially smaller proposed new hospital. As aptly observed by AHCA’s representative, Mr. Gregg, the evidence to justify such an ambitious service area for a small hospital providing basic services was lacking: So if we were to have been given more detail[:] here’s the way we’re going to fit this into our system, here’s -- you know, here’s why we can design this service area as big as we did, even though it would require a lot of people to drive right by HealthPark or right by Gulf Coast to go to this tiny basic hospital for some reason. I mean, there are fundamental basics about this that just make us scratch our head. (Tr. 1457). The next step after defining the service area was to develop utilization projections, based on historic utilization data for service area residents who obtained the types of services to be offered by the proposed hospital. In this case, the utilization projections suffer from a planning void. Mr. Nathan testified that no decisions have been made regarding what types of services, other than general medical- surgical services, will be provided at the proposed new hospital. In lieu of information regarding the service lines actually planned for the proposed hospital, Mr. Davidson used a subtractive process, eliminating “15 or so” service lines that the proposed hospital either “absolutely wasn’t going to provide,” or that, in his judgment, a small hospital of this type would not provide. The service lines he excluded were: open heart surgery; trauma; neonatal intensive care; inpatient psychiatric, rehabilitation, and substance abuse; and unnamed “others.” His objective was to “narrow the scope of available admissions down to those that a smaller hospital could reasonably aspire to care for.” (Tr. 671-672). That objective is different from identifying the types of services expected because they have been planned for this particular proposed hospital. The testimony of NCH’s health planner, as well as Mr. Gregg, was persuasive on the point that Mr. Davidson’s approach was over-inclusive. The historic data he used included a number of service lines that are not planned for the proposed hospital and, thus, should have been subtracted from the historic utilization base. These include clinical specialties that are the focus of other LMHS hospitals, such as infectious diseases, neurology, neurosurgery, orthopedics, and urology; cardiac care, such as cardiac catheterization and angioplasty that are not planned for the proposed hospital; emergency stroke cases that will be directed to designated stroke centers; pediatric cases that will be referred to HealthPark; and obstetrics, which is not contemplated for the proposed hospital according to the more credible evidence.10/ Mr. Davidson’s market share projections suffer from some of the same flaws as the service area projections: there is no credible evidence to support the assumption that the small proposed new hospital, which has planned to offer only the most basic hospital services, will garner substantial market shares in ZIP codes that are closer to larger existing hospitals providing a greater breadth of services. In addition, variations in market share projections by ZIP code raise questions that were not adequately explained.11/ Overall, the “high-level” theme offered by LMHS’s health planner--that it is unnecessary to know what types of services will be provided at the new hospital in order to reasonably project utilization and market share--was not persuasive. While it is possible that utilization of the proposed new hospital would be sufficient to suggest it is filling a need, LMHS did not offer credible evidence that that is so. Bed Need Methodology for Proposed Service Area Mr. Davidson projected bed need for the proposed service area based on the historic utilization by residents of the 12 ZIP codes in the service lines remaining after his subtractive process, described above. Other than using an over-inclusive base (as described above), Mr. Davidson followed a reasonable approach to determine the average daily census generated by the proposed service area residents, and then applying a 75 percent occupancy standard to convert the average daily census into the number of beds supported by that population. The results of this methodology show that utilization generated by residents of the six-ZIP code primary service area would support 163 hospital beds; and utilization generated by residents of the six-ZIP code secondary service area would support 225 beds in the secondary service area. The total gross bed need for the proposed service area adds up to 388 beds. However, the critical next step was missing: subtract from the gross number of needed beds the number of existing beds, to arrive at the net bed need (or surplus). In the primary service area, 163 beds are needed, but there are already 349 beds at Gulf Coast. Thus, in the primary service area, there is a surplus of 186 beds, according to the applicant’s methodology. In the secondary service area, 225 beds are needed, but there are already 320 acute care beds at HealthPark and 262 acute care beds at North Naples. Thus, in the secondary service area, there is a surplus of 357 beds, according to the applicant’s methodology. While it is true that Gulf Coast and HealthPark use some of their beds to provide some tertiary and specialty services that were subtracted out of this methodology, and all three hospitals presumably provide services to residents outside the proposed service area, Mr. Davidson made no attempt to measure these components. Instead, the LMHS bed need methodology ignores completely the fact that there is substantial existing bed capacity--931 acute care beds--within the proposed service area. Availability and Utilization of Existing Hospitals LMHS offered utilization data for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2012, for Lee County hospitals. Cape Coral’s average annual occupancy rate was 57.6 percent; HealthPark’s was 77.5 percent; Lee Memorial’s was 55.9 percent; Lehigh Regional’s was 44 percent; and Gulf Coast’s was 79.8 percent. Mr. Davidson acknowledged that a reasonable occupancy standard to plan for a small hospital the size of the proposed hospital is 75 percent. For a larger operational hospital, 80 percent is a good standard to use, indicating it is well-utilized. Judged by these standards, only HealthPark and Gulf Coast come near the standard for a well-utilized hospital. As noted in the CON application, these annual averages do not reflect the higher utilization during peak season. According to the application, HealthPark’s occupancy was 88.2 percent and Gulf Coast’s was 86.8 percent for the peak quarter of January-March 2012. LMHS did not present utilization information for North Naples, even though that hospital is closest to the proposed hospital site and is within the proposed service area targeted by the applicant. For the same 12-month period used for the LMHS hospitals, North Naples’ average annual occupancy rate was 50.97 percent and for the January-March 2012 “peak season” quarter, North Naples’ occupancy was 60.68 percent. At the final hearing, LMHS did not present more recent utilization data, choosing instead to rely on the older information in the application. Based on the record evidence, need is not demonstrated by reference to the availability and utilization of existing hospitals in the proposed service area or in the sub-district. Community Support LMHS argued that the strong support by the Estero/Bonita Springs community should be viewed as evidence of need for the proposed new hospital. As summarized in the SAAR, approximately 2,200 letters of support were submitted by local government entities and elected officials, community groups, and area residents, voicing their support for the proposed hospital. LMHS chose not to submit these voluminous support letters in the record. The AHCA reviewer noted in the SAAR that none of the support letters documented instances in which residents of the proposed service area needed acute care hospital services but were unable to obtain them, or suffered poor or undesirable health outcomes due to the current availability of hospital services. Two community members testified at the final hearing to repeat the theme of support by Estero/Bonita Springs community residents and groups. These witnesses offered anecdotal testimony about traffic congestion during season, population growth, and development activity they have seen or heard about. They acknowledged the role their community organization has played in advocating for a neighborhood hospital, including developing and disseminating form letters for persons to express their support. Consistent with the AHCA reviewer’s characterization of the support letters, neither witness attested to any experiences needing acute care hospital services that they were unable to obtain, or any experiences in which they had poor or undesirable outcomes due to the currently available hospital services. There was no such evidence offered by any witness at the final hearing. Mr. Gregg characterized the expression of community support by the Estero/Bonita Springs community as typical “for an upper income, kind of retiree-oriented community where, number one, people anticipate needing to use hospitals, and number two, people have more time on their hands to get involved with things like this.” (Tr. 1433). Mr. Gregg described an extreme example of community support for a prior new hospital CON application, in which AHCA received 21,000 letters of support delivered in two chartered buses that were filled with community residents who wanted to meet with AHCA representatives. Mr. Gregg identified the project as the proposed hospital for North Port, which was ultimately denied following an administrative hearing. In the North Port case, the Administrative Law Judge made this apt observation with regard to the probative value of the overwhelming community support offered there: “A community’s desire for a new hospital does not mean there is a ‘need’ for a new hospital. Under the CON program, the determination of need for a new hospital must be based upon sound health planning principles, not the desires of a particular local government or its citizens.” Manatee Memorial Hospital, L.P. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., et al., Case Nos. 04-2723CON, 04-3027CON, and 04- 3147CON (Fla. DOAH Dec. 15, 2005; Fla. AHCA April 11, 2006), RO at 26, ¶ 104, adopted in FO. That finding, which was adopted by AHCA in its final order, remains true today, and is adopted herein. Access The statutory review criteria consider access issues from two opposing perspectives: from the perspective of the proposed project, consideration is given to the extent to which the proposal will enhance access to health care services for the applicant’s service district; without the proposed project, consideration is given to the accessibility of existing providers of the health care services proposed by the applicant. Addressing this two-part access inquiry, LMHS contends that the proposed hospital would significantly reduce travel times and significantly enhance access to acute care services. Three kinds of access are routinely considered in CON cases: geographic access, in this case the drive times by individuals to hospitals; emergency access, i.e., the time it takes for emergency ground transport (ambulances) to deliver patients to hospitals; and economic access, i.e., the extent to which hospital services are provided to Medicaid and charity care patients. Geographic Access (drive times to hospitals) For nearly all residents of the applicable service district, district 8, the proposed new hospital was not shown to enhance access to health care at all. The same is true for nearly all residents of sub-district 8-5, Lee County. LMHS was substantially less ambitious in its effort to show access enhancement, limiting its focus on attempting to prove that access to acute care services would be enhanced for residents of the primary service area. LMHS did not attempt to prove that there would be any access enhancement to acute care services for residents of the six-ZIP code secondary service area. As set forth in the CON application, Mr. Davidson used online mapping software to estimate the drive time from each ZIP code in the primary service area to the four existing LMHS hospitals, the two NCH hospitals, and another hospital in north Collier County, Physicians Regional-Pine Ridge. The drive-time information offered by the applicant showed the following: the drive time from ZIP code 33912 was less to three different existing LMHS hospitals than to the proposed new hospital; the drive time from ZIP code 33913 was less to two different existing LMHS hospitals than to the proposed new hospital; and the drive time from ZIP code 33967 was less to one existing LMHS hospital than to the proposed hospital site. Thus, according to LMHS’s own information, drive times would not be reduced at all for three of the six ZIP codes in the primary service area. Not surprisingly, according to LMHS’s information, the three Estero/Bonita Springs ZIP codes are shown to have slightly shorter drive times to the proposed neighborhood hospital than to any existing hospital. However, the same information also suggests that those residents already enjoy very reasonable access of 20-minutes’ drive time or less to one or more existing hospitals: the drive time from ZIP code 33928 is between 14 and 20 minutes to three different existing hospitals; the drive time from ZIP code 34134 is between 18 and 20 minutes to two different existing hospitals; and the drive time from ZIP code 34135 is 19 minutes to one existing hospital. In terms of the extent of drive time enhancement, the LMHS information shows that drive time would be shortened from 14 minutes to seven minutes for ZIP code 33928; from 18 minutes to 12 minutes for ZIP code 34134; and from 19 minutes to 17 minutes for ZIP code 34135. There used to be an access standard codified in the (now-repealed) acute care bed need rule, providing that acute care services should be accessible within a 30-minute drive time under normal conditions to 90 percent of the service area’s population. Mr. Davidson’s opinion is that the former rule’s 30-minute drive time standard remains a reasonable access standard for acute care services. Here, LMHS’s drive time information shows very reasonable access now, meeting an even more rigorous drive-time standard of 20 minutes. The establishment of a new hospital facility will always enhance geographic access by shortening drive times for some residents. For example, if LMHS’s proposed hospital were established, another proposed hospital could demonstrate enhanced access by reducing drive times from seven minutes to four minutes for residents of Estero’s ZIP code 33928. But the question is not whether there is any enhanced access, no matter how insignificant. Instead, the appropriate consideration is the “extent” of enhanced access for residents of the service district or sub-district. Here, the only travel time information offered by LMHS shows nothing more than insignificant reductions of already reasonable travel times for residents of only three of six ZIP codes in the primary service area. The drive-time information offered in the application and at hearing was far from precise, but it was the only evidence offered by the applicant in an attempt to prove its claim that there would be a significant reduction in drive times for residents of the primary service area ZIP codes. No travel time expert or traffic engineer offered his or her expertise to the subject of geographic accessibility in this case. No evidence was presented regarding measured traffic conditions or planned roadway improvements. Anecdotal testimony regarding “congested” roads during “season” was general in nature and insufficient to prove that there is not reasonable access now to basic acute care hospital services for all residents of the proposed service area. The proposed new hospital is not needed to address a geographic access problem. Consideration of the extent of access enhancement does not weigh in favor of the proposed new hospital. Emergency Access LMHS also sought to establish that emergency access via EMS ambulance transport was becoming problematic during the season because of traffic congestion. In its CON application, LMHS offered Lee County EMS transport logs as evidence that ambulance transport times from the Estero/Bonita Springs community to an existing hospital were higher during season than in the off-season months. LMHS represented in its CON application that the voluminous Lee County EMS transport logs show average transport times of over 22 minutes from Bonita Springs to a hospital in March 2012 compared to 15 minutes for June 2012, and average transport times of just under 22 minutes from Estero to a hospital in March 2012 compared to over 17 minutes for June 2012. LMHS suggested that these times were not reasonable because these were all emergency transports at high speeds with flashing lights and sirens. LMHS did not prove the accuracy of this statement. The Lee County EMS ordinance limits the use of sirens and flashing lights to emergency transports, defined to mean transports of patients with life- or limb-threatening conditions. According to Lee County EMS Deputy Chief Panem, 90 to 95 percent of ambulance transports do not involve such conditions. Contrary to the conclusion that LMHS urges should be drawn from the EMS transport logs, the ambulance transport times summarized by LMHS in its application do not demonstrate unreasonable emergency access for residents of Estero/Bonita Springs. The logs do not demonstrate an emergency access problem for the local residents during the season, as contended by LMHS; nor did LMHS offer sufficient evidence to prove that the proposed new hospital would materially improve ambulance transport times. LMHS’s opinion that the ambulance logs show a seasonal emergency access problem for Estero/Bonita Springs residents cannot be credited unless the travel times on the logs reflect patient transports to the nearest hospital, such that establishing a new hospital in Bonita Springs would result in faster ambulance transports for Estero/Bonita Springs residents. Deputy Chief Panem testified that ambulance transport destination is dictated in the first instance by patient choice. In addition, for the “most serious calls,” the destination is dictated by emergency transport guidelines with a matrix identifying the most “appropriate” hospitals to direct patients. For example, as Deputy Chief Panem explained: In the case of a stroke or heart attack, we want them to go to a stroke facility or a heart attack facility[;] or trauma, we have a trauma center in Lee County as well . . . Lee Memorial Hospital downtown is a level II trauma center. (Tr. 378). The emergency transport matrix identifies the hospitals qualified to handle emergency heart attack, stroke, or trauma patients. In addition, the matrix identifies the “most appropriate facility” for emergency pediatrics, obstetrics, pediatric orthopedic emergencies, and other categories involving the “most serious calls.” Of comparable size to the proposed new hospital, 88-bed Lehigh Regional is not identified as an “appropriate facility” to transport patients with any of the serious conditions shown in the matrix. Similar to Lehigh Regional, the slightly smaller proposed new hospital is not expected to be identified as an appropriate facility destination for patients with any of the conditions designated in the Lee County EMS emergency transport matrix. The Lee County EMS transport guidelines clarify that all trauma alert patients “will be” transported to Lee Memorial as the Level II Trauma Center. In addition, the guidelines provide as follows: “Non-trauma alert patients with a high index of suspicion (elderly, etc.) should preferentially be transported to the Trauma Center as a reasonable precaution.” (emphasis added). For the elderly, then, a condition that would not normally be considered one of the most serious cases to be steered to the most appropriate hospital may be reclassified as such, as a reasonable precaution because the patient is elderly. The Lee County EMS transport logs do not reflect the reason for the chosen destination. The patients may have requested transport to distant facilities instead of to the nearest facilities. Patients with the most serious conditions may have accepted the advice of ambulance crews that they should be transported to the “most appropriate facility” with special resources to treat their serious conditions; or those patients may have been unable to express their choice due to the seriousness of their condition, in which case the patients would be taken to the most appropriate facility, bypassing closer facilities. Elderly patients may have been convinced to take the reasonable precaution to go to an appropriate facility even if their condition did not fall into the most serious categories. Since the transport times on the EMS logs do not necessarily reflect transport times to the closest hospital, it is not reasonable to conclude that the transport times would be shorter if there were an even closer hospital, particularly where the closer hospital is not likely to be designated as an appropriate destination in the transport guidelines matrix. The most serious cases, categorized in the EMS transport matrix, are the ones for which minutes matter. For those cases, a new hospital in Estero/Bonita Springs, which has not planned to be a STEMI receiving center, a stroke center, or a trauma center, is not going to enhance access to emergency care, even for the neighborhood residents. The evidence at hearing did not establish that ambulance transport times are excessive or cause an emergency access problem now.12/ In fact, Deputy Chief Panem did not offer the opinion, or offer any evidence to prove, that the drive time for ambulances transporting patients to area hospitals is unreasonable or contrary to any standard for reasonable emergency access. Instead, Lee County EMS recently opposed an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity by the Bonita Springs Fire District to provide emergency ground transportation to hospitals, because Lee County EMS believed then, and believes now, that it is providing efficient and effective emergency transport services to the Bonita Springs area residents. At hearing, LMHS tried a different approach by attempting to prove an emergency access problem during season, not because of the ambulance drive times, but because of delays at the emergency departments themselves after patients are transported there. The new focus at hearing was on EMS “offload” times, described as the time between ambulance arrival at the hospital and the time the ambulance crews hand over responsibility for a patient to the emergency department staff. According to Deputy Chief Panem, Lee County hospitals rarely go on “bypass,” a status that informs EMS providers not to transport patients to a hospital because additional emergency patients cannot be accommodated. No “bypass” evidence was offered, suggesting that “bypass” status is not a problem in Lee County and that Lee County emergency departments are available to EMS providers. Deputy Chief Panem also confirmed that North Naples does not go on bypass. The North Naples emergency department consistently has been available to receive patients transported by Lee County EMS ambulances, during seasonal and off- season months. Offload times are a function of a variety of factors. Reasons for delays in offloading patients can include inadequate capacity or functionality of the emergency department, or inadequate staffing in the emergency department such that there may be empty treatment bays, but the bays cannot be filled with patients because there is no staff to tend to the patients. Individual instances of offload delays can occur when emergency department personnel prioritize incoming cases, and less-emergent cases might have to wait while more-emergent cases are taken first, even if they arrived later. Offload times are also a function of “throughput” issues. Approximately 20 to 25 percent of emergency department patients require admission to the hospital, but there can be delays in the admission process, causing the patient to be held in a treatment bay that could otherwise be filled by the next emergency patient. There can be many reasons for throughput delays, including the lack of an available acute care bed, or inadequate staffing that prevents available acute care beds from being filled. No evidence was offered to prove the actual causes of any offload delays. Moreover, the evidence failed to establish that offload times were unreasonable or excessive. Deputy Chief Panem offered offload time data summaries that reflect very good performance by LMHS hospitals and by North Naples. Deputy Chief Panem understandably advocates the shortest possible offload time, so that Lee County EMS ambulances are back in service more quickly. Lee County EMS persuaded the LMHS emergency departments to agree to a goal for offload times of 30 minutes or less 90 percent of the time, and that is the goal he tracks. Both Lee Memorial and North Naples have consistently met or exceeded that goal in almost every month over the last five years, including during peak seasonal months. Cape Coral and Gulf Coast sometimes fall below the goal in peak seasonal months, but the evidence did not establish offload times that are excessive or unreasonable during peak months. HealthPark is the one LMHS hospital that appears to consistently fall below Lee County EMS’s offload time goal; in peak seasonal months, HealthPark’s offload times were less than 30 minutes in approximately 70 percent of the cases. No evidence was offered to prove the extent of offload delays at HealthPark for the other 30 percent of emergency cases, nor was evidence offered to prove the extent of offload delays at any other hospital. Deputy Chief Panem referred anecdotally to offload times that can sometimes reach as high as two to three hours during season, but he did not provide specifics. Without documentation of the extent and magnitude of offload delays, it is impossible to conclude that they are unreasonable or excessive. There is no persuasive evidence suggesting that this facet of emergency care would be helped by approval of the proposed new hospital, especially given the complicated array of possible reasons for each case in which there was a delayed offload.13/ Staffing/professional coverage issues likely would be exacerbated by approving another hospital venue for LMHS. Pure physical plant issues, such as emergency department capacity and acute care bed availability, might be helped to some degree, at least in theory, by a new hospital, but to a lesser degree than directly addressing any capacity issues at the existing hospitals. For example, HealthPark’s emergency department has served as a combined destination for a wide array of adult and pediatric emergencies. However, HealthPark is about to break ground on a new on-campus children’s hospital with its own dedicated emergency department. There will be substantially expanded capacity both within the new dedicated pediatric emergency department, and in the existing emergency department, where vacated space used for pediatric patients will be freed up for adults. Beyond the emergency departments themselves, there will be substantial additional acute care bed capacity, with space built to accommodate 160 dedicated pediatric beds in the new children’s hospital. The existing hospital will have the ability to add more than the 80 acute care beds proposed for the new hospital. This additional bed capacity could be in place within roughly the same timeframe projected for opening the proposed new hospital. To the extent additional capacity would improve emergency department performance, Cape Coral is completing an expansion project that increases its treatment bays from 24 to 42, and Lee Memorial is adding nine observation beds to its emergency department. No current expansion projects were identified for Gulf Coast, which just began operations in 2009, but LMHS has already invested in design and construction features to enable that facility to expand by an additional 252 beds. In Mr. Kistel’s words, Gulf Coast has a “tremendous platform for growth[.]” (Tr. 259). Mr. Gregg summarized AHCA’s perspective in considering the applicant’s arguments of geographic and emergency access enhancement, as follows: [I]n our view, this community is already well served by existing hospitals, either within the applicant’s system or from the competing Naples system, and we don’t think that the situation would be improved by adding another very small, extremely basic hospital. And to the extent that that would mislead people into thinking that it’s a full-service hospital that handles time-sensitive emergencies in the way that the larger hospitals do, that’s another concern. (Tr. 1425). * * * The fact that this hospital does not plan to offer those most time-sensitive services means that any – on the surface, as I said earlier, the possible improvement in emergency access offered by any new hospital is at least partially negated in this case because it has been proposed as such a basic hospital, when the more sophisticated services are located not far away. (Tr. 1431). Mr. Gregg’s opinion is reasonable and is credited. Economic Access The Estero/Bonita Springs community is a very affluent area, known for its golf courses and gated communities. As a result of the demographics of the proposed hospital’s projected service area, LMHS’s application offers to accept as a CON condition a commitment to provide 10 percent of the total annual patient days to a combination of Medicaid, charity, and self-pay patients. This commitment is less than the 2011-2012 experience for the primary service area, where patient days attributable to residents in these three payer classes was a combined 16.3 percent; and the commitment is less than the 2011- 2012 experience for the total proposed service area, where patient days in these three categories was a combined 14.4 percent. Nonetheless, LMHS’s experts reasonably explained that the commitment was established on the low side, taking into account the uncertainties of changes in the health care environment, to ensure that the commitment could be achieved. In contrast with the 10 percent commitment and the historic level of Medicaid/charity/self-pay patient days in the proposed service area, Lee Memorial historically has provided the highest combined level of Medicaid and charity patient days in district 8. According to LMHS’s financial expert, in 2012, Lee Memorial downtown and HealthPark, combined for reporting purposes under the same license, provided 31.5 percent of their patient days to Medicaid and charity patients--a percentage that would be even higher, it is safe to assume, if patient days in the “self- pay/other” payer category were added. At hearing, Mr. Gregg reasonably expressed concern with LMHS shifting its resources from the low-income downtown area where there is great need for economic access to a very affluent area where comparable levels of service to the medically needy would be impossible to achieve. Mr. Gregg acknowledged that AHCA has approved proposals in the past that help systems with safety-net hospitals achieve balance by moving some of the safety net’s resources to an affluent area. As previously noted, that sort of rationale was at play in the LMHS project to establish HealthPark, and again in the acquisitions of Cape Coral and Gulf Coast. However, LMHS now has three of its four hospitals thriving in relatively affluent areas. To move more LMHS resources from the downtown safety-net hospital to another affluent area would not be a move towards system balance, but rather, system imbalance, and would be contrary to the economic access CON review criteria in statute and rule. Missing Needs Assessment Factor: Medical Treatment Trends The consistent testimony of all witnesses with expertise to address this subject was that the trend in medical treatment continues to be in the direction of outpatient care in lieu of inpatient hospital care. The expected result will be that inpatient hospital usage will narrow to the most highly specialized services provided to patients with more serious conditions requiring more complex, specialized treatments. Mr. Gregg described this trend as follows: “[O]nly those services that are very expensive, operated by very extensive personnel” will be offered to inpatients in the future. (Tr. 1412). A basic acute care hospital without planned specialty or tertiary services is inconsistent with the type of hospital dictated by this medical treatment trend. Mr. Gregg reasonably opined that “the ability of a hospital system to sprinkle about small little satellite facilities is drawing to a close.” (Tr. 1413). Small hospitals will no longer be able to add specialized and tertiary services, because these will be concentrated in fewer hospitals. LMHS’s move to clinical specialization at its hospitals bears this out. Another trend expected to impact services within the timeframe at issue is the development of telemedicine as an alternative to inpatient hospital care. For patients who cannot be treated in an outpatient setting and released, an option will be for patients to recover at home in their own beds, with close monitoring options such as visual monitoring by video linking the patient with medical professionals, and use of devices to constantly measure and report vital signs monitored by a practitioner at a remote location. Telemedicine offers advantages over inpatient hospitalization with regard to infection control and patient comfort, as well as overall health care cost control by reducing the need for capital-intensive traditional bricks-and- mortar hospitals. A medical treatment trend being actively pursued by both LMHS and NCH is for better, more efficient management of inpatient care so as to reduce the average length of patient stays. A ten-year master planning process recently undertaken by LMHS included a goal to further reduce average lengths of stay by 0.65 days by 2021, and thereby reduce the number of hospital beds needed system-wide by 128 beds. LMHS did not address the subject of medical treatment trends as part of its needs assessment. The persuasive evidence demonstrated that medical treatment trends do not support the need for the proposed new facility; consideration of these trends weighs against approval. Competition; Market Conditions The proposed new hospital will not foster competition; it will diminish competition by expanding LMHS’s market dominance of acute care services in Lee County. AHCA voiced its reasonable concerns about Lee Memorial’s “unprecedented” market dominance of acute care services in a county as large as Lee, which recently ranked as the eighth most populous county in Florida. LMHS already provides a majority of hospital care being obtained by residents of the primary service area. LMHS will increase its market share if the proposed new hospital is approved. This increase will come both directly, via basic medical-surgical services provided to patients at the new hospital, and indirectly, via LMHS’s plan for the proposed new hospital to serve as a feeder system to direct patients to other LMHS hospitals for more specialized care.14/ The evidence did not establish that LMHS historically has used its market power as leverage to demand higher charges from private insurers. However, as LMHS’s financial expert acknowledged, the health care environment is undergoing changes, making the past less predictive of the future. The changing environment was cited as the reason for LMHS’s low commitment to Medicaid and charity care for the proposed project. There is evidence of LMHS’s market power in its high operating margin, more than six percent higher than NCH’s operating margin between 2009 and 2012. LMHS’s financial expert’s opinion that total margin should be considered instead of operating margin when looking at market power was not persuasive. Of concern is the market power in the field of hospital operations, making operating margin the appropriate measure. Overall, Mr. Gregg reasonably explained the lack of competitive benefit from the proposed project: I think that this proposal does less for competition than virtually any acute care hospital proposal that we’ve seen. As I said, it led the Agency to somewhat scratch [its] head in disbelief. There is no other situation like it. . . . This is the most basic of satellites. This hospital will be referring patients to the rest of the Lee Memorial system in diverse abundance because they are not going to be able to offer specialized services. And economies of scale are not going to allow it in the future. People will not be able to duplicate the expensive services that hospitals offer. So we do not see this as enhancing competition in any way at all. (Tr. 1416-1417). The proposed hospital’s inclusion of outpatient services, community education, and chronic care management presents an awkward dimension of direct competition with adjacent BCHC, the joint venture between LMHS and NCH. BCHC has been a money-losing proposition in a direct sense, but both systems remain committed to the venture, in part because of the indirect benefit they now share in the form of referrals of patients to both systems’ hospitals. Duplication of BCHC’s services, which are already struggling financially, would not appear to be beneficial competition. While this is not a significant factor, to the extent LMHS makes a point of the non-hospital outpatient services that will be available at the proposed new hospital, it must be noted that that dimension of the project does nothing to enhance beneficial competition. Adverse Impact NCH would suffer a substantial adverse financial impact caused by the establishment of the proposed hospital, if approved. A large part of the adverse financial impact would be attributable to lost patient volume at North Naples, an established hospital which is not well-utilized now, without a new hospital targeting residents of North Naples’ home zip code. The expected adverse financial impact of the proposed new hospital was reasonably estimated to be $6.4 million annually. Just as LMHS cited concerns about the unpredictability of the health care environment as a reason to lower its Medicaid/charity commitment for the proposed project, NCH has concerns with whether the substantial adverse impact from the proposed hospital will do serious harm to NCH’s viability, when added to the uncertain impacts of the Affordable Care Act, sequestration, Medicaid reimbursement, and other changes. LMHS counters with the view that if the proposed hospital is approved, in time population growth will offset the proposed hospital’s adverse impact. While consideration of medical treatment trends may dictate that an increasing amount of future population growth will be treated in settings other than a traditional hospital, Mr. Gregg opined that over time, the area’s population growth will still tend to drive hospital usage up. However, future hospital usage will be by a narrower class of more complex patients. Considering all of the competing factors established in this record, the likely adverse impact that NCH would experience if the proposed hospital is established, though substantial enough to support the standing of Petitioner North Naples, is not viewed as extreme enough to pose a threat to NCH’s viability. Institution/System-Specific Interests LMHS’s proposed condition to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial downtown is not a factor weighing in favor of approval of its proposed hospital. At hearing, LMHS defended the proposed CON condition as a helpful way to allow LMHS to address facility challenges at Lee Memorial. The evidence showed that to some extent, this issue is overstated in that, by all accounts, Lee Memorial provides excellent, award-winning care that meets all credentialing requirements for full accreditation. The evidence also suggested that to some extent, there are serious system issues facing LMHS that will need to be confronted at some point to answer the unanswered question posed by Mr. Gregg: What will become of Lee Memorial? Recognizing this, LMHS began a ten-year master planning process in 2011, to take a look at LMHS’s four hospitals in the context of the needs of Lee County over a ten-year horizon, and determine how LMHS could meet those needs. A team of outside and in-house experts were involved in the ten-year master planning process. LMHS’s strategic planning team looked at projected volumes and population information for all of Lee County over the next ten years and determined the number of beds needed to address projected needs. Recommendations were then developed regarding how LMHS would meet the needs identified for Lee County through 2021 by rearranging, adding, and subtracting beds among the four existing hospital campuses. A cornerstone of the master plan assessment by numerous outside experts and LMHS experts was that Lee Memorial’s existing physical plant was approaching the end of its useful life. Options considered were: replace the hospital building on the existing campus; downsize the hospital and relocate some of the beds and services to Gulf Coast; and the favored option, discontinue operations of Lee Memorial as an acute care hospital, removing all acute care beds and reestablishing those beds and services primarily at the Gulf Coast campus, with some beds possibly placed at Cape Coral. All of these options addressed the projected needs for Lee County through 2021 within the existing expansion capabilities of Gulf Coast and Cape Coral, and the expansion capabilities that HealthPark will have with the addition of its new on-campus children’s hospital. Somewhat confusingly, the CON application referred several times to LMHS’s “ten-year master plan for our long-term facility needs, which considers the changing geographic population trends of our region, the need for additional capacity during the seasonal months, and facility challenges at Lee Memorial[.]” (LMHS Exh. 3, pp. 12, 57). The implication given by these references was that the new hospital project was being proposed in furtherance of the ten-year master plan, as the product of careful, studied consideration in a long-range planning process to address the future needs of Lee County. To the contrary, although the referenced ten-year master plan process was, indeed, a long- range deliberative planning process to assess and plan for the future needs of Lee County, the ten-year master plan did not contemplate the proposed new hospital as a way to meet the needs in Lee County identified through 2021.15/ The ten-year master planning process was halted because of concerns about the options identified for Lee Memorial. Further investigation was to be undertaken for Lee Memorial and what services needed to be maintained there. No evidence was presented to suggest that this investigation had taken place as of the final hearing. The proposed CON condition to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial does nothing to address the big picture issues that LMHS faces regarding the Lee Memorial campus. According to different LMHS witnesses, either some or nearly all of those licensed beds are not operational or available to be put in service, so the license is meaningless and delicensing them would accomplish nothing. To the extent any of those beds are operational, delicensing them might cause Lee Memorial to suddenly have throughput problems and drop below the EMS offload time goal, when it has been one of the system’s best performers. The proposed piecemeal dismantling of Lee Memorial, without a plan to address the bigger picture, reasonably causes AHCA great concern. As Mr. Gregg explained, “[I]t raises a fundamental concern for us, in that the area around Lee Memorial, the area of downtown Fort Myers is the lower income area of Lee County. The area around the proposed facility, Estero, Bonita, is one of the upper income areas of Lee County.” (Tr. 1410). The plan to shift resources away from downtown caused Mr. Gregg to pose the unanswered question: “[W]hat is to become of Lee Memorial?” Id. Recognizing the physical plant challenges faced there, nonetheless AHCA was left to ask, “[W]hat about that population and how does [the proposed new hospital] relate? How does this proposed facility fit into the multihospital system that might exist in the future?” (Tr. 1410-1411). These are not only reasonable, unanswered questions, they are the same questions left hanging when LMHS interrupted the ten-year master planning process to react to HMA’s LOI with the CON application at issue here. Balanced Review of Pertinent Criteria In AHCA’s initial review, when it came time to weigh and balance the pertinent criteria, “It was difficult for us to come up with the positive about this proposal.” (Tr. 1432). In this case, AHCA’s initial review assessment was borne out by the evidence at hearing. The undersigned must agree with AHCA that the balance of factors weighs heavily, if not entirely, against approval of the application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a Final Order denying CON application no. 10185. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2014.
The Issue Whether the application of Petitioner Naples Community Hospital, Inc. for a Certificate of Need to add a total of 35 beds to Naples Community Hospital and North Collier Community Hospital should be approved based on peak seasonal demand for acute care beds in the relevant subdistrict.
Findings Of Fact Naples Community Hospital, Inc., ("NCH") holds the license for and operates Naples Community Hospital ("Naples"), a 331 bed not-for-profit acute care hospital, and North Collier Community Hospital ("North Collier"), a 50 bed acute care hospital. NCH also operates a 22 bed comprehensive rehabilitation facility and a 23 bed psychiatric facility. NCH is owned by Community Health Care, Inc., "(CHC"). Both Naples and North Collier are located within Agency for Health Care Administration ("ACHA") district 8 and are the only hospitals within subdistrict 2 of the district. Naples is located in central Collier County. North Collier is (as the name implies) located in northern Collier County approximately 2-3 miles from the county line. NCH's primary service area is Collier County from which approximately 85-90 percent of its patients come, with a secondary service area extending north into Lee County. Neither Naples nor North Collier are teaching hospitals as defined by Section 407.002(27), Florida Statutes (1991). NCH is not proposing a joint venture in this CON application. NCH has a record of providing health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. NCH proposes to provide health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Neither Naples nor North Collier are currently designated by the Office of Medicaid as disproportionate share providers. NCH has the funds for capital and initial operating expenditures for the project. NCH has sufficient financial resources to construct and equip the proposed project. The costs and methods of the proposed construction are reasonable. The Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the state agency charged with responsibility for administering the Certificate of Need program. Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center ("Southwest") is a 400 bed for-profit acute care hospital located in Fort Myers, Lee County. Lee County is adjacent to and north of Collier County. Southwest is owned by Columbia Hospital Corporation ("Columbia"), which also owns Gulf Coast Hospital in Fort Myers, and two additional hospitals in AHCA District 8. Southwest's primary service area is Lee County. Although Southwest asserts that it would be negatively impacted by the addition of acute care beds at NCH, the greater weight of the credible evidence fails to support the assertion. The primary market services areas of NCH and Southwest are essentially distinct. However, the facilities are located in such proximity as to indicate that secondary service areas overlap and that, at least during peak winter season periods, approval of the NCH application could potentially impact Southwest's operations. Southwest has standing to participate in this proceeding. Southwest offered evidence to establish that it would be substantially affected by approval of the NCH application. The NCH length-of-stay identified in the Southwest documents is inaccurate and under-reports actual length-of-stay statistics. The documentation also includes demographic information from a zip code (33912) which contributes an insignificant portion of NCH patients, and relies on only two years of data in support of the assertion that utilization in the NCH service area is declining. Southwest's chief operating officer testified that he considers Gulf Coast Hospital, another Columbia-owned facility, to offer more competition to Southwest that does NCH. Further, a physician must have admitting privileges at a hospital before she can admit patients to the facility. Of the physicians holding admitting privileges at Southwest, only two, both cardiologists, also have admitting privileges at NCH. Contrary to Southwest, NCH does not have an open heart surgery program. Accordingly, at least as to physician-admitted patients, approval of the NCH application would likely have little impact. On August 26, 1991, NCH submitted to AHCA a letter of intent indicating that NCH would file a Certificate of Need ("CON") application in the September 26, 1991 batching cycle for the addition of 35 acute care beds to the Naples and North Collier facilities. The letter of intent did not specify how the additional beds would be divided between the two facilities. The determination of the number of beds for which NCH would apply was solely based on the fact that the applicant had 35 observation beds which could be readily converted to acute care beds. The observation beds NCH proposes to convert are equipped identically to the acute care beds at NCH and are currently staffed. The costs involved in such conversion are minimal and relatively insignificant. Included with the letter of intent was a certified corporate resolution which states that on July 24, 1991, the NCH Board of Trustees authorized the filing of an application for the additional beds, authorized NCH to incur related expenses, stated that NCH would accomplish the proposed project within time and budget allowances set forth in the application, and that NCH would license and operate the facility. By certification executed August 7, 1991, the NCH secretary certified that the resolution was enacted at the July 24, 1991 board meeting and that the resolution did not contravene the NCH articles of incorporation or bylaws. Article X, Sections 10.1 and 10.1.3 of the NCH bylaws provides that no CON application shall be legally effective without the written approval of CHC. On September 26, 1991, NCH filed an application for CON No. 6797 proposing to add 31 acute care beds to Naples and 4 acute care beds to North Collier. The CON application included a copy of the NCH board resolution and certification which had been previously submitted with the letter of intent as well as the appropriate filing fee. NCH published appropriate public notice of the application's filing. As of the date of the CON application's filing, CHC had not issued written approval of the CON application prior to the action of the NCH Board of Directors and the filing of the letter of intent or the application. On October 2, 1992, four days prior to the administrative hearing in this case, the board of CHC ratified the actions of NCH as to the application for CON at issue in this case. The CHC board has previously ratified actions of the NCH in such fashion. There is uncontroverted testimony that the CHC board was aware of the NCH application and that no reservation was expressed by any CHC board member regarding the CON application. Although NCH's filing of the CON application without appropriate authorization from its parent company appears to be in violation of the NCH bylaws, such does not violate the rules of the AHCA. There is no evidence that the AHCA requested written authorization from the CHC board. After review of the application, the AHCA identified certain deficiencies in the application and notified NCH, which apparently rectified the deficiencies. The AHCA deemed the application complete on November 8, 1991. As required by statute, NCH included a list of capital projects as part of the CON application. The list of capital projects attached to the application was incomplete. The capital projects list failed to identify approximate expenditures of $370,000 to construct a patio enclosure, $750,000 to install an interim sprinkler system, $110,000 to construct emergency room triage space, and $125,000 to complete electrical system renovations. At hearing, witnesses for NCH attempted to clarify the omissions from the capital projects list. The witnesses claimed that such omitted projects were actually included within projects which were identified on the list. When identifying the listed projects within which the omitted projects were supposedly included, the witnesses testified inconsistently. For example, one witness testified that the patio project was included in the emergency room expansion project listed in the application. Another witness claimed that the patio enclosure was included in an equipment purchase category. Based on the testimony, it is more likely that the patio enclosure was neither a part of an emergency room expansion nor equipment purchase, but was a separate construction project which was omitted from the CON application. Similarly inconsistent explanations were offered for the other projects which were omitted from the capital projects list. The testimony was not credible. The capital projects omitted from the list do not affect the ability of NCH to implement the CON sought in this proceeding. The parties stipulated to the fact the NCH has sufficient financial resources to construct and equip the proposed project. As part of the CON application, NCH was required to submit a pro forma income statement for the time period during which the bed additions would take place. The application failed to include a pro forma statement for the appropriate time period. Based on the stipulation of the parties that the costs and methods of the proposed construction are reasonable, and that NCH has adequate resources to fund the project, the failure to include the relevant pro forma is immaterial. Pursuant to applicable methodology, the AHCA calculates numeric acute care bed need projections for each subdistrict's specific planning period. Accordingly, the AHCA calculated the need for additional acute care beds in district 8, subdistrict 2 for the July, 1996 planning horizon. The results of the calculation are published by the agency. The unchallenged, published fixed need pool for the planning horizon at issue in this proceeding indicated that there was no numeric need for additional acute care beds in district 8, subdistrict 2, Collier County, Florida, pursuant to the numeric need methodology under Rule 59C-1.038 Florida Administrative Code. The CON application filed by NCH is based on the peak seasonal demand experienced by hospitals in the area during the winter months, due to part-time residents. NCH asserts that the utilization of acute care beds during the winter months (January through April) results in occupancy levels in excess of 75 percent and justifies the addition of acute care beds, notwithstanding the numerical need determination. Approval of the CON application is not justified by the facts in this case. The AHCA's acute care bed need methodology accounts for high seasonal demand in certain subdistricts in a manner which provides that facilities have bed space adequate to accommodate peak demand. The calculation which requires that the average annual occupancy level exceed 75 percent reflects AHCA consideration of occupancy levels which rise and fall with seasonal population shifts. The applicant has not challenged the methodology employed by the AHCA in projecting need. Peak seasonal acute care bed demand may justify approval of a CON application seeking additional beds if the lack of available beds poses a credible threat of potentially negative impact on patient outcomes. The peak seasonal demand experienced by NCH has not adversely affected patient care and there is insufficient evidence to establish that, at this time, such peak demand poses a credible threat of potential negative impact on patient outcomes in the foreseeable future. There is no dispute regarding the existing quality of care at Naples, North Collier, Southwest or any other acute care hospital in district 8. The parties stipulated that NCH has the ability to provide quality of care and a record of providing quality of care. In this case, the applicant is seeking to convert existing beds from a classification of "observation" to "acute care". The observation beds NCH proposes to convert are equipped identically to the acute care beds at NCH. Approval of the CON application would result in no net increase in the number of licensed beds. NCH offered anecdotal evidence suggesting that delays in transferring patients from the Naples emergency room to acute care beds (a "logjam") was caused by peak seasonal occupancy rates. There was no evidence offered as to the situation at the North Collier emergency room. The anecdotal evidence is insufficient to establish that "logjams" (if they occur at all) are related to an inadequate number of beds identified as "acute care" at NCH facilities. There are other factors which can result in delays in moving patients from emergency rooms to acute care beds, including facility discharge patterns, delays in obtaining medical test results and staffing practices. NCH asserted at hearing that physicians who refer patients to NCH facilities will not refer such patients to other facilities. The evidence fails to establish that such physician practice is reasonable or provides justification for approval of CON applications under "not normal" circumstances and further fails to establish that conditions at NCH are such as to result in physicians attempting to locate other facilities in which to admit patients. The rule governing approval of acute care beds provides that, prior to such approval, the annual occupancy rate for acute care beds in the subdistrict or for the specific provider, must exceed 75 percent. This requirement has not been met. Applicable statutes require that, in considering applications for CON's, the AHCA consider accessibility of existing providers. The AHCA- established standard provides that acute care bed accessibility requirements are met when at least 90 percent of the residents in an urban subdistrict are within a 30 minute automobile trip to such facilities. At least 90 percent of Naples residents are presently within a 30 minute travel time to NCH acute care beds. The number of acute care beds in the subdistrict substantially exceed the demand for such beds. Additional beds would result in inefficient utilization of existing beds, would further increase the current oversupply of beds, would delay the time at which need for additional beds may be determined and, as such, would prevent competing facilities from applying for and receiving approval for such beds. The financial feasibility projections set forth in the CON application rely on assumptions as to need and utilization projections which are not supported by the greater weight of the evidence and are not credited. Accordingly, the evidence fails to establish that the addition of 35 acute care beds to NCH facilities is financially feasible in the long term or that the income projections set forth in the CON application are reasonable. As to projections related to staffing requirements and costs, the beds are existing and are currently staffed on a daily, shift-by-shift basis, based on patient census and acuity of illness. There is reason to believe that the staffing patterns will remain fairly constant and accordingly the projections, based on historical data, are reasonable. Generally stated, where there is no numeric or "not normal" need for the proposed addition of 35 acute care beds in the relevant subdistrict, it could be predicted that the addition of acute care beds would exacerbate the oversupply of available beds and could cause a slight reduction in the occupancy levels experienced by other providers. In this case, the market service areas are sufficiently distinct as to suggest that such would not necessarily be the result. However, based on the lack of need justifying approval of the CON application under any existing circumstances, it is unnecessary to address in detail the impact on existing providers. The state and district health plans identify a number of preferences which should be considered in determining whether a CON application should be approved. The plans suggest that such preferences are to be considered when competing CON applications are reviewed. In this case there is no competing application and the applicability of the preferences is unclear. However, in any event, application of the preferences to this proposal fail to support approval of the application.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered DENYING the application of Naples Community Hospital, Inc., for Certificate of Need 6797. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of March, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 19th day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-1510 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3-4, 6-8, 16-20, 29-36, 38, 41, 44, 47, 49-61, 80, 88, 95-96, 100, 104, 108, 117-119, 122-125, 127, 134-138. Rejected as unnecessary. 15. Rejected as irrelevant. Peak seasonal demand is accounted for by the numeric need determination methodology. There is no credible evidence which supports a calculation of three years of four month winter occupancy to reach a 12 month average occupancy rate. 21-27, 37, 42-43, 62-64, 66, 97, 99, 101-103, 105-107, 109, 120-121, 126. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 28. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence and contrary to the stipulation filed by the parties. Rejected as not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence which fails to establish that the transfer of patients from emergency room to acute care beds is delayed due to numerical availability of beds. Rejected as not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence which fails to establish that the alleged lack of acute care beds is based on insufficient number of total beds as opposed to other factors which affect bed availability. Rejected as immaterial and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence Rejected as immaterial and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which fails to establish reasonableness of considering only a four month period under "not normal" circumstances where the period and the peak seasonal demand are included within the averages utilized to project bed need. 86. Rejected as cumulative. 114. Rejected as unsupported hearsay. Respondent/Intervenor The Respondent and Intervenor filed a joint proposed recommended order. The proposed order's findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 6, 45, 51, 53, 59-67, 69-70, 94-113. Rejected as unnecessary. 16. Rejected as to use of term "false", conclusion of law. 58. Rejected as not clearly supported by credible evidence. 71-93, 114-124. Rejected as cumulative. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez, & Cole Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Edward G. Labrador, Esquire Thomas Cooper, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 John D.C. Newton, II, Esquire Aurell, Radey, Hinkle, Thomas & Beranek Monroe Park Tower, Suite 1000 101 North Monroe Street Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The parties have stipulated that these cases are properly before the Division of Administrative Hearings for de novo review of the Petitioners' applications for a certificate of need and that this action is controlled by the provisions of Chapters 120 and 381, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 10-5 and 28- 5, F.A.C. The parties have further stipulated that portions of Section 481.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), and its counterparts under Section 10-5.11, F.A.C., have either been met or are not applicable. The portions of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which the parties have stipulated have been met or do not apply and the parties' summary of the content of those subsections are as follows: (3) both applicants have the ability to manage and operate facilities such as those applied for; (6) need in the services district for special equipment and services not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas; (7) need for research and training programs; (8) health and management manpower and personnel only. The remaining parts of (8) remain in issue; (10) special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations; (11) needs and circumstances of those entities which provide a special portion of their services or resources, or both, to individuals not residing in the service district. The parties stipulated that the remaining portions of Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), remain in issue. Based upon the stipulations of the parties, the following issues require resolution: Is there a need for a 100-bed acute care hospital in Orange County, Florida? Do the Petitioners' proposals meet the criteria of Sections 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which have not been stipulated to as having been met or as not being applicable? If a need exists for only one proposal and both Petitioners meet the appropriate criteria, which of the Petitioners should be granted a certificate of need? Should a certificate of need for a computerized axial tomography scanner (hereinafter referred to as a "CAT Scanner") be issued to AMI? Does Florida Hospital and/or OGH have the requisite standing to take part as parties in these proceedings?
Findings Of Fact AMI is a publicly traded for-profit Delaware corporation which owned, managed or operated 103 hospitals in the United States and 29 hospitals outside the United States as of January, 1985. AMI also owns, manages or operates a number of other health care facilities, i.e., psychiatric care facilities and freestanding outpatient surgery centers. AMI also owns a number of subsidiary corporations which provide a variety of technologies and services in support of its hospitals. In Florida, AMI owns 100 percent or a majority interest of 9 hospitals. In its proposed findings of fact AMI has indicated that it "operates" these 9 hospitals. The record supports this finding, although the record also supports a finding that the 9 hospitals are separate legal entities. AMI initially filed a letter of intent to file a certificate of need application with the Department for a 175-bed hospital in Orange County, Florida, for review in the August 15, 1983, batching cycle. The letter of intent was rejected because it had not been timely submitted to the local health council. On October 12, 1983, AMI filed a second letter of intent with the Department in which it informed the Department that AMI "or a to-be-formed wholly-owned subsidiary of AMI intends to file a Certificate of Need application for a 175-bed hospital to be located along Highway 50 in the vicinity of the University of Central Florida in Orange County, Florida." On October 19, 1983, seven days after the letter of intent was filed, Articles of Incorporation were filed for University Community Hospital of Orlando, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "UCH, Inc."). UCH, Inc., is a for-profit Florida corporation. It currently owns no assets. AMI's application, which was reviewed in the November 15, 1983, batching cycle, was denied by the Department. AMI subsequently reduced the number of beds it had requested in its application from 175 to 100 beds. No change in the application with regard to the services to be provided has been made by AMI. Based upon its amended application AMI has proposed to construct and operate a 100-bed "full-service" acute care hospital to be located in Orange County, Florida. The proposed 100 beds will consist of 84 medical/surgical beds, 8 obstetric beds and 8 ICU/CCU beds. The proposed hospital will include a separate outpatient unit, an on-site stationary CAT Scanner, a 24-hour a day emergency room and birthing rooms and will provide therapeutic and diagnostic inpatient services, and community outreach and wellness programs. Tertiary care services will not be provided at the proposed hospital but AMI intends to contract with existing providers of tertiary care services to provide those services to its patients. AMI has projected that the total cost of its proposal will be $19,698,831.00. This figure includes $566,700.00 for architectural and engineering fees, $6,268,747.00 for equipment, $1,025,000.00 for the acquisition of land, $10,095,000.00 for construction, $250,000.00 for start-up costs and $1,285,385.00 for capitalized interest. The proposed AMI facility will include separate entrances for outpatient surgery and the emergency room. The facility has been designed to take into account the trend in health care to provide outpatient and ambulatory services. Two of the four proposed operating rooms in the facility will be used primarily for outpatient surgery. The 8 birthing rooms to be included in the facility are designed in recognition of the trend in health care to provide a room in which the family can participate in the birthing process. A delivery room will also be provided. Finally, classroom space will be provided in the facility for allied health services training and continuing education. Winter Park. Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., is a not for-profit Florida corporation. It operates Winter Park, a 301 bed hospital in Winter Park, Orange County, Florida. The hospital provides a full range of medical services including a full-body CAT Scanner. Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., qualifies for exemption from federal income tax under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"), because it is an organization designated in Section 501(c)(3) of the Code. On October 31, 1983, Winter Park filed its letter of intent to file an application for a certificate of need with the Department in the same batching cycle as AMI. In its application Winter Park proposed to build a 100-bed acute care hospital in Orange County, Florida. The proposed 100 beds will consist of 84 medical/surgical beds, 8 obstetric beds and 8 ICU/CCU beds. The proposal does not include a CAT Scanner. Winter Park has projected that the total cost of its proposed facility will be $16,015,000.00. This amount includes $75,000.00 for project development, $50,000.00 for financing, $685,000.00 for professional services, $10,395,900.00 for construction, $4,457,700.00 for equipment and $351,400.00 for other related cost. Florida Hospital Florida Hospital is a not-for-project hospital owned by Adventist Health Systems Sunbelt, a division of the Adventist Church. Florida Hospital presently consists of 3 campuses: the main campus in Orlando and satellite campuses in Altamonte Springs, Seminole County, Florida and Apopka, Orange County, Florida. In the 75 years since the hospital was begun it has grown from a 20 bed hospital to its present size of 959 beds. Florida Hospital is a tertiary acute care hospital providing a full range of services including ambulatory surgery, a stationary full-body CAT Scanner, general inpatient medical and surgical services, obstetrics, pediatrics, psychiatric services, substance abuse treatment, open heart surgery, oncology and other services. Florida Hospital is involved in a number of teaching programs and internship programs. It is a teaching hospital with a number of positions dedicated to teaching, including a director of education. Florida Hospital would be substantially affected if a certificate of need is granted to either Petitioner. Florida Hospital has standing to intervene. OGH OGH is a not-for-profit 171-bed hospital located in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. It was founded in 1941 and has operated as a not-for-profit facility since 1945. OGH is licensed by the State of Florida as an acute care general hospital. The services provided by OGH include obstetrics, outpatient services, general inpatient medical and surgical services, pediatrics, a mobile CAT Scanner and other services. OGH would be substantially affected if a certificate of need is issued to either Petitioner. OGH has standing to intervene. THE NEED FOR ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL BEDS. Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C. Pursuant to Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), the Department is responsible for determining whether health care facilities and services are needed in the State of Florida. To fulfill its responsibility with regard to acute care hospital beds, the Department has promulgated Section 10 5.11(23), F.A.C. Section 10-5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides the following Department goal: The Department will consider applications for acute care hospital beds in context with all applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional acute care hospital beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of beds in that district to exceed the number of beds calculated to be needed according to the methodology included in paragraphs (f),(g) and (h) below. A favorable Certificate of Need determination may be made when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided for in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, demonstrate need. An unfavorable Certificate of Need determination may be made when a calculated bed need exists but other criteria specified in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, are not met. Based upon this Department goal, the need for acute care hospital beds is first determined by service district based upon the methodology included in Section 10-5.11(23)(f)-(h), F.A.C. (Hereinafter referred to as the "Formula"). For purposes of the Formula, acute care beds include general medical and surgical, intensive care, pediatric and obstetrical beds. Section 10 5.11(23)(c), F.A.C. The Petitioners are proposing to build a hospital with general medical and surgical, intensive care and obstetrical beds. Therefore, the Formula must be applied to determine if there is a need for their proposed hospitals. Under the Formula, acute care bed need is to be determined five years in the future: 1990 in these cases. Generally, acute care bed need is determined under the Formula based upon two age cohort population projections, statewide service-specific discharge rates, statewide service-specific lengths of stay, statewide service-specific occupancy standards and patient flow adjustments. See Section 10-5.11(23)(f), F.A.C. The bed need for the service district determined in accordance with Section 10-5.11(23)(f), F.A.C., is adjusted based upon the service district's historical use rate and projected occupancy rate. Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. The historical use rate to be used under the Formula is for the three most recent years and is based upon utilization of hospitals located in the service district. After applying the adjustment of Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C., one final adjustment is required to complete the determination of acute care bed need under the Formula. Section 10-5.11(23)(h), F.A.C. provides for an adjustment to reflect peak demand in the service district. Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing of these cases, application of the Formula results in a net acute care bed need of 89 beds or 146 beds, or an excess of 464 beds. These projections are all for the Department's District 7, which consists of Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Brevard Counties, The Petitioners are proposing to build new hospitals in Orange County. The Formula projection of a net acute care bed need in District 7 of 89 beds is an outdated Department application of the Formula. The 146 net acute care bed need projection for District 7 is the Department's most current application of the Formula, dated March 12, 1985. The Department's most recent application of the Formula is not based upon a proper application of the adjustment for the District 7 projected occupancy rate and historical use rate under Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. In making this adjustment, the Department relied upon utilization data in determining the District 7 historical use rate from 1981, 1982 and 1983. Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C., requires that the historical use rate be based upon the most recent three years available. In these cases 1982, 1983 and 1984 utilization data was available to the Department. The fact that incorrect utilization data was used in determining the District 7 historical use rate was confirmed by Mr. Eugene Nelson, the Director of the Office of Community Medical Facilities of the Department, Mr. Steve Windham, the Executive Director of the Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Inc., and Mr. Lawrence W. Margolis, an expert health planner. Mr. Nelson also indicated that if 1982, 1983 and 1984 utilization data had been used by the Department in applying the Formula a more "contemporary picture of what's actually happening" would have be given. Mr. Margolis did apply the Formula using the most current utilization data to calculate the historical use rate of District 7. Based upon the data used by the Department in its most recent projection of acute care bed need for District 7, but substituting the current utilization data of 1982, 1983 and 1984, an application of the Formula results in a projected total acute care bed need in 1989 for District 7 of 4,416 beds. There are currently 4,880 licensed and approved beds in District 7. Therefore, a proper application of the Formula based upon the most current data indicates that District 7 will have an excess of 464 acute care beds in 1989. A finding that District 7 will have an excess of acute care beds in 1989 is supported by the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals in District 7. This reduction in hospital utilization, which began in 1982, has been evidenced by reductions in occupancy rates, average lengths of stay and admissions. This trend is likely to continue for an additional two to four years. The trend is sufficient to cause an excess in acute care beds despite increases in population. To add another 100 acute care hospital beds to Orange County would further reduce utilization. The reduced utilization of hospitals could become worse when new hospital beds are opened by Florida Hospital (210 beds) and Holmes Regional Medical Center in Brevard County (81 beds). The opening of these beds could create a further excess of beds in District 7. There are a number of factors which have contributed to the decline in the use of hospitals: (1) there has been an increase in the use of health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations; (2) the introduction of Diagnostic Related Groups, a method of reimbursement now being used by Medicare; and (3) there has been an increase in the use of outpatient medical services. Health maintenance organizations in Orange County alone could decrease patient days in hospitals from 800 days per 1,000 population to 350 days per 1,000 population. Because of the introduction of Diagnostic Related Groups by Medicare, hospitals are trying to discharge patients as quickly as possible. Finally, there are 8 to 10 freestanding ambulatory surgery centers approved for Orange County which are, or will be, providing outpatient medical services. All of these factors have reduced hospital utilization in District 7. The current trend of reduced utilization of hospitals was recognized by Mr. Mark Richardson, AMI's expert in health planning. Mr. Richardson therefore recommended that AMI reduce its application for a certificate of need to construct and operate a hospital in Orange County from 175 acute care beds to 100 beds, which AMI did. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that District 7 will have an excess of at least 464 acute care beds in 1989 according to a proper application of the Formula of Section 10 5.11(23), F.A.C. Although insufficient evidence was presented at the final hearing to forecast the exact acute care bed need for District 7 under the Formula for 1990, it does not appear that there will be any need for acute care beds in District 7 in 1990 in light of the fact that the trend toward decreased utilization of hospitals will probably continue for 2 to 4 more years. In fact, the evidence supports the conclusion that District 7 will continue to have an excess of beds in 1990. AMI has proposed findings of fact to the effect that there has been too much concern with "over-bedding" based upon computations such as those provided in the Formula. AMI further proposed findings of fact to the effect that a more rational approach to health planning "should be assuming adequate supply as opposed to considering a negative approach." These proposed findings of fact are rejected. The Department's rules and in particular, the Formula, are the law and will be followed in these cases. Whether "over-bedding" is over emphasized, the Formula clearly indicates that District 7 will be greatly overbedding in 1990. In addition to requiring an application of the Formula to determine acute care bed need for each Department service district, Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., requires that local health councils adopt acute care service subdistricts as an element of their local health plans. Section 10-5.11(23)(d), F.A.C. District 7 has been divided along county lines into four subdistricts: Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Brevard Counties. Section 10-17.008, F.A.C. Prior to this proceeding AMI challenged the validity of Section 10- 17.008, F.A.C., the rule establishing subdistricts along county lines in District 7. The rule was upheld as valid in American Medical International, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 83- 3092R, September 28, 1984. Therefore, Orange, Seminole, Brevard and Osceola Counties constitute the only recognized subdistricts in District 7 for purposes of allocating acute care bed need in District 7. Section 10-5.11(23)(e), F.A.C., further provides that the district acute care bed need as determined by application of the Formula is to be allocated to each subdistrict established pursuant to Section 10-5.11(23)(d), F.A.C. This allocation of acute care bed need to the subdistricts is to be made consistent with Section 381.494(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which provides that the local health council is to develop a district health plan and submit it to the Department. Elements of the district health plan necessary in the Department's review of certificate of need applications are required to be adopted by the Department as a part of its rules. Section 381.494(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as the "Council"), has developed a district health plan which includes the methodology it employs to allocate the District 7 acute care bed need to the subdistricts of District 7. That plan has also been submitted to the Department. The Department, however, has not adopted the district health plan for District 7 in its rules. This does not mean, however, that evidence pertaining to the Council's method of allocation is not relevant to, or should be ignored for purposes of, this proceeding. Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, Orange County has an excess of acute care beds. This is true even if it is assumed that the Department's determination under the Formula that there is a need for 89 or 146 acute care beds in District 7 is correct. According to Mr. Windham, application of the Council's subdistrict allocation methodology to the Department's determination under the Formula that there is a need in District 7 for 89 acute care beds indicates that Orange County ",4 will have an excess of 81 acute care beds and that Seminole County will have an excess of 36 acute care beds. Mr. Windham's application of the Council's methodology for allocating bed need to the subdistricts of District 7 was based upon the Department's application of the Formula without the benefit of the more current utilization data. Therefore, if the most current data had been used, the projected excess beds for Orange County would be even greater. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the Petitioners have failed to prove that there is any need under Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., for additional acute care beds in District 7 or in Orange or Seminole Counties. In fact, under Section 10- 5.11(23), F.A.C., there is a significant excess of acute care beds projected for Orange and Seminole Counties and District 7 as a whole. Winter Park has conceded this conclusion. AMI has in essence argued that any evidence as to the application of the Formula based upon the most current utilization data should be ignored because the Department has not yet officially applied the Formula based upon such data. Mr. Margolis, an expert in health planning, was clearly capable of applying the Formula based upon the most current information. His conclusions were also supported by Mr. Nelson's and Mr. Windham's testimony. AMI has in essence also argued that any evidence as to how acute care bed need in District 7 under the Formula should be allocated to the properly designated subdistricts should be ignored because the Council's methods of allocation have not been adopted as part of the Department's rules. Mr. Windham's unrebutted testimony, however, supports a finding that the Council's method of allocating the District 7 acute care bed need to the subdistricts is a reasonable method for health planning purposes. The determination that there is no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County does not necessarily preclude the issuance of a certificate of need for a new hospital to either or both of the Petitioners. Section 10- 5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides that the Department will "not normally" approve an application if such an approval would result in acute care beds in excess of those needed as determined under the Formula. The rule goes on to provide that an application may be approved "when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, demonstrate need." Bed Need Based upon the Petitioner's Alternative to the Formula. AMI has suggested in its proposed recommended order that there is a need for 146 acute care beds in District 7 based upon an application of the Formula. That finding of fact has been rejected, supra, because it was based upon the use of outdated utilization data. The Petitioner also failed to prove that there is a need for beds in Orange County based upon an application of the Formula. Winter Park's position throughout this proceeding and AMI's alternative position has been essentially that the population of east Orange County where the Petitioners propose to locate their facilities and parts of Seminole County do not have adequate accessibility to acute care hospital beds. In determining whether an application for a certificate of need should be issued for acute care hospital beds, Section 381.484(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), provides that the accessibility . . of like and existing health care services and hospitals in the service district of the applicant" should be considered. The Petitioners have attempted to prove that like and existing health care services are not accessible in portions of Orange and Seminole Counties and therefore there is a need for their proposed hospitals. The Petitioners' Medical Service Areas. AMI has identified and proposed to serve portions of Orange and Seminole Counties which purportedly have an access problem which it has designated as a "medical service area." AMI projects that the majority of its patients will be attracted from its medical service area (hereinafter referred to as an MSA) AMI's MSA consists of most of east Orange County and southeastern Seminole County. Generally, the MSA boundary runs south along most of the western shore of Lake Jessup in Seminole County, to and along Tuscawilla Road (Seminole and Orange County), to and along Highway 436 in Orange County, south to the Bee Line Expressway, east along the Bee Line Expressway to Highway 15, south along Highway 15 to the Orange-Osceola County line, east and then north along the Orange County line to the Seminole County line and along the Seminole County line north and then west to Lake Jessup. Winter Park has also identified and proposed to serve a MSA very similar to, although a little smaller than, AMI's MSA. The difference in size amounts to only a difference of 1000 less population in Winter Park's MSA. The portion of east Orange County included in the MSAs represents a distinct geopolitical and economic base. Each of the Petitioners and Florida Hospital presented testimony by experts in the field of demographics. Frederick A. Raffa, Ph.D., for AMI, William J. Serow, Ph.D, for Winter Park and Stanley Smith, Ph.D., for Florida Hospital. Based upon their testimony, it is clear that the MSAs have experienced a great deal of population and economic growth since 1970 and that this growth will probably continue through 1990. During the period 1980 to 1985, the rate of population growth for Orange and Seminole Counties was 16 percent (23 percent for Seminole County alone). The rate of growth in Winter Park's MSA during this same period was 32 percent. For the period 1985 through 1990 the projected rate of growth for Orange County is 12 percent. The projected rate of growth from 1985 through 1990 for Winter Park's MSA is 23.3 percent. These figures indicate that the rate of growth for Orange County and the MSAs is slowing down. The figures also show that the MSA rate of growth is twice that of Orange and Seminole Counties. Looking at only the rate of growth of an area can be misleading. For example, a 50 percent rate of growth may not be as significant when applied to a population base of 10 as when applied to a larger population base. In terms of actual growth, the evidence proves that Orange County's population growth in terms of additional people is greater than the population growth of the MSAs. The evidence also establishes that population growth in the MSAs is projected to be greater for young adults and women of child bearing age (15 to 44 years of age), that there will be larger families and a greater number of children under 18 years of age in the MSAs than in Orange County as a whole and that the projected population of the MSAs will be newer to the area and generally more mobile than Orange County as a whole. Florida Hospital has suggested that "logic" leads to the conclusion that some of these projected trends will cause a decrease in utilization. No evidence was presented at the hearing to support such a finding of fact. The evidence clearly establishes that population growth in the MSAs will be concentrated between the western boundary of the MSAs at Highway 436 and Alafaya Trail (Highway 419), which is located in the western portion of the MSAs, during the next five years. In fact, more than half of the projected growth of east Orange County will occur in a one and a half mile corridor between Highway 436 and Goldenrod. It will be 5 to 10 years before population growth will begin to expand into any area east of Highway 419. Accessibility under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. The Department has promulgated Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1 and 2, F.A.C., for purposes of determining accessibility: Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within an automobile travel time of 30 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population in an urban area subdistrict. Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within a maximum automobile travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population residing in a rural area subdistrict. The terms "urban area" and "rural area" are defined in Section 10- 5.11(23)(a)4 and 5, F.A.C., as follows: Urban Area. Urban area means a county designated as all or part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as determined by the United States Bureau of the Census, and having 50,000 or more persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Rural Area. Rural area means a county not designated as all or part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as determined by the United States Bureau of the Census, or a county so designated but having fewer than 50,000 persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Orange County meets the definition of an "urban area." It has been designated as part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area and has 50,000 or more persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Orange County is not also a "rural area" as defined above as suggested by OGH although it does have some incorporated areas with less than 50,000 persons. AMI has suggested in its proposed recommended order that Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is to be used only by local health councils in determining subdistrict allocations of acute care bed need and where a subdistrict allocation reveals a surplus of beds in a subdistrict. Although Section 10 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is to be used in the manner suggested by AMI, Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is not clearly limited to such use. This section of the rule is titled "Geographic Accessibility Considerations." Its provisions are applicable in determining whether a geographic accessibility problem exists in District 7 or in the subdistricts of District 7. AMI, Winter Park and Florida Hospital presented testimony of expert traffic engineers: Mr. William A. Tipton for AMI, Mr. R. Sans Lassiter, P.E., for Winter Park and Mr. Sven Kansman for Florida Hospital. All three of these gentlemen based their travel studies on travel times to and from certain control points. The travel times were then averaged. Florida Hospital has suggested in its proposed recommended order that this method of determining travel times to and from control points and Mr. Tipton's testimony that "you probably wouldn't get as far in a given time going outbound [east" is significant because travel times from the MSAs west into Orlando, where the majority of the existing hospitals are presently located, would be shorter. This conclusion is reasonable. Therefore, travel times for the population of the MSAs to existing Orange County hospitals would be less than indicated by the traffic engineers. Also, the 30 minute contour lines on the traffic engineers' exhibits would extend farther into the MSAs. The studies performed by all three traffic engineers were performed in the same general manner as to the speed of the test vehicles. Test vehicle drivers were instructed to drive at average speed employing the "average car method," the "floating car technique" or the "moving car method." All three methods are essentially the same. The test runs were conducted in November and February by AMI'S expert, in the fall by Winter Park's expert and during the last two weeks of January by Florida Hospital's expert. January to March is the most congested time of the year in Orange County. Only two of the traffic engineers testified that their tests were conducted under "average travel conditions" as required by Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C.: Winter Park's and Florida Hospital's traffic engineers. These traffic engineers properly conducted their tests during off-peak and peak hours. Mr. Tipton, AMI's traffic engineer, conducted his tests only during the peak hours of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and only on week days (Monday to Thursday). According to Mr. Tipton, average travel conditions "doesn't mean anything" to a traffic engineer. Average travel conditions does mean something under the rule and to the other two traffic engineers. Mr. Tipton also indicated that the peak hours he conducted his tests during would not show "average travel conditions." Mr. Tipton also admitted that he averaged what amounted to the "worst case scenario" because it represented "real world conditions." Mr. Tipton's "real world conditions," however, is not the test of Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1, F.A.C. Mr. Tipton's tests have been given little weight because of his failure to take into account average travel conditions. None of the exhibits prepared by the three traffic engineers and accepted in evidence (AMI'S composite exhibit 8, Winter Park's exhibit 11 and Florida Hospital's exhibit 10) are totally consistent with the requirements of Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. AMI's composite exhibit 8 includes 30 minute contour lines representing Mr. Tipton's 30 minute drive times from only three hospitals in Orange County and one hospital in Seminole County and only shows the travel times to the east of those hospitals. Winter Park's exhibit 11 shows the 30 minute contour lines for seven hospitals in Orange County and two hospitals in Seminole County and generally only showns the travel times to the east. Florida Hospital's exhibit 10 shows the location of eight hospitals in Orange County, three in Seminole County and three in Brevard County but only shows the total 30 minute contour line for Florida Hospital's Orlando campus. The test under Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1, F.A.C., is whether existing acute care hospital beds are available and accessible within 30 minutes by automobile by 90 percent of the subdistrict's population. In order for AMI and Winter Park to prove that acute care hospital beds are not available and accessible within 30 minutes in Orange County, they needed to prove that more than 10 percent of the population of Orange County cannot access on existing acute care hospital bed within 30 minutes by automobile. In order to prove this crucial fact it is necessary to show the travel time based upon average travel conditions of the entire population of Orange County to all existing acute care hospitals. AMI and Winter Park have failed to do so. The evidence fails to show that more than 10 percent of Orange County's population is more than 30 minutes by automobile from existing Orange County hospitals. The evidence does not support a conclusion that there is an accessibility problem under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. Only 1 percent of the population of Orange County residing in the MSAs is located more than 30 minutes by automobile from existing hospitals in Orange and Seminole Counties. This is based upon the 1985 population and the projected 1990 population. In 1985 there are 4,232 people residing in the MSAs more than 30 minutes from existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals. By 1990, there will only be 5,276 people projected to live more than 30 minutes from existing hospitals. These figures are maximum numbers. As indicated, supra, the evidence with regard to population growth in the MSAs proves that the projected population growth will be concentrated in the western portion of the MSAs--the portion of the MSAs closest to where existing hospitals are located. Most of the projected population growth through 1990 in the MSAs will clearly be within 30 minutes of existing hospitals. The projected 1990 population of 5,276 people who will reside more than 30 minutes from an existing Orange County or Seminole County hospital is well below 10 percent of Orange County's total projected population of 596,713. Additionally, the people in the MSAs who reside more than 30 minutes from existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals are probably within 30 minutes of Jess Parrish Hospital in Titusville, Brevard County, Florida. There are no natural obstacles in Orange County which impede or prevent access to existing health care facilities. Well over 90 percent of Orange County's population can access a hospital within 30 minutes driving time. OGH has proposed findings of fact pertaining to the availability of motor vehicle and air ambulance services in Orange County. The accessibility test of Section 10-5.11 (23)(i), F.A.C., requires a consideration of automobile travel times under "average travel conditions," not emergency services. Therefore, these proposed findings of fact and OGH's proposed findings of fact as to the requirements of obtaining a trauma level designation are unnecessary. The evidence also clearly establishes that there are acute care hospital beds available in Orange County. The average occupancy rates in District 7, Orange County and Seminole County for 1982, 1983 and 1984 were as follows: 1982 1983 1984 District 7 71.8% 70.34% 61.71% Orange County 69.5% 68.68% 60.80% Seminole County 76.0% 74.20% 59.39% Florida Hospital and OGH have experienced similar declines in utilization similar to those evidenced by these figures. Florida Hospital's utilization rate dropped from 86.3 percent in 1982 to 78.6 percent in 1984 and OGH's rate dropped from 88.5 percent in 1982 to 44.4 percent in 1984. There are currently 4,880 licensed and approved acute care hospital beds in District 7. Based upon the 1984 utilization rate for District 7, over 1,800 acute care beds were empty on an average day in District 7 during 1984; In Orange County, approximately 1,000 acute care beds were empty on average during 1984. As indicated, supra, the decreasing acute care bed utilization rate is expected to continue for 2 to 4 years. Therefore, there are acute care hospital beds available in Orange County at existing hospitals and there will be in 1990. Additionally, new acute care hospital beds have been approved for Orange County and Seminole County which are not yet open: 134 acute care beds to be opened by Florida Hospital at its Orlando campus and 76 acute care beds to be opened by Florida Hospital at its Altamonte Springs campus. Also 81 new beds will be opened in Brevard County. These additional beds will further increase the number of available acute care hospital beds in Orange and Seminole Counties and in District 7. Based upon the foregoing and the fact that there is a large number of unoccupied acute care beds available on average in Orange County, there is no geographic accessibility problem in Orange County or Seminole County under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. Other Accessibility Considerations. Despite the evidence with regard to geographic accessibility under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., the Petitioners have argued that accessibility to acute care beds is a problem in the MSAs. Mr. Willard Wisler, Winter Park's administrator, although agreeing that "planning studies" indicated no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County, stated: But our posture has been that they have been misallocated, and that the east Orange County [sic) is a greatly underserved area on the basis of the number of hospital beds that are available to the people that live there. The evidence does establish that the majority of the hospitals in Orange County are located in the center of the County, in the City of Orlando, where the majority of the population is located and that there is only one hospital currently located in the MSAs. Currently, 6 percent of Orange County's acute care hospital beds are located in the MSAs at OGH while 19 percent of Orange County's population is located in the MSAs. The Petitioners have characterized this geographic distribution of acute care beds and population as a "maldistribution" of acute care beds. The disparity between the precentage of population and acute care beds in the MSAs will increase in the future because the projected rate of growth in the MSAs is greater than that of Orange County. It is projected that by 1990 22 percent of the Orange County population will be located in the MSAs. The centralization of acute care beds in Orange County, according to Mr. Van Talbert, Winter Park's expert health planner, constitutes irresponsible health planning: "It tends to perpetuate the old patterns of centralization, and I think that is inconsistent with contemporary thought in American society." Mr. Talbert also testified that the MSAs and particularly east Orange County, are greatly underserved based upon the number of hospital beds conveniently available to the people who live there. Even if Mr. Talbert's conclusions are correct and even if there is a "maldistribution" of acute care beds as defined by the Petitioners, this does not mean there is an accessibility problem in the MSAs sufficient to conclude that additional acute care beds are needed in District 7, Orange County or the MSAs. The fact that 22 percent of the population of Orange County may reside in the MSAs by 1990 with only 6 percent of the County's acute care beds is not the test. Even if it is true that "contemporary planning may indicate that centralization of acute care beds is poor planning," the pertinent statutes and rules only require a determination of whether acute care beds are available and accessible. The evidence in these cases clearly indicates that the population of the MSAs can access available acute care hospital beds in District 7. All the Petitioners have shown is that some residents of the MSAs "will be forced to make inconvenient drives to downtown hospitals," as stated in Winter Park's proposed recommended order. Likewise, AMI's proposed finding of fact that ",the realities of the situation reveal that the residents of the MSA and their physicians perceive serious access problems due to excessive travel distance, traffic congestion, the lack of convenience for patients who have to go to hospitals for tests, and the lack of convenience for families and friends having to make several trips a day to see a person in a hospital" does not prove there is an access problem. The perception of patients and physicians as to the inconvenience in accessing acute care beds does not prove there is an access problem sufficient to warrant a new hospital. In conjunction with the Petitioners' position with regard to "maldistribution" of acute care beds, the Petitioners have proposed findings of fact to the effect that previous Department responses to shifts in population growth away from where hospitals are located have been to authorize new hospitals. New hospitals in Altamonte Springs and Longwood in Seminole County, and in southwest Orange County (Sand Lake) have been cited as examples. Although Mr. Talbert's testimony supports these proposed findings of fact to some extent, there is insufficient evidence to conclude why those hospitals were authorized by the Department. If the evidence showed that additional acute care beds were needed in Seminole and Orange Counties when those hospitals were approved it would be consistent with the Department's rules to locate the additional acute care beds where population growth had occurred. In these cases, if there was an established need for an additional acute care hospital in Orange County, the evidence would probably justify placing it in east Orange County. The facts, however, do not indicate any need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. Other MSA Considerations. It is not essential to identify a MSA for purposes of considering an application for a new acute care hospital as suggested by AMI. As discussed, infra, the designation of a MSA by an applicant may be helpful for some purposes, but not to determine whether there is a need for a new hospital. AMI has proposed a finding of fact that Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, both of which are located in Orlando, are tertiary care facilities providing services of higher complexity for patients; they therefore attract a substantial number of referral patients in need of more extensive, complex services which are not available from primary care hospitals. The existence of these tertiary facilities has justified the allocation of more acute care beds to Orange and Seminole Counties in the past. Although these facts were proved at the hearing, the overriding fact remains clear that there is no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. AMI attempted to prove through Mr. Mark Richardson an expert in health planning, that there is a need for acute care beds in AMI's MSA based upon the characteristics of the MSA. Mr. Richardson testified that his projections were not based or contingent on the Formula of Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., and acknowledged the decline in utilization of acute care hospital beds in Orange County. Mr. Richardson did state that the Department's projection of a net acute care bed need of 89 beds under the Formula supported his projections. The projection of a need for 89 beds was clearly based upon outdated data. Use of current utilization data indicates an excess of 464 acute care beds. Therefore, if application of the Formula resulting in a bed need of 89 beds supports Mr. Richardson's projections, an application of the Formula which results in an excess of 464 acute care beds must indicate that Mr. Richardson's projections are suspect. Mr. Richardson's projections were clearly based primarily on the characteristics of AMI's MSA. Because of the narrow scope of Mr. Richardson's analysis, the trend in Orange County and District 7 as to reduced occupancy rates did not affect his projections. In particular, Mr. Richardson used an 80 percent occupancy rate for all beds except obstetric beds, for which he used a 75 percent rate. These occupancy rates are excessive when compared to the occupancy rates for District 7, and Orange and Seminole Counties. Additionally, Mr. Richardson failed to consider the effect of unopened acute care beds in Orange County on occupancy rates. On average, there are over 1,800 unoccupied acute care beds in District 7 and 1,000 unoccupied beds in Orange County. This does not include 134 acute care beds to be opened at Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, 76 acute care beds to be opened at Florida Hospital's Altamonte Springs campus or 81 acute care beds to be opened at Holmes Regional Medical Center in Brevard County. When opened, these additional acute care beds will further decrease occupancy rates in Orange County and District 7. Even if Mr. Richardson's projections were totally accurate, such a finding would not be relevant to the question of whether there is a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. That is the crucial question in these cases. Mr. Richardson and AMI have attempted to justify Mr. Richardson's projections by suggesting that the Department does not consider itself precluded from assessing the need for acute case beds on an area within a subdistrict based upon Mr. Nelson's testimony. Mr. Nelson's testimony clearly does not support the use of a MSA to determine if there is a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. Mr. Nelson, when asked whether an applicant could determine bed need based upon the character of a part of Orange County replied: There's nothing to preclude an Applicant from doing that, from carving out what I would call an Applicant's service area, running their own calculations of bed need, and doing whatever they feel they want to do in that regard. And we're not ,precluded from looking at it, either. But our position is that that has no official basis in determinations of bed need. We do look at those subdistricts but not to determine bed need. We look at them to get a better understanding of an application, because we get a sense, from looking at the unique service areas, what they' re trying to accomplish. That would be number one. Number two, and from having worked on the private side, I know one of the reasons why this is done, this is an attempt to define a market share or market area and a percent of all the considerations of what the existing hospitals that are already in the area have in the way of markets and market shares, and so on. So on the second hand, looking at the subdistricts is very important, from the standpoint of helping us to assess the financial feasibility of these proposals, which is another criterion, of course, altogether, specifically in the longer term. Because, you know, you have to know who is getting patients from where in order to be able to fully understand that. And I think the third way in which these subdistricts, these Applicants -- pardon the expression, subdistricts, that's not what these things are -- the Applicant's medical services areas are useful is in those cases where we may have a need helping us to decide where, within, let's say a subdistrict that need should be met. For example, let's suppose in this case, we were showning a need of sufficient magnitude to approve a hospital. But instead of having two applications within a few miles of each other, we had one for east Orange County, and one in west Orange County, and portions of other counties, each of which had carved out their own service area, then it would be very important for us, in that case, to look at these things very carefully, to consider them to help us determine which location was preferable. But in terms of calculating bed need from the Department's perspective, we don't put any stock in those whatsoever from that perspective. ,Emphasis added. Based upon the above testimony, it is clear that MSAs may be looked at if an applicant uses one in order to provide a better understanding of the applicant's proposal, to assess financial feasibility and, where there is an established need for acute care beds, to decide where in the subdistrict the need is the greatest. MSAs are clearly not relied upon to determine the initial question of whether there is a need for acute care beds. To determine acute care bed need based upon a MSA without considering `the' entire subdistrict of Orange County is not appropriate. The Department, as the statute and rules require, determines need at the district level and allocates the district bed need to the subdistricts. In fact, the Department has ruled that it is improper to divide a district into subdistricts smaller than those designated by a local health council for purposes of determining need as pointed out by Winter Park in its proposed recommended order. Southeastern Palm Beach County Hospital District v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 5 F.A.L.R. 1091A (1983). For purposes of determining whether there is a need for additional acute care hospital beds in Orange County, Mr. Richardson's testimony is of very little value. STATUTORY CRITERIA. Section 10-5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides that a certificate of need may be issued when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided in Section 38l.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), demonstrate need. The Petitioners have attempted to prove that there is an accessibility problem in Orange County which demonstrates acute care bed need under Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The facts do not support such a conclusion as discussed, supra. This section of the Recommended Order contains findings of fact with regard to the other criteria contained in Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d) Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Consistency with the State and Local Health Plan: Section 381.494(6(c)1, Florida Statutes. The applications of the Petitioners are only partly consistent with the State Health Plan and the Council's Local Health Plan. The Council's Local Health Plan establishes the following occupancy levels for acute care beds which should be met before new acute care beds are approved: TYPE OF BEDS OCCUPANCY LEVEL Medical - Surgical 80% Obstetrical 75% As already discussed, occupancy levels for acute care beds in District 7, and in Orange and Seminole Counties were below 70 percent in 1984. The declining utilization of acute care beds will continue for the next 2 to 4 years and therefore it does not appear that the occupancy level goals in the Local Health Plan will be met by either applicant. These occupancy level goals are intended to be used as checks on the bed need methodologies. The importance of existing occupancy levels in determining whether to add additional acute care beds to a district is recognized in Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. The Petitioners have projected that they will achieve an occupancy rate of 45-50 percent after one year of operation. South Seminole Community Hospital, which was opened in May of 1984 in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida, achieved only a 27 percent occupancy rate after 8 months of operation. In light of the fact that South Seminole Community Hospital is located in Longwood, it is doubtful the Petitioners will achieve their projected occupancy rate. The Petitioners have projected that their proposed hospitals will achieve an 80 percent occupancy rate, which is an optimal occupancy rate. Their projections, based upon the findings of fact as to acute care bed need in Orange County and current occupancy levels, are highly unlikely to be reached. Especially in light of the fact that the average occupancy rate in Orange County was only 60.80 percent in 1984. The proposals are also inconsistent with the Local Health Plan goal that a proposal be consistent with the state's acute care bed need methodology. Based upon an application of the Formula, using current data, District 7 and Orange County will have an excess of acute care beds in 1990. Winter Park's proposal is consistent with several other portions of the Local Health Plan. Winter Park's facility will have an active outpatient program, its beds can be available within 24 hours and it will meet several priorities under the Local Health Plan such as being accredited and licensed, and being willing to serve indigents and other patients without regard to payment source. AMI's proposal also meets some of these goals. The Local Health Plan also contains a provision to the effect that "needed" beds should be approved at existing hospitals unless the addition of a new hospital would substantially improve access by at least 15 minutes for 25,000 or more residents. Winter Park has suggested a finding of fact that this provision has been met. If there was a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County such a finding would be appropriate. There is, however, clearly no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. This portion of the Local Health Plan therefore does not apply. Finally, the Local Health Plan provides that applicants should be able to document community and provider support for their proposals. Community support for the proposals has been demonstrated. Provider support, however, has not been demonstrated. In fact, there is opposition from some providers to the proposed new hospitals, i.e., Florida Hospital and OGH. The proposals are also partially consistent with the State's health plan. The evidence does not clearly establish, however, that the proposals are totally consistent with the goals of the State health plan. Mr. Talbert did testify that Winter Park's proposal is consistent with the goals of the State health plan. It was not clear, however, whether all of the goals were met. Also, Mr. Talbert's testimony was inconsistent with other evidence in this proceeding in some respects. For example, Mr. Talbert testified that one goal of the State health plan is to provide adequate access to acute care resources. The evidence clearly shows that adequate access is already available in Orange County. To the extent it can be inferred that Mr. Talbert's testimony also applies to AMI's proposal, the same problems exist. The evidence does not support a finding that AMI's proposal is totally consistent with the State health plan. Based upon the foregoing, it does not appear that either proposal is totally consistent with the Local Health Plan or the State health plan. The Availability, Quality of Care, Efficiency, Appropriateness, Accessibility, Extent of Utilization and Adequacy of Like and Existing Health Care Services in the Service District; Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), requires that the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the service district be considered. The service district for this purpose is District 7. The designation of subdistricts in District 7 is specifically for purposes of allocating district bed need to the subdistricts. The parties, to the extent they addressed this criterion, presented evidence primarily for Orange County only, however. The availability, accessibility and extent of utilization of like and existing acute care hospitals in Orange County has been discussed and findings of fact with regard thereto have been made, supra. To summarize, like and existing services in Orange County are available and accessible and are underutilized. The Petitioners have not shown that like an existing services in District 7 do not provide quality of care or that they are not efficient, appropriate or adequate. Winter Park has argued that like and existing services are not accessible. The evidence does not support such a finding of fact. AMI has argued that there are no like and existing services accessible in the MSAs. That is not the test. The determination to made under Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), is whether there are like and existing services in the service district. The service district in these cases is all of District 7, not the MSAs. There are currently seven acute care hospitals in Orange County: Florida Hospital, OGH, Orlando Regional Medical Center, Brookwood Hospital, Humana Lucerne, Winter Park Hospital and West Orange Memorial Hospital. Additionally, Orlando Regional Medical Center - Sand Lake is expected to be opened before 1990. These district. The evidence does not support a finding that some or all of these facilities or others in District 7 are not available, providing quality of care, efficient, appropriate, accessible, over utilized or adequate. AMI and OGH spent an inordinate amount of time and effort presenting evidence on the issue of whether OGH is a like and existing service. The evidence supports a finding that OGH is a like and existing service. Even if OGH was not a like and existing service, such a conclusion would only be relevant if it were concluded that like and existing services must exist within the boundaries of the MSAs or that OGH was the only accessible acute care hospital to the residents of the MSAs. As stated, supra, the pertinent area is not the MSA but District 7 and there are clearly other acute care hospitals in District 7 and some of those hospitals are accessible. If Orange County alone is the appropriate service area for purposes of applying this criterion, the evidence clearly proves that the Petitioners do not meet the criterion. The evidence proves that there are available, quality, appropriate, efficient and adequate like and existing health care services in Orange County and District 7. The Ability of the Applicants to Provide Quality of Care; Section 381.494(6)(c)3. Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion has been meet. 113.. The Availability and Adequacy of Other Health Care Facilities and Services in the Service District which may Serve as Alternatives: Section 381.494(6)(c)4, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). There are clearly other health care facilities in Orange County providing like and existing services. The evidence does not, however, establish that there are other health care facilities and services in Orange County which are alternatives to a 100 bed acute care hospital. Transferring beds from existing facilities has been suggested as an alternative to the proposed new hospitals. This suggested "alternative" could be achieved as easily by approving a new hospital and closing some existing beds. The cost would be essentially the some. Transferring beds is not an alternative. Use of existing beds which are not being occupied is not a viable alternative either, as suggested by OGH in its proposed findings of fact. Probable Economies and Improvements in Service that may be Derived from Operation of Joint, Cooperative or Shared Health Care Resources; Section 381.494(6)(c)5, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). AMI's proposed facility may eventually share some services with Brookwood Community Hospital in the area of administrative management. Brookwood Community Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Brookwood") is a 157 bed general acute care hospital owned and operated by a limited partnership. The general partner and owner of 82.5 percent of the partnership is Brookwood Medical Center of Orlando, Inc., which in turn is owned by AMI. AMI presented its proposal assuming that there would not be any shared services with Brookwood. Through AMI, UCH, Inc., can receive price discounts for its purchases, typically 15 percent to 20 percent lower than the lowest price available in the market generally. UCH, Inc., will also be able to participate in Brookwood's preferred provider organization agreement. This could result in enhanced utilization of UCH, Inc., which could result in decreased health care costs. Winter Park will share some resources with its new hospital. The resources to be shared include Winter Park's incinerator, CAT Scanner, cardiac catheterization ion laboratory, and certain personnel. Centralized accounting, centralized purchasing and some centralized management would also be employed. Both proposals will have joint, cooperative or shared health care resources which would result in probable economics and improvements in service. The Need in the Service District of the Applicant for Special Equipment and Services not Reasonably and Economically Accessible in Adjoining Areas; Section 381.494(6)(c)6, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. The Need for Research and Educational Facilities: Section 81.494(6)(c) 7, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. The Availability of Resources; the Effects on Clinical Needs of Health Professional Training Programs in the Service District: Accessibility to Schools for Health Professionals: the Availability of Alternative Uses of Resources: Extent Accessible to All Residents; Section 381.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that Section 81.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), has been met to the extent it deals with "health and management manpower and personnel only." The other factors to be considered under this criterion were not stipulated to. The first factor to be considered is the availability of resources, including physicians and funds for capital and operating expenditures. The availability of funds will be discussed, infra. As to the availability of physicians, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that physicians are available to staff either of the proposed facilities. AMI proposed a finding of fact that ", unlike WPMH, AMI demonstrated that the major medical specialty areas will be represented by various physicians who will joint the UCH medical staff." AMI did demonstrate that various medical specialty physicians would be willing to work at UCH, Inc. It is also true that Winter Park did not demonstrate that all of the medical specialty physicians would be willing to work at its proposed facility. Despite these facts, several physicians testified that they would use Winter Park's proposed facility if it were approved instead of UCH, Inc., and Mr. Willard Wisler's unrebutted testimony establishes that Winter Park would have no difficulty staffing its proposed hospital. Both Petitioners have established that physician resources are available for project accomplishment and operation. The second and third factors to be considered are the effect the projects will have on clinical needs of health professional training programs in Orange County and, if available in a limited number of facilities, the extent to which services will be available to schools for health professionals in Orange County. The weight of the evidence does not establish that professional training programs are available in a limited number of facilities. In fact the evidence establishes that the University of Central Florida (hereinafter referred to as "UCF"), which is located in east Orange County, has fifty-two affiliation agreements with hospitals and other medical facilities. These affiliation agreements include agreements involving clinical training of radiology technicians at Florida Hospital and, in Brevard County, at Halifax Hospital. Approximately 32 radiology students are currently involved in hospital training programs. AMI presented evidence proving the existence of a proposed "affiliation agreement" between its proposed hospital and UCF. AMI and UCF have in fact entered into an Agreement of Intent. The Agreement of intent essentially provides, in relevant part, that AMI's proposed hospital, if approved, would provide clinical training to UCF radiology technician students. Approximately three to six UCF students per semester would receive training at the new hospital. The program with UCF will clearly have a positive effect on "clinical needs of health professional training programs" in Orange County. The agreement also provides for certain other benefits to UCF in the form of certain gifts. Those benefits, however, are not relevant in considering whether a certificate of need should be issued to AMI. The portion of Section 381.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), at issue in this proceeding requires only that the effect on "clinical needs of health professional training programs" be considered. AMI's gifts will not meet the "clinical needs" of health professional training programs. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to its gifts to UCF are unnecessary. Florida Hospital and Winter Park have proposed several findings of fact concerning AMI's motive in entering into the agreement with UCF. Those proposed findings are not supported by the evidence and are not relevant. Florida Hospital also has proposed findings of fact concerning whether a tertiary hospital would be a better facility for training, the effect of patient mix on training, the lack of any study by UCF to assess the benefits of the agreement and the fact that AMI's proposed facility will not be a teaching hospital or have full-time teachers. Those proposed findings are unnecessary. The fact is, the clinical training to be provided by AMI's facility will be a benefit to the clinical needs of health professional training programs in District 7. Because of the substantial amount of gifts to be made to UCF, which will be paid for by patients of AMI's facility, the costs of AMI's clinical program will be substantial. Winter Park is currently involved in meeting clinical needs of health professional training programs at a number of educational institutions, including UCF. Winter Park's involvement includes radiology and several other programs. Although no agreements have been entered into, programs to meet such clinical needs will be provided at Winter Park's new facility. Because Winter Park has not committed to make any gifts to educational institutions, the costs of its programs will probably be less than AMI's program. The fourth factor to be considered is the availability of alternative uses of resources for the' provision of other health services. The evidence presented at the hearing does not establish that there are not alternative uses of resources. The petitioners failed to present evidence sufficient to conclude that there are not alternative uses for available resources. Finally, the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district is to be considered. Both Petitioners are willing to accept all patients regardless of age, sex, race, color or national origin, and medically underserved groups. The Petitioners have met most, but not all, of the requirements of this criterion. Immediate and Long-Term Financial Feasibility; Section 1.494(6)(c)9. Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Immediate Financial Feasibility. AMI's proposed facility will be financed by a 50 percent equity contribution from AMI to UCF, Inc., and 50 percent debt financing from AMI at a maximum interest rate of 12 percent amortized over 30 years. AMI has sufficient lines of credit to cover the amount needed for debt financing. AMI also has sufficient cash and unrestricted liquid assets (almost $300,000,000.00 by the end of its 1984 fiscal year) and generates enough capital ($300,000,000.00 to $400,000,000.00 a year) to fund its equity contribution and the debt. AMI also has sufficient funds to provide working capital needs of UCF, Inc. Exactly how Winter Park's proposed facility will be financed is less clear. Both of the Petitioners have suggested that the other has not proved that it has "committed" itself to funding their respective proposals. Although the evidence does raise questions as to whether AMI or Winter Park has finally committed the total funds necessary to complete their proposals, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that both Petitioners are committed to funding their proposals. More importantly, the test is whether the Petitioners have available financing sources. University Community Hospital, et ala v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 5 F.A.L.R. 1346-A, 1360-A (1983). AMI clearly proved that its Executive Committee had approved its proposal. One of its witnesses, however, testified that the approval of capital expenditures of over $1,000,000.00 took approval of the full AMI Board of Directors. Winter Park clearly proved that its Board of Trustees had approved only $4,000,000.00 of the costs of its facility. Despite these facts, the evidence establishes that, although final approval of all the funds necessary to fund the proposals may not have been given, the funds necessary to insure the immediate, financial feasibility of both proposals are available. Where the funds will come from in Winter Park's case and the total amount of funds needed by Winter Park is far from being crystal clear. Winter Park failed to take into account several expenses it will incur, including sewer capacity reserve fees (approximately $160,500.00), telephone lease costs ($20,000.00) and possibly some interest expenses. There may also be an underestimate of the cost of debt financing, depending upon whether tax-exempt loans are available to Winter Park. The costs of sewer capacity reserve and the telephone lease can probably be covered by the contingency funds projected by Winter Park. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to equipment costs underestimates are rejected as unsupported by the weight of all of the evidence. Even with the understatement of project costs, the evidence supports a conclusion that Winter Park's proposal is immediately financial feasible. Winter Park currently has set aside "over $7,000,000.00" which can be applied to fund its proposal. (Although Winter Park has certain planned or ongoing capital improvements, the evidence does not prove that these improvements will be funded out of the funds set aside for the proposed new hospital, as suggested by AMI)'. Winter Park also has lines of credit with Barnett Bank and Sun Bank of $5,000,000.00 each. Neither line of credit has been used in the past. The Sun Bank line of credit was recently renewed and is available for one year. The Barnett Bank line of credit is also good for only one year. Both lines of credit have been renewed in the past. These lines of credit will have to be renewed before construction of Winter Park's facility begins. Winter Park presented no evidence as to whether the lines of credit would be renewed by either bank, however. Therefore, the record does not contain evidence as to whether the lines of credit will be available. Winter Park is also the sole beneficiary of the Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association Foundation, a not-for-profit foundation set upon to receive donations for the support of Winter Park. The Foundation "would make funds available to it [Winter Parka when needed." (Although testimony concerning Winter Park's alleged ability to "request" funds from the Foundation was struck, the quoted testimony was not objected to). The Foundation currently has $2,000,000.00 which could be provided to Winter Park. Finally, Winter Park has a commitment from Barnett Bank for a loan of $9,181,648.00. The loan has been committed whether interest on the loan is tax- free or taxable to Barnett Banks. Whether the loan is tax-free will affect the immediate and long- term financial feasibility of the proposal. If the loan is not tax-free, additional interest expense will be incurred; instead of being financed at a 7.696 interest rate, Winter Park will be charged approximately 11.5 percent interest if the loan is not tax- free. If the loan is tax-free, Winter Park may have failed to take into account costs associated with obtaining tax-free financing, i.e., underwriter's fees. AMI has proposed a number of findings of fact concerning additional costs associated with whether the Barnett Bank loan is tax-free. Those findings of fact are not relevant, however, in determining immediate financial `feasibility of Winter Park's proposal. The evidence establishes that the funds available to Winter Park are sufficient to cover Winter Park's projected costs and the costs it failed to include in its proposal (including the $1,20 0,000.00 of working capital which will be needed by the and of 1988). Both proposals are financially feasible in the short-term. Long Term Financial Feasibility. The Petitioners have failed to prove that their proposals are financially feasible in the long run. The projections of the Petitioners with regard to expected gross revenue depends upon whether their utilization projections are correct. Based upon the conclusion that there is no need for the proprosed facilities it is unrealistic to expect the facilities to be financially feasible. AMI's projections as to gross revenue depend on Mr. Richardson's need analysis for AMI's MSA. As discussed, supra, Mr. Richardson's projections were based upon unrealistic occupancy rates. Winter Park's projected utilization is based upon Winter Park's historical experience with its MSA for 1983. Mr. Talbert's and Mr. John Winfrey's reliance on this data in light of the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals in Orange County is misplaced. Determining utilization of Winter Park's proposed hospital in future years based on utilization of an existing hospital in light of the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals is very suspect. The fact that east Orange County is expected to grow in terms of population does not eliminate the concern with regard to utilization. Orange County has been growing since 1980 and before. Despite that growth, hospital utilization has declined. As to the projected expenses of the proposed hospitals which effect the financial feasibility of the proposals, it appears that AMI's projections are reasonable. A number of questions concerning Winter Park's expenses were raised, however, by the evidence. The evidence supports a finding that Winter Park has failed to take into account some expenses which will affect the long term financial feasibility of its proposal. Expenses not taken into account include phone lease expenses ($15,000.00 to $20,000.00), indigent care assessments ($58,000.00 in the second year of operation) and start-up costs ($22,680.00 a year). The evidence, however, also supports a finding that Winter Park's estimate of medicare contractual allowances was $318,900.00 too high and that depreciation expense was $130,000.00 too high. These overstatements of expenses are more than sufficient to cover the understatements of expenses discussed in this paragraph. The primary problem with Winter Park's estimate of expenses is that Winter Park has projected interest expense at a tax- exempt rate of 7.6 percent. The evidence does not prove that Winter Park can, however, obtain tax-exempt financing. Winter Park only presented evidence that Barnett Bank is willing to loan funds on a tax-exempt or taxable basis. Winter Park must, however, obtain approval of its proposed tax-exempt financing from the Orange County Health Facilities Authority. See Chapter 154, Florida Statutes (1983). No evidence that such approval could be obtained was presented at the hearing. Winter has therefore failed to prove that its estimated interest expenses can be achieved. The evidence also shows that if Winter Park cannot obtain tax-exempt financing, it will have to borrow funds at an 11.5 percent interest rate. This rate of interest can be obtained, but the additional interest expense would result in a net loss for the second year of operation. Based upon the foregoing, Winter Park has failed to prove that its proposal is financially feasible in the long-term. Winter Park has proposed findings of fact to the effect that it could charge a higher rate for its services to cover understated expenses. No evidence was presented, however, that proves that Winter Park would be willing or committed to a higher charge for its services. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to expenses for utilities, food and drugs, other operating expenses, incinerator costs and equipment costs are rejected. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to the goal of Winter Park to achieve an optimum profit margin of 5 percent to 7 percent are rejected because that goal does not apply to the proposed facility. The projected profit margin of the proposed facility is only seven-tenths of one percent. AMI's proposed findings of fact as to the years projections were made for (two years instead of five), the manner of making those projections (no balance sheet, no cash flow statements and no quarterly breakdowns) and the lack of a feasibility study are not necessary. AMI's remaining proposed findings of facts concerning "soft spots" in Winter Park's projections are also rejected. Special Needs and Circumstances of Health Maintenance Organizations; Section 381.494(6)(c)10, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. Needs and Circumstances of Entities which Provide Services or Resources to Individuals not Residing in the Service District or Adjacent Service Districts; Section 381.494(6)(c)11, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. Probable Impact of the Proposal on the Costs of Providing Health Services; Section 381.494(6)(c)12, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The weight of the evidence clearly supports a conclusion that if either of the proposed hospitals is approved, the probable impact on the costs of providing health services would be negative. The only real question raised by the evidence is the degree of the negative impact. It has already been found that there will be an excess of beds in Orange County in 1990 and that utilization rates are decreasing and will continue to do so. To add 100 acute care beds to an already over-bedded subdistrict can only further add to the number of excessive beds. Patients who would occupy 100 new acute care beds would have access to other hospitals in Orange County if a new hospital is not approved. If it is assumed that patients could be attracted to a new hospital in the MSA's it necessarily follows that those patients will not use an existing, already underutilized, hospital in Orange County, Seminole County or the rest of District 7. Additionally, the evidence clearly shows that some patients who currently use existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals would be attracted to a new hospital in the MSAs. AMI has suggested that such a loss of patients would be "minimal." Minimal or not, the loss of any number of patients would result in a loss of patient days and revenue to existing hospitals which are on average already underutilized. If patients are lost by existing hospitals, the ability to serve indigents could be adversely affected. The projected population growth for the MSA's does not solve the problem either. Orange County has been experiencing population growth during the 1980's, as well as prior to 1980. Despite this population growth, utilization rates have been decreasing. Even Mr. Richardson, AMI's expert health planner, admitted there would be an impact on existing hospitals. Mr. Richardson indicated that there would a "1.5 percent occupancy impact on the system" by 1990 based upon Mr. Margolis' analysis. Mr. Richardson indicated that such an impact would be "minimal." Whether a 1.5 percent impact is minimal is not the issue. The issue is what effect such an impact would have. The weight of the evidence clearly supports the finding that the impact would be negative and the citizens of Orange County would suffer the consequences of that "minimal" impact. Florida Hospital's expert health planner, Mr. Margolis, was the most credible witness with regard to this criterion. His testimony proves that Florida Hospital and OGH could lose 5,400 to 6,000 patient days if a new 100 acute care hospital is approved. How much the dollar loss would be as a result of such a decrease in patient days is not clear. There was testimony that OGH could lose $1,000,000.00 to $3,500,000.00 in gross revenue. AMI has again suggested that the loss in patient days and revenue to OGH would be minimal and that OGH's testimony as to the amount of loss was misleading. Mr. Patrick Deegan, who testified as an expert in finance for OGH, did fail to take into account any reduction in expenses which might be associated with a loss in revenue and also failed to take into account increases in revenue as a result of growth. Although these factors could influence the amount of projected losses in revenue, the fact remains that a new acute care hospital could and probably would have a negative impact on OGH. AMI has also suggested that OGH could and should reduce its staff. This suggestion is based upon a comparison of OGH's staffing patterns and UCH Inc's proposed staffing. The record does not support AMI's proposed findings of fact. The record does not prove that UCH, Inc's, proposed staff will be at a more appropriate staffing level. Nor does the record establish that a reduction in staff at OGH would be detrimental, as suggested by OGH. As to Florida Hospital, AMI also suggests that any impact to its campuses would be minimal, if any. It is true that there probably would be no impact on Florida Hospital's Apopka campus. Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, however, gets 20 percent of its admission from the MSAs and its Altamonte Springs campus gets 3 percent of its admissions from the MSAs, as AMI points out in its proposed findings of fact. If any of those patients utilize a new hospital in the MSAs, Florida Hospital will lose patients and will be adversely affected. AMI suggested several findings of fact with regard to the financial well-being of Florida Hospital, the addition of beds at its Altamonte Springs and Orlando campuses and its motives in intervening in these cases. These proposed facts do not support a finding that Florida Hospital would not be negatively affected by the opening of a new 100 acute care bed hospital in Orange County. Finally, Winter Park has proposed findings of fact to the effect that a new Winter Park hospital in the MSAs will foster competition and thereby lower costs in Orange County for hospital services. The record does not support these proposed findings of fact in light of the excess of beds in District 7 and the underutilization of existing beds. Based upon the foregoing, Section 381.494(6)(c)12, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), has not been met by the Petitioners' proposals. Costs and Methods of Construction; Section 381.494(6)(c)13, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The Petitioners only partially proved that Section 381.494(6)(c)13, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), will be met. This section requires proof as to the costs and methods of construction, including methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly or more effective methods of construction. The Petitioners only proved that the costs of construction would be reasonable. AMI's proposed facility will have 99,000 square feet. The total cost of construction will be $10,095,000.00 including $650,000.00 for site preparation, $8,161,000.00 for labor, materials, overhead and profit, $406,000.00 for contingencies and $878,000.00 for inflation. Architectural and engineering fees will cost an additional $566,700.00. AMI's costs of construction do not include the $236,800.00 cost of reserving sewage capacity or the costs of obtaining appropriate rezoning of its property. These costs will add to the total cost of construction and the total cost of the proposal. AMI's contingency funds are sufficient to cover these amounts. AMI's additional findings of fact concerning construction costs are cumulative or unnecessary for purposes of determining if this criterion has been met. Winter Parks's proposed facility will have 98,763 square feet. Total cost of construction projected by Winter Park is $10,415,000.00, consisting of $375,000.00 for site preparation, $9,000,000.00 for labor, materials, overhead and profit, $468,700.00 for contingencies and $552,200.00 for inflation. Winter Park's projections do not include the costs of reserving sewage capacity which will add approximately $150,000.00 in costs. This additional amount can be covered by the contingency amount. Although the evidence was contradictory, Winter Park did not inadvertently leave out the cost of an incinerator--there will be no incinerator at the new hospital. Although the Petitioners presented testimony to the effect that their projected costs of construction are reasonable, no consideration was given to whether the proposed facilities would be developments of regional impact (hereinafter referred to as "DRI") under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (1983), and the costs associated with such a determination. The evidence supports conclusion that there will be some costs associated with the determination of whether the proposals are DRIs. The additional cost, however, does not appear to be significant. The Petitioners have failed to prove that the methods of construction are reasonable. They have also failed to prove that the provision of energy will be reasonable or that there are not alternative, less costly, or more efficient methods of construction available. Section 381.494(6)(d). Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). In addition to considering the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), Section 381.494(6)(d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), requires findings of fact in cases of capital expenditure proposals for new health services to inpatients as follows: That less costly, more efficient, or more appropriate alternatives to such inpatient services are not available and the development of such alternatives has been studied and found not practicable. The existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. In the case of new construction, that alternatives to new construction, for example, modernization or sharing arrangements, have been considered and have been implemented to the maximum extent practicable. That patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed, in the absence of the proposed new service. In the case of a proposal for the addition of beds for the provision of skilled nursing or intermediate care services, that the addition will be consistent with the plans of other agencies of the state responsible for the provision and financing of long-term care, including home health services. The facts concerning the first three items quoted are favorable to the Petitioners. The last one does not apply. The fourth item has not been proved to be true in this case. Summary. In summary, the evidence proves that an application of the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), does not demonstrate the need for either of the proposed facilities. The Petitioners have only proved that they can provide quality of care, that there are not alternatives to their proposals, that they will have shared resources, that personnel are available, that they have the capital to create the facilities, that they will improve the clinical needs of health professional training programs, and that their proposals are `financially feasible in the short-run. The Petitioners, however, have failed to prove any need for the facilities. Their proposals are not consistent with the local health plan or the State health plan. There are sufficient, underutilized existing hospitals to meet any need for hospital care and they will be adversely affected by the proposed facilities. The proposed facilities are not financially feasible in the long run. THE NEED FOR A CAT SCANNER AMI is also seeking a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner in this proceeding. The determination of whether such a certificate of need should be issued is governed by Section 10-5.11(13), F.A.C. In order to qualify for CAT Scanner, AMI must first obtain approval of its proposed hospital. Because it has been concluded that a certificate of need for a new hospital should not be granted, AMI should not be granted a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner; it will not qualify under Section 10- 5.11(13), F.A.C. In an abundance of caution, the following findings of fact are made as to whether a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner should be issued if AMI's application for a certificate of need for an acute care hospital is approved by the Department. Section 10-5.11(13)(b), F.A.C., provides that a favorable determination will not be given to applicants failing to meet the standards and criteria of Section 10-5.11(13)(b)1-10, F.A.C. The evidence clearly establishes that AMI's CAT Scanner application meets the standards of Sections 10- 5.11(13)(b) 1-3 and 7-9, F.A.C. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)4, F.A.C., does not apply. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)5, F.A.C., requires that an applicant document that there is a need for at least 1,800 scans to be accomplished in the first year of operation and at least 2,400 scans per year thereafter. Mr. Richardson testified that this standard is intended to apply to existing providers and that for a new hospital the need should apply to a five year horizon (1990 in this case). Mr. Richardson indicated that in 1990, this standard can be met. The language of Section 10-5.11(13(b)5, is clear; there must be a need documented for the first year of operation and each year thereafter. In this case, the first year of operation will be 1987. AMI has not documented that there is a need for 1800 scans in 1987 or 2,400 scans per year thereafter. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)6, F.A.C., requires that the applicant document that the number of scans per existing scanner exceeded 2,400 during the "preceding 12 months." The evidence establishes that during the 12 months preceding the hearing all of the fixed CAT Scanners located at hospitals except two were being used for more than 2,400 scans. Again, Mr. Richardson indicated that this standard should be applied to the 12 months preceding 1990. That is not what the rule specifies. The standard applies to the 12 months preceding the hearing. The two units that have not been used for 2,400 scans just started operation, however. Because the rule requires that in the first year of operation only 1,800 scans need to be performed, those units should not be considered in determining if AMI meets this standard. Therefore, AMI meets the requirements of Section 10-5.11(13)(b)6, F.A.C. The last standard, Section 10-5.11(13)(b)10, F.A.C., provides that extenuating circumstances pertaining to health care quality or access problems, improved cost benefit consideration or research needs may be considered. The facts do not support a finding that there are extenuating circumstances in this case. The facts do prove that any hospital such as the AMI proposed hospital should have access to a CAT Scanner. This need, however, can be met by a mobile CAT Scanner or by transferring patients to a facility with a CAT Scanner, although the latter alternative is less desirable. The evidence clearly proves that there is not access problem with regard to obtaining the services of a CAT Scanner. AMI has not met the requirements of Section 10-5.11(13)(b), F.A.C. Taking into account the factors to be considered under Section 10-5.11(13)(a)1- 8, F.A.C., also supports a finding that a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner should not be issued to AMI even if there is a need for its proposed hospital.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the certificate of need applications for a 100-bed acute care hospital and CAT Scanner filed by AMI, case number 84-1819, be denied. It is further DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 26th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Baggett, Esquire Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire ROBERTS, BAGGETT, LaFACE & RICHARD 101 East College Avenue Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Von Eckhardt, Esquire American Medical International, Inc. 414 Camden Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire OERTEL & HOFFMAN, P.A. Suite C 2700 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. P. "Rusty" Carolan, III, Esquire WINDERWEEDLE, HAINES, WARD & WOODMAN, P.A. P.O. Box 880 Winter Park, Florida 32790-0880 Harden King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 E. G. "Dan" Boone, Esquire Stephen K. Boone, Esquire E.G. BOONE, P.A. P.O. Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire Brain D. Stokes, Esquire MATEER & HARBERT, P.A. 100 East Robinson Street P.O. Box 2854 Orlando, Florida 32802 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 LIST OF WITNESSES AMI NAME EXPERTISE Jim Palmer Phillip L. Coppage Hospital administration including staffing. Thomas C. Wohlford Patient group and insurance programs in the health care industry. J.D. Garland Health care facilities, including hospital construction management and budgeting and cost estimating. Manuel Viamonte, M.D. Radiology. Dick Chadbourne Manpower staffing requirements for health care facilities. Jan Stirrat Health care facility equipment planning and equipment cost budgeting. Preston Thompson Physician relations and recruiting. Joseph Akerman, M.D. Peter Hiribarnc, M.D. Louis Trefonas, Ph.D. Need, development and operation of sponsored research projects at UCF. Thomas S. Mendenhall, Ph.D. Need, development and operation of health education and affiliation programs. Alan Denner, M.D. Louis C. Murray, M.D. Joseph Sandberg, M.D. Myles Douglas, M.D. Robert D. Fennell Corporate health facilities planning, processing, implementation and development. Manuel J. Coto, M.D. Jerold J. Faden, M.D. Zivko Z. Gajk, M.D. Don Steigman Hospital operations and administration. William A. Tipton Traffic and transportation. Neal B. Hiler Civil engineering and property site analysis. Trevor Colbourn Ben E. Whisenant Frederick A. Raffa, Ph.D. Demographics and socioeconomic forecasting. Nilo Regis, M.D. Richard Pajot Mark Richardson Health planning. Richard Altman Hospital management engineering. Walter Wozniak Armond Balsano Health care facility financial feasibility and analysis and third- party reimbursements. Rick Knapp Health care facility financial feasibility and analysis, third- party reimbursement and rate-setting for health care facilities. Richard Anderson Edward E. Weller Real estate appraisal. John Winfrey Health care accounting and financial feasibility analysis. Van Talbert Health care planning. Margo Kelly Financial management, analysis and feasibility. WINTER PARK NAME EXPERTISE Katherine J. Brown Florida Hospital Cost Containment Board procedures; hospital costs and charges, data gathering and review; and hospital costs and charges comparisons. Karl Schramm, Ph.D. Hospital cost and charges and comparisons thereof and health care financing, including the impact upon the health care consumer. Willard Wisler Hospital administration including staffing and operating hospitals. John H. Roger Construction design and costs, including site preparation, and analysis thereof, in central Florida; including health care facilities construction. R. Sans Lassiter Traffic engineering, travel times and access in central Florida. Richard Anderson Sarah Mobley Equipment and cost of equipment. William J. Serow, Ph.D. Demographics. Van Talbert Health care planning. John Winfrey Health care accounting and financial feasibility analysis. Robert C. Liden Investment banking, including tax-exempt financing of health care facilities. Lewis A. Siefert Hospital accounting and Medicare Reimbursement. FLORIDA HOSPITAL NAME EXPERTISE Steven Windham Health planning. W. Eugene Nelson Health planning, CON administration and transportation planning. Ronald J. Skantz Radiology training and management. Sven Kansman Traffic engineering and travel time studies. John Crissey Stan Smith, Ph.D. Demographics. Gabriel Mayer, M.D. Physician. Larry Margolis Health care planning, hospital administration, facility planning, HMO's and PPO's. Scott Allen Miller Health care accounting and financial feasibility. OGH NAME EXPERTISE Patrick J. Carson, D.O. Medical emergencies and operation of an emergency room. Tracey Watson Michael Sherry B. Jean Martell Walter J. Wozniak Lawrence Kramer, O.D. Family practice. Patrick Deegan Accounting, hospital finance and budgeting. Andrea Walsh DEPARTMENT NAME EXPERTISE W. Eugene Nelson Health planning, CON administration and transportation planning. PUBLIC WITNESSES Mike Baumann Bob Mandell Luddy Goetz Martin Goodman Yvonne Opfell Martin Lebnick
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration should approve the application of Kindred Hospitals East, LLC, for a Certificate of Need to establish a 60-bed, long- term care hospital ("LTCH") to be located in Brevard County, one of four counties in AHCA District 7.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Kindred Hospitals East, LLC, ("Kindred" or the "Applicant") is a subsidiary of Kindred Healthcare, Inc. ("Kindred Healthcare"). Kindred Healthcare operates 84 LTCHs nationwide, including eight in the State of Florida. Twenty-four of Kindred Healthcare's LTCHs are operated by Kindred Hospitals East, LLC, including the eight in Florida. The Agency is the state agency responsible for the administration of the Certificate of Need program in Florida. See § 408.034(1), Fla. Stat., et seq. Pre-hearing Stipulation The Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation between Kindred Hospitals East, LLC, and Agency for Health Care Administration, filed May 25, 2006, contains the following: E. STATEMENT OF FACTS WHICH AREADMITTED AND WILL REQUIRE NO PROOF The CON application filed by Kindred complies with the application content and review process requirements of Sections 408.037 and 408.039, Florida Statutes (2005), and Rule 59C- 1.008, Florida Administrative Code, and the Agency's review of the application complied with the review process requirements of the above-referenced Statutes and Rule. With respect to compliance with Section 408.035(3), Florida Statutes (2005), it is agreed that Kindred has the ability to provide a quality program based on the descriptions of the program in its CON application and based on the operational facilities of the applicant and/or of the applicant's parent facilities which are JCAHO certified. With respect to compliance with Section 408.035(4), Florida Statutes (2005), it is agreed that Kindred has the ability to provide the necessary resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. With respect to compliance with Section 408.035(6), Florida Statutes (2005)it is agreed that the project is likely to be financially feasible. The parties agree there are no disputed issues with respect to Kindred's compliance with Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes (2005), which relates to an applicant's proposed costs and methods of proposed construction for the type of project proposed. The parties agree there are no disputed issues with respect to Kindred's compliance with Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes (2005), which relates to an applicant's proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Section 408.035(10), Florida Statutes (2005), relating to nursing home beds, is not at issue with respect to the review of Kindred's CON application. With respect to compliance with Rule 59C-1.008(1)(a)-(c), Florida Administrative Code, it is agreed that Kindred complied with the letter of intent requirements contained therein. 9. Rules 59C-1.008(1)(d), (e), (h), (i), and (j) are not at issue with respect to the review of Kindred's CON applications. With respect to compliance with Rule 59C-1.008(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, it is agreed that Kindred complied with the applicable certificate of need application submission requirements contained therein. The need assessment methodology is governed by Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2.a.- d., Florida Administrative Code. With respect to Rule 59C-1.008(2), Florida Administrative Code, except as to Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2.a-d and (2)(e)3, Florida Administrative Code, it is agreed that this provision is not applicable to this proceeding, as the Agency did not at the time of the review cycle at issue, and currently does not, calculate a fixed need pool for LTCH beds. With respect to compliance with Rule 59C-1.008(3), Florida Administrative Code, it is agreed that Kindred submitted the required filing fees. With respect to compliance with Rule 59C-1.008(4)(a)-(e), Florida Administrative Code, it is agreed that Kindred complied with the certificate of need application requirements contained therein. Rule 59C-1.008(5), Florida Administrative Code, relating to identifiable portions of a project, is not at issue with respect to the review of Kindred's CON applications. In light of the stipulation, the issues remaining generally concern: the need for Kindred's proposed facility (including the reasonableness of Kindred's need methodology and whether its need assessment conforms to AHCA rules), the accessibility of existing LTCH facilities, and the extent to which the proposal will foster competition that fosters cost-effectiveness and quality. Long-Term Care Services The length of stay in the typical acute care hospital (a "short-term hospital" or a "STACH") for most patients is four to five days. Some hospital patients, however, are in need of acute care services on a long-term basis, that is, much longer than the average lengths of stay for most patients in an short-term hospital. Patients appropriate for LTCH services represent a small but discrete sub-set of all inpatients. They are differentiated from other hospital patients. Typically, they have multiple co-morbidities that require concurrent treatment. Patients appropriate for LTCH services tend to be elderly and frail, unless they are victims of severe trauma. All LTCH patients are generally medically complex and frequently catastrophically ill. Generally, Medicare patients admitted to LTCHs have been transferred from short-term hospitals. At the LTCH, they receive a range of services, including cardiac monitoring, ventilator support, and wound care. Existing LTCHs in District 7 At the time of the CON application there were 12 LTCHs operating in Florida with a total licensed bed capacity of 805 beds. There is one existing LTCH within District 7. Another is approved and under construction. Select Specialty Hospital-Orlando, Inc. ("Select-Orlando") contains 35 beds; it was licensed in 2003. The occupancy rate for this facility for CY 2005 was 73.57 percent. Select-Orlando's history shows few discharges to Brevard County. The majority of its discharges are to Orange, Seminole, and Osceola Counties. Most of the balance are to Volusia, Lake, and Polk Counties. A second LTCH, Select Specialty-Orange, Inc., has been approved and is under construction. It will contain 40 beds. The total licensed capacity of these two LTCHs will be 75 beds. Both of the facilities are located in Orange County and are located in or near Orlando within a few miles of each other. The acuity levels of the patients in the existing LTCH are not known. There are no LTCHs in Brevard County where Kindred proposes to build and operate a new LTCH should its application be approved. Kindred's Proposal Kindred's proposal in Brevard County, AHCA District 7, is for a freestanding 60-bed LTCH, with all private rooms, including an 8-bed intensive care unit (ICU). The proposed LTCH will follow a care model template that is similar to Kindred's other LTCHs. It will be a freestanding, licensed, certified and accredited acute-care hospital with an independent self-governed medical staff under the same model as a short-term acute hospital. The majority of patients in an LTCH typically arrive after discharge from a short-term acute care hospital, most often ending their STACH stay in an ICU. Not surprisingly, Kindred projects that its proposed LTCH will receive the bulk of its referrals from STACHs in the surrounding area. Kindred's LTCH patients will be discharged to either their homes, home health care, or to another post-acute provider on the basis of patient needs, family preference, and geography. There are several levels of care provided within an LTCH such as Kindred's proposed facility. Typically, LTCHs accept stable medical patients but with catastrophically ill patients some are bound to become medically unstable. There are eight ICU beds for the medically unstable patient. Thus, Kindred's patients who undergo changes of condition (such as becoming medically unstable) can be cared for without a transfer, unlike in skilled nursing facilities or comprehensive medical rehabilitation hospitals facilities not suited for the medically unstable patient. The goal of an LTCH is to take acute care hospital patients and provide them with a higher level of medical rehabilitation than they would receive in an STACH, and rehabilitate them so that they can be transferred home, or to a rehab hospital, or to a nursing facility. The "medical rehabilitation" of an LTCH addresses system failures and dependence on machines. This is different from the rehabilitation that takes place in an inpatient or outpatient rehab center, where patients usually have suffered an injury or trauma to a muscular or bone system, and their care is based on physical medicine rather than internal medicine. The Orlando Metropolitan Area and Brevard County In evaluating markets that may need an LTCH, Kindred looks at established metropolitan areas the boundaries of which are determined on the basis of population concentrations and commuting data. District 7 contains most of the metropolitan area associated with the city of Orlando (the "Orlando Metropolitan Area"). Like District 7, the Orlando Metropolitan Area has a presence in four counties. But the counties are different. The Orlando Metropolitan Area encompasses all or part of Orange, Osceola, Seminole, (shared with AHCA District 7) and a county that is not in District 7: Lake County. In addition to the three counties it shares with the Orlando Metropolitan Area, District 7 includes Brevard County. At hearing, Mr. Wurdock explained the following about the Orlando Metropolitan Area: When we talk about the Orlando area, we are not just talking about Orange County. Orange County, Osceola County, and Seminole County are all part of the Orlando metro area. That means they're an integrated economic unit based on commuting patterns. Lake County is also part of [the Orlando metropolitan area.] . . . [W]hen we looked at . . . Orange, Osceola and Seminole and ran an analysis . . ., we found . . . there was a need for approximately 180 more beds beyond the . . . 35 that currently existed. So even after you take out the 40 under construction, there is still a really huge need [in the Orlando metropolitan area.] Tr. 56-57. That Brevard County is not part of the Orlando Metropolitan Area is a consideration in this case. Kindred's evaluation also showed two other factors about Brevard County that distinguish it from the Orlando Metropolitan Area. First, it does not have adequate access to long-term care hospitals. Second, it's population with a significant number of seniors and a high number of discharges from STACHs makes it one of the few markets of its size that does not have at least one LTCH. As Mr. Wurdock continued at hearing: Brevard County has a population of more than a million people and it's got more than 100,000 seniors and they have six short term hospitals that produce more than 60,000 discharges a year. . . . [T]here are very few markets of that size in this country that do not have at least one long term hospital . . . Tr. 57. These two factors led Kindred to pursue the application that is the subject of this proceeding. Kindred's decision to pursue a CON for an LTCH in District 7 also stemmed from the interest of Brevard County physicians who had referred patients to Kindred facilities in Fort Lauderdale and Green Cove Springs in Duval County, a government unit consolidated with the city of Jacksonville. This interest was also supported by evidence that showed a predominate north/south referral pattern along the I-95 corridor. Patients in Brevard County STACHs appropriate for LTCH services are referred to facilities in Duval County (north) and Fort Lauderdale (south), but generally not to the lone District 7 LTCH in Orlando. The number of short-term acute hospitals in an area affects the decision of whether to locate a facility in a particular market. The presence of STACHs in a market is significant because the vast majority of an LTCH's patients are transfers from STACHs. The growing senior population (persons aged 65 and over) in Brevard County was also a factor; the elderly population is a large constituent of an LTCH's patient base. Dr. Richard Baney, who practices with Melbourne Internal Medicine Associates, the largest physician- practice group in Brevard County, holds privileges at Holmes Regional Medical Center, and is familiar with the various health care facilities of all types in Brevard County, including hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, and nursing homes. Dr. Baney anticipates serving as either an attending or consulting physician if the Kindred facility in Brevard is approved, as do several of the other physicians in his group, including some "intensivists" such as pulmonologists, critical-care physicians, and cardiologists. Dr. Baney's physician group consists of 45 primary care physicians, including internists, family practitioners and pediatricians. The group also includes OB/GYNs, neurologists, medical sub-specialists such as cardiologists, pulmonologists, endocrinologists, hematologists, and oncologists. Among the oncologists are radiological oncologists. There are general surgeons in the group, surgery sub-specialists, including vascular surgeons, and ENT (ear, nose, and throat) physicians. Dr. Baney summed up his opinion on the need for an LTCH in Brevard County as follows: In our area we have excellent acute- care hospitals, and we have a good network located throughout the area of subacute rehab facilities, as well as nursing homes, and then home care, and then eventually a patient is home. What we don't have in this area is a long-term acute-care facility that would handle the more significantly ill patients who need more intensive medical and nursing and physical therapy support. Right now those patients that would normally benefit from this type of facility have to dwell in the hospital for . . . weeks and weeks at a time until they achieve a point of stability where they can be moved into a subacute rehab. What this does in turn is clog up the hospital beds, ICU beds in particular, and every year we have at our large acute-care hospitals here at Holmes patients who are being quartered in the . . . auditorium at the hospital, in the hallways of the emergency room, since the hospital gets just overwhelmed with patients and cannot move them out. Certainly I believe a facility in this area would have no trouble being able to fill that need of taking many of these patients who need this kind of care out of the [STACH] into a better, more efficient setting. Also, we don't have any place that's nearby that patients and their families can go for this kind of care. . . . [I]t's really not logistically feasible for patients and their families to go 80, 90 miles away or further to . . . have their care for this type of duration. Kindred No. 7, Deposition of Richard Baney, Jr., M.D., at 10-11. When asked about the difficulty presented by the distance to the LTCHs in Fort Lauderdale and Duval County, Dr. Baney answered with regard to one of his patients that administratively there a few if any problems. The problem is for the family: But the family was very hesitant to allow their father to be transported . . . 150, 180 miles away and be there for weeks or months while they were recovering. They were quite resistant to the idea of him so far away, since the family would have to travel back and forth. Eventually they overcame that and the patient did go . . . to the facility down south. * * * But it was quite a hurdle that we had to get over. Id., p. 16, 17. Aside from the logistical problems faced by the families whose loved one is a potential patient at an LTCH at great distance from home, Dr. Baney's testimony accentuates another factor faced by potential LTCH patient in Brevard County. This is a factor favoring approval of an LTCH application recently recognized by AHCA when it approved Select-Orange, a second LTCH in the Orlando Metropolitan Area dominated by two large hospital organizations. Similar to the Orlando area, Brevard County STACHs, for the most part, belong to one of two hospital organizations predominate in the area. Brevard County's Two Main Hospital Organizations There are two main hospital organizations in Brevard County: the Health First system and the Wuesthoff system. Health First includes Holmes Regional Medical Center; Palm Bay Community Hospital, which is about 90 beds; and Cape Canaveral Hospital, which is also about 90 beds, in the central part of the county. Palm Bay is a large community about 15 miles south of Melbourne. Cape Canaveral is about 20 miles from Melbourne, and Rockledge is about 15 miles from Melbourne. The Wuesthoff system consists of Wuesthoff Rockledge and Wuesthoff Melbourne. Wuesthoff Rockledge is a 267-bed acute care facility with 32 ICU beds, 8 cardiac surgery beds, and an active emergency room that sees about 1,500 visits a month. Wuesthoff Melbourne is a 115-bed facility with a 12-bed ICU and an active ER of around 800 visits a month. Wuesthoff currently refers LTCH patients- primarily long-term ventilator patients-to Kindred's facilities in Fort Lauderdale and near Jacksonville. When Wuesthoff refers a patient to Kindred, it calls Kindred's intake coordinator who journeys to Wuesthoff to review the patient's records, meet with the family, and determine if the patient can be placed. Only if a physician from the LTCH signs an admission order concurring that the patient is clinically appropriate for admission to an LTCH is the patient transferred. Often, however, because the Kindred facilities are so far away, just as Dr. Baney pointed out, the families do not want to move the patient out of Wuesthoff. This resistance continues despite increased education about the benefit of LTCHs to potential LTCH patients. LTCH Education When an LTCH comes into a market, an education process begins. It begins with the physicians, and with the case managers and social workers in the STACH. Kindred educates these professionals about what an LTCH is, what its services are, and where it fits into the continuum of care. Kindred's Admission and Patient Evaluation Processes Kindred does not admit every patient that falls within the diagnoses that might produce LTCH-appropriate patients. Patients are pre-assessed before admission using what is nationally known as Interqual criteria for hospital admissions. That set of criteria is based on severity of the patient's illness and the intensity of services required to treat the patient, and then a review committee at the LTCH makes a clinical determination whether or not the patient is appropriate for LTCH services. The sole way that a patient gets referred to a Kindred Hospital is through a physician order. Before a patient comes to a Kindred Hospital, a physician has determined that to the best of his or her judgment the patient requires continued care at the level of an acute care hospital and that the patient's course of treatment will be prolonged. A physician from a Kindred Hospital must write the admission order, concurring that it is appropriate for that patient to be in an LTCH. Prior to obtaining that physician order, potential candidates for transfer are identified through the STACH case management staff, with the assistance of the LTCH staff. The STACH medical staff, nurses, or other personnel initiate the request for Kindred to visit the patient, interview the family, talk with the STACH attending physician, and make a determination of whether transfer and care at Kindred is clinically appropriate. Kindred gathers information on a potential patient to assist in making the admission determination using individuals in the field known as "clinical liaisons," who are primarily licensed registered nurses. The clinical liaison gathers the information, but does not make the ultimate determination as to whether to admit the patient to a Kindred facility. The ultimate determination for admission is made by the physician who will be seeing the patient at the Kindred facility. In order to comply with Medicare reimbursement requirements, Kindred employs such safeguards to make sure only appropriate patients are admitted. Medicare reviews the patients treated into the hospital, and it can and does reduce payment for "short stay outliers" who do not stay at least five-sixths of the geometric mean of the length of stay (GMLOS) for the patient's diagnosis. Mathematically, however, LTCHs will always have some patients who are short stay outliers. Even if GMLOSs rise as result of the elimination of short stay patients, between 35 and 40 percent of patients will always be "short stay outliers" under CMS's current definition. They will just be hospitalized for a stay that is short relative to a longer length of stay. Kindred LTCHs utilize criteria that assure that patients, once admitted, have sufficient severity of illness and need sufficient intensity of service to continue to warrant acute care. Case managers in LTCHs apply discharge screens to patients as they near completion of their LTCH care plan to help physicians make a judgment of when they are ready to be transferred either home or to a lower level of post-acute care. Kindred's CON application included a utilization review plan, using an example from Kindred Hospital North Florida. Every hospital has a utilization review plan designed to assure that appropriate care is given to patients. It serves an oversight function for medical care, nursing care, medication administration, and any other area where resources are expended on behalf of the patient. A PPS for LTCHs Effective October 1, 2002, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) established a prospective payment system for LTCHs. Through this system, CMS recognizes the patient population of LTCHs as separate and distinct from the populations treated by providers of short-term acute care or other post short-term acute care providers. Under the system, each patient is assigned an LTCH DRG, indicating that the patient's diagnosis is within a certain Diagnostic Related Group. The LTCH is reimbursed the pre-determined payment rate for that DRG, regardless of the cost of care. The creation of separate DRGs for LTCH patients is the mark of the federal government's recognition of the validity of LTCH services and the distinct place occupied by LTCHs in the continuum of care based on the high level of LTCH patient acuity. Despite this recognition, concerns about the identification of patients that are appropriate for LTCH services have been voiced both at the federal level and at the state level. With the rise in LTCH applications over the last several years, AHCA has been consistent in voicing those concerns, particularly when it comes to LTCH population levels of acuity. Acuity The Agency is not convinced that there is not significant overlap between the LTCH patient population and the population of patients served appropriately in healthcare settings other than LTCHs. The Agency has reached the conclusion that there are options (other than an LTCH in Brevard County) available to patients targeted by Kindred. The options depend on such matters as physician preference and the availability of long-term care hospitals in a given geographic area. Kindred answers the concerns, in part, with evidence that relates to acuity. A "case mix index" for the hospital is a measure of its average resource consumption. Resource consumption can be viewed as a surrogate measure of complexity and severity of illness, so case mix index is often cited as a readily available measure of patient acuity. Using that indicator, the case mix index of Kindred hospitals is high compared to the entire LTCH industry, and is higher than the average case mix index for STACHs. The APR/DRG system is a way to further refine the variation of patients' acuity within a DRG. The system assigns not only a DRG, but a severity of illness on a scale of one (minor severity) to four (extreme severity). Using that tool with the Kindred data base (as well as the federal MedPAR data base) confirms that the distribution of severe and extreme severity of illness is skewed toward LTCH patients, meaning that there are more patients with higher severity of illnesses in LTCHs than in STACHs. As is to be expected, and one would hope if LTCHs are appropriately serving their niche in the continuum of care, this is consistent with the empirical observation that patients in LTCHs, are more sick than those in STACHs. A third measure of patient acuity routinely used in Kindred hospitals is an APACHE score, which is a combination of physiologic derangement and concurrent illnesses. The average Kindred patient has an APACHE score of about 45, whereas the average critical care patient in all STACHs has a score about two-and-a-half points higher. Thus, Kindred's LTCHs treat a severely ill population only a few points, on the APACHE measure, below that of critical care units in STACHs across the country. The Agency does not, by rule or order, define the level of acuity at which LTCH patients should be for admission. Information on acuity level of patients in STACHs is not available through the State's health statistics data base, nor is any information that would allow an LTCH applicant to undertake an acuity analysis of potential patients. AHCA acknowledges that it has no reason to believe that Kindred admits lower-acuity patients with the least need for resources among those in LTCH- appropriate DRGs. Family Hardship In those markets that do not have LTCHs, STACH patients typically have no choice of treatment but to stay in the STACHs, unless they are willing to travel long distances. As Dr. Baney pointed out in his deposition testimony, many patients who could benefit from an LTCH are not inclined to travel long distances. One reason is that the patients' families are not able to commute that distance. If the patient is going to be in an LTCH for weeks or months, it creates a hardship on the family to have their loved one that far away. The family either loses contact with their loved one or they actually have to relocate to where the loved one is and abandon their home temporarily. The need for family presence and involvement is more than just an emotional matter of patient and family preference. Families are involved in the treatment of a patient in a long-term care hospital, not only through their presence in the hospital but also because they will participate in patient care after the patient leaves the LTCH. Families have to learn how to get the patients out of bed, feed them, and possibly suction them. The families would be taught how to care for their family members once they leave the LTCH, by nursing and therapy staff, teaching them exercises for the patient, how to regulate the oxygen, and giving medications. Differences between LTCHs and Other Providers LTCHs and STACHs do not have the same purpose, and the gap is widening between the two. Over the last 20 years, STACHs have evolved into settings that are very good at stabilizing patients, diagnosing their conditions, and developing treatment plans. Most admissions to the medical ward of an STACH come in through the emergency room where patients are so acute, so unstable, that emergency care is required to stabilize the patient. In their role as diagnostic centers, STACHs provide imaging and laboratory services, and then develop a treatment plan based on the diagnostic work-up performed. STACHs have moved away from the function of carrying out a treatment plan. This is borne out by shrinking STACH lengths of stay over the last 20 years, which now average four to six days. As a result, STACHs have limited capability to provide a prolonged treatment plan for patients with multiple co-morbidities. In contrast, LTCHs do not hold themselves out to be diagnostic or stabilization centers. They have developed expertise in caring for the small subset of patients that require a prolonged treatment plan. A multi-disciplinary physician- based care plan is provided in LTCHs that is not provided in STACHs or other post-acute settings. LTCH patients meet hospital level criteria, and if there is no LTCH readily accessible to provide a hospital-level discharge option for these patients, then the STACH has no option but to keep them, and manage their treatment and costs as best they can. LTCHs take care of those patients who need to be in a hospital, but for whom reimbursement is not adequate for STACHs to treat. The reimbursement system is driving this to a great extent, because of the incentives it gives to discharge patients as quickly as possible. Not every STACH patient needs LTCH care; as a rule of thumb, about one percent of all non-obstetric patients are potentially LTCH-appropriate. Ms. Woods, Vice President for Wuesthoff Health System which operates STACHs in Brevard County, testified in deposition that Wuesthoff's ICUs in Wuesthoff hospitals often retain patients who could be placed in an LTCH. As the Wuesthoff ICUs remain full, the ability to move patients through the hospital, from the emergency department through the ICU, is significantly impacted. While long-term care hospitals take a team approach to getting patients weaned from ventilators or getting them to a rehab involvement, an acute care hospital ICU deals more with acute crisis situations, such as an acute MI (myocardial infarction) or an acute blood clot to the lungs, or someone who has acute sepsis or infection. The roles that LTCHs play have a significant impact on acute care hospitals such as Wuesthoff. If an acute care hospital has to maintain a patient for 30 to 60 days on a ventilator in order to get them weaned or to meet their needs, that poses the potential to interfere with the acute care hospital from meeting the needs of the community, such as patients who are coming in the emergency room with acute conditions. Most of the stays in Wuesthoff's ICU beds, for example, are five to seven days; they are trauma patients, surgery patients that need support and critical care, and patients coming in with major infections. When ICU beds are unavailable, these patients are being held in the emergency departments; it stops the patient flow if the beds in a community hospital are taken up from a long-term ventilator patient. SNFs and LTCHs are different both in intent and execution. SNFs are appropriate for patients whose primary needs are nursing, who are stable and unlikely to change, and who do not require very much medical intervention. Conversely, LTCHs, being licensed and accredited as acute care hospitals, are appropriate when daily medical intervention is required. LTCHs are able to respond to changes in conditions and changes in care plans much better than SNFs because LTCHs have access to diagnostics, laboratory, radiology, and pharmacy services. Further, there are no skilled nursing facilities in Brevard County that operate beds for ventilator dependent patients, nor are there hospital-based skilled nursing units ("HBSNUs"). Using Kindred's own nursing data base, which consists of 250 SNFs across the country, and Kindred's LTCH data base, consisting of 75 LTCHs, Kindred has discovered that that overlap in patient condition is very small. Where there is overlap, it tends to be at the ends of care in LTCHs and the beginning of care in SNFs. This progression makes sense, since SNFs are a common discharge destination for LTCH patients. LTCHs and rehab hospitals are also distinctly different. Rehab hospitals are geared for people with primarily neurologic or musculoskeletal orthopedic issues, and are driven with a care model based on physical medicine rather than internal medicine; LTCH care requires the oversight of an internist rather than a physical medicine doctor. While rehab is a concurrent component of LTCH care, the patient in an LTCH cannot tolerate the three hours per day of therapy required for admission to rehab hospitals due to their medical conditions. In fact, a common continuum of care is for an LTCH patient to receive treatment and improve to the point where they can tolerate three hours of rehab and so be transferred to a rehab hospital. There is one acute rehab center in Brevard County, and it does not take ventilator-dependent patients. There are no hospital based skilled nursing units in Brevard County. There are no skilled nursing facilities in Brevard County that can accommodate ventilator-independent patients. Often ventilator-dependent patients also have IV antibiotics and tube feedings, and these are complicated conditions that a nursing home will not treat. LTCH care cannot be provided through home health care, because, by definition, LTCH patients meet criteria for inpatient hospitalization. Home health care is designed for patients who are very stable and have such a limited medical need that it can be administrated by a visiting nurse or by families. This is in sharp contrast to an LTCH patient where many hours a day of nursing, respiratory, and other therapies are required under the direct care of a physician. On the basis of regulation alone, STACHs could provide LTCH care. They generally do not do so because they have evolved into centers of stabilization, diagnosis, and initiating a treatment plan. Case studies bear out that when patients who made very little progress in STACHs are transferred to LTCHs, where the multidisciplinary approach takes over from the diagnostic focus, the patients improve in both medical and physical well-being. Those patients that would normally benefit from an LTCH have to dwell in the hospital for weeks until they achieve a point of stability where they can be moved in to a subacute facility; instead of continuing to move efficiently down the continuum they remain in the "upper end of the stream." This, in turn, may overwhelm the short-term acute care hospital, particularly in its ICU, resulting in patients being quartered in the auditorium at the hospital and in the hallways of the emergency room. The LTCHs available along the east coast of Florida in Fort Lauderdale or Jacksonville are at a distance from Brevard County that is an obstacle to referral of a Brevard County patient. Having a long-term care hospital in Brevard County would enhance the continuum of services available to Brevard County residents. On the other end of the referral process from Dr. Baney is Rita DeArmond, the clinical liaison for Kindred Hospital Fort Lauderdale. Her duties include, "patient evaluations on potential admissions to [Kindred Fort Lauderdale], which also involves meeting with families and educating the families, . . . case managers, . . . physicians and other people in the community about our hospital and long-term acute care hospitals in general." Kindred No. 8, at 5. She serves "Palm Beach County, the area around Lake Okeechobee [Okeechobee and Hendry Counties], Martin County, . . ., St. Lucie County, Indian River County and Brevard County." Id. at 11. In Ms. DeArmond's experience in dealing with potential long-term care hospital patients and their families not in the immediate vicinity of an LTCH, the willingness of those patients to travel great distances is the biggest hurdle for the patients admission to an LTCH. Most of the patients and their spouses are elderly, and they do not tend to travel long distances, or on the interstate. Being faced with traveling hundreds of miles round-trip to visit a loved one is very distressing to most of them. Not only would potential Brevard County LTCH patients be more likely to avail themselves of LTCH services if there were an LTCH in Brevard County but so would patients in other counties. For example, according to Ms. DeArmond, Lawnwood Regional Medical Center in Fort Pierce, a St. Lucie County STACH, and Sebastian River Medical Center, an STACH in Indian River County, would definitely send potential LTCH patients to an LTCH in Brevard County rather than the current closest LTCH, Kindred Fort Lauderdale. Having an LTCH would be a positive impact for other Brevard County STACHs as well. For example, Wuesthoff would not experience the backup in its emergency department and in its ICU beds, especially in the winter time where there is a high census due to more cases of pneumonia in the winter. If a patient who might be clinically appropriate for an LTCH remains in the ICU in an acute care hospital such as Wuesthoff, that patient does not receive the same care that he or she would receive at an LTCH. Acute care hospitals do not provide the medical rehabilitation work that LTCH's do, such as a plan of care just for the rehab of ventilator patients. An acute care hospital can deal with the pneumonia, and can wean the patient, but does not have the same plans or care or the same focus that an LTCH does with those types of patients. If the patient does not go to an LTCH, they will stay in the acute care hospital using the hospital resources. Wuesthoff has had patients there up to 65 days. The hospitals and physicians visited by Kindred- Fort Lauderdale clinical liaison Ms. DeArmond on a regular basis are located in Brevard County in District 7, as well as Indian River and St. Lucie counties. The hospitals within Brevard County that she contacts include Holmes Regional and Wuesthoff Melbourne Hospital; within Indian River County, Indian River Memorial Hospital in Vero Beach and Sebastian River Medical Center, and within St. Lucie County, St. Lucie Medical Center in Port St. Lucie and Lawnwood Hospital in Fort Pierce. In gathering letters of support that were submitted with Kindred's CON application for a long-term care hospital in Brevard County, Ms. DeArmond met with case managers and physicians and informed them of Kindred's intention to apply for a CON to build a hospital in Brevard County. The physicians and case managers who provided letters of support had previously referred patients to Kindred Hospital in Fort Lauderdale, so they were familiar with the services that Kindred can offer in an LTCH. It is reasonable to assume that such physicians and case managers would refer patients to a Kindred LTCH in Brevard County, if approved. MedPAC Concerns In denying Kindred's application, AHCA relied on reports issued to Congress annually by the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC) that discuss the placement of Medicare patients in appropriate post-acute settings. The June 2004 MedPAC report state the following about LTCHs: Using qualitative and quantitative methods, we find that LTCHs' role is to provide post-acute care to a small number of medically complex patients. We also find that the supply of LTCHs is a strong predictor of their use and that acute hospitals and skilled nursing facilities are the principal alternatives to LTCHs. We find that, in general, LTCH patients cost Medicare more than similar patients using alternative settings but that if LTCH care is targeted to patients of the highest severity, the cost is comparable. AHCA Ex. 7, at 121. The June 2004 MedPAC report, therefore, concludes that LTCHs should "be defined by facility and patient criteria that ensure that patients admitted to these facilities are medically complex and have a good chance of improvement." Id. Despite the above language in the June 2004 MedPAC report, discussion in the SAAR of portions of the MedPAC report shows that AHCA may have misread some of the subtleties of the MedPAC findings. The MedPAC report makes statements that LTCHs and SNFs substitute for one another. While there is some gross administrative data to support that hypothesis, that conclusion cannot yet be drawn due to limitations in data and the wide variation of patient conditions that may be represented by a single administrative grouping such as a DRG. An example of patients in different settings who would appear to be similar are those under DRG-475, which means they were on ventilator life support for at least 96 hours. Such patients may be discharged in conditions that vary greatly. These conditions range from an "alert, talking patient, no longer on life support," to a patient who is "not on life support but is making no progress." There is no administrative data that describes patients at the time of their discharge. MedPAC analysis, therefore, lacks the data to determine why some of those patients went to a higher versus a lower level of care. The SAAR also concludes, based on a letter from the MedPAC Chairman, that LTCH patients cost more on average than patients in other settings. This conclusion is based on an analysis that is unable to differentiate patients within a DRG based on their severity at the time of discharge. The limitation in the DRG is that it is designed to describe the patient's need at the time of admission rather than discharge, so the DRG classification alone does not identify whether the patient was healthy or ill at the time of discharge. Furthermore, MedPAC found that patients who tended to be more severe based on DRG assignment tended to be cared for at similar cost between LTCHs and other settings. In fact, for the tracheostomy patient, which is the extreme of severity and complexity, there was evidence of lower cost of care for patients whose case included an LTCH stay. MedPAC Chairman Glenn Hackbaith, in his March 20, 2006 letter, agreed that CMS's proposed change to the short stay outlier policy was "too severe"; that it affects a "substantial percentage of LTCH patients"; and that it would continue to affect a large percentage of admissions "regardless of the admission policies of LTCHs." MedPAC's March 2006 Report to Congress notes that the total Medicare payments to LTCHs nationwide -- $3.3 billion in 2004 -- represented less than one percent of all Medicare spending. Need Analysis in the Absence of an AHCA Need Methodology The Agency does not have a rule that sets out a formula for determining the need for LTCH beds. Accordingly, AHCA does not publish a fixed need pool for LTCH beds. As the parties agree, this case is governed, therefore, by Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C- 1.008(2)(e)2.a-d (the "Needs Assessment Rule"). Application of the Needs Assessment Rule makes Kindred responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology that covers specific criteria listed by the rule as detailed below, following the sections of this Order devoted to Kindred's Need Methodology and AHCA's criticisms of it. Kindred's Need Methodology Kindred bases its need methodology (the "Kindred Methodology") in this case on long-stay patients in short- term hospitals. A description of the Kindred Methodology, supported and proved by the testimony of Mr. Wurdock at hearing, appears in Kindred's CON application under a section entitled "Bed Need Analysis," see Exhibit K-1, at 14. It begins with the statement: "Long-term care hospital bed need can be estimated directly based on the acute care discharges and days occurring in the market." Id. There follows a chart that lists the six Brevard County STACHs and shows the number of patient discharges in the six months ending March 2004 and the patient days for the same period. These total 68,710 and 309,704, respectively. To identify the number of patient days appropriate for LTCH care, the Kindred Methodology takes into account patient diagnosis at discharge, patient age and length of stay. Some types of patients (burn patients, obstetric and pediatric patients or behavioral patients) are not appropriate for LTCH admission. Likewise, patients with short-term rehabilitation diagnoses typically are not appropriate for LTCH care. The first step in the Kindred Methodology, therefore, is to identify and omit those diagnoses which represent patients not appropriate for long-term care admission. Those include all DRGs in the Major Diagnostic Categories (MDC) of 13-Female Reproductive System; 14-Pregnancy, Childbirth and Puerperium; 15- Newborns and Other Neonates; 19-Mental Diseases and Disorders; 20-Alcohol and Substance Abuse; 22-Burns; and 23-Factors Influencing Health Status. Two additional groups of DRGs are omitted by the Kindred Methodology: DRGs specific to patients less than 18 years of age and DRGs for organ transplant patients who are usually required to remain in the STACH for specialized care. The end result of the first step in the Kindred Methodology is a list of 387 short-term acute care DRGs ("LTCH Referral DRGs") that represent patients who potentially could be eligible for LTCH admission. The Kindred Methodology's second step is to identify discharges that are assigned to one of the LTCH Referral DRGs and are aged 18 or older and whose length of stay exceeds a threshold number of days. This threshold is described in the application as follows: The length of stay threshold is defined in terms of the national geometric mean length of stay (GeoMean). That statistic is calculated annually by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for each DRG. The number of long-term hospital patients and patient days is affected by the timing of the referrals. Referrals usually occur after the patient's length of stay has become longer than average. It is commonly accepted that many patients who stay in the acute care hospital beyond the geometric mean length of stay would be best cared for in a specialized, long- term environment. Therefore, in this analysis it is assumed that referral to Kindred Hospital Brevard will occur five days after a patient has passed their DRG-specific geometric mean length of stay. This allows time for patient assessment and transfer arrangements. Another important factor affecting the potential number of long-term hospital patients and patient days is the length of time a patient stays in the LTCH. In order to qualify for Medicare certification, long-term care hospitals must maintain a minimum average length of stay of twenty-five days or greater among their Medicare patients. Admission criteria, therefore, are used to minimize the number of Medicare patients requiring just a few days of care. To reflect this in the analysis, patients are considered to be LTCH appropriate only if they would have a long-term hospital length of stay of ten days or more. Exhibit K-1, at 16. Discharged patients, therefore are considered appropriate for LTCH care by the Kindred Methodology if they are discharged from a Brevard County STACH, are at least 18 years of age, are assigned to one of the 387 Referral DRGs, and have a hospital length of stay that exceeds the geometric mean by at least 15 days, the sum of a referral period of five days and an LTCH minimum length of stay of ten days. The third step in the Kindred Methodology is to sum the potential LTCH days produced by the appropriate patients. For these patients, potential LTCH days include all days after the "'transfer day' (i.e., all days that exceed the GeoMean + five days)." Id. For the 12-month period ending March 2004, this calculation yielded approximately 18,400 hospital days in the six Brevard County hospitals, for an average daily census (ADC) of 50.4. The fourth step in the Kindred Methodology is to identify the number of patient days that are leaving Brevard County for LTCH care, due to the absence of an LTCH in the county. During the 12-month period ending in March 2004, 41 Brevard County residents were discharged from Kindred Hospital North Florida in Green Cove Springs and Kindred Hospital Fort Lauderdale. Those patients received 2,229 days of LTCH care, equaling an average daily census of 6.1. Adding that to the 50.4 ADC un-served patients in Brevard County, yields a potential LTCH ADC of 56.5. The fifth step is to account for population growth. This is especially important when there is rapid growth in senior population as there is in Brevard County. According to AHCA projections, the population 65 and over will increase 9.2 percent during the next five years, while the total population will increase 10.8 percent. It is appropriate to increase LTCH ADC at least by 9.2 percent during this time period, since the proposed project will not open until 2007 at the earliest, and will not achieve full utilization until at least 2011. This step produces an LTCH ADC of 61.7. The sixth and final step is to calculate LTCH "bed need" by assuming 85 percent occupancy. Dividing the LTCH ADC of 61.7 by 0.85 yields a bed need of 72 LTCH beds. The Kindred Methodology does not account for the five percent or more of referrals that come from sources other than LTCHs such as nursing homes. Nor does it take into account the admissions from Indian River County currently served by Kindred Hospital Fort Lauderdale, some of which are sure to come to the proposed project if approved. AHCA Criticism The methodology is criticized by AHCA on the bases, among others, that it does not account for beds available elsewhere in District 7, and that it determines need solely within Brevard County, a departure from the statutory mandate which requires Agency review of CON applications with regard to "availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities in the service district of the applicant." § 408.035(2), Fla. Stat. (emphasis supplied). The Agency's argument with regard to the un- utilized beds at the one existing LTCH in District 7, Select-Orlando, is undermined by recent action of the agency in approving a second Select facility in Orange County, a 40-bed freestanding facility: Select Specialty Hospital-Orange, Inc. ("Select-Orange"). The Agency approved the 40-bed Select-Orange facility, not open at the time of hearing, by way of a Settlement Agreement (the "Select-Orange Settlement Agreement") with the applicant. The two parties to the agreement, AHCA and Select-Orange, jointly stated in that document: [T]he Agency, in recognizing that there are two distinct health systems in the Orlando area, believes that this LTCH is needed for the Orlando Regional Healthcare System due to that unique situation . . . Kindred Ex. 4, at 2. The two distinct health systems in the Orlando area are Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc., which has a number of STACHs in the Orlando area including Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC), a tertiary medical facility with more than 500 beds, and the Adventist Health System, Inc. (Adventist), a hospital organization with a nationwide presence that as of 2002 operated seven acute care campus systems under a single license held by Adventist d/b/a Florida Hospital in the Orlando Metropolitan Area. See Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc. vs. AHCA, Case No. 02-0449 (DOAH November 18, 2002), pp. 8-10. The Select-Orange Settlement Agreement was entered in the midst of administrative litigation over AHCA's preliminary agency action with regard to a CON application. The meaning and impact of AHCA's statement quoted above from the Select-Orange Settlement Agreement were not fully elaborated upon at hearing by any direct evidence. Kindred established through the testimony of Mr. Wurdock and through cross-examination of Ms. Rivera that although Select-Orange was originally approved as a "hospital-in- hospital" or "HIH," that Select-Orange obtained a modification of its CON to become a freestanding facility. Had the facility remained an HIH, federal regulations would have limited the percentage of Medicare referrals that could come from its host hospital, ORMC. As a freestanding facility, Select-Orange has no such limitations. It can fill its beds with referrals from ORMC. Whatever the impact of the freestanding nature of Select-Orange, the Agency's recognition of the unique situation in the Orlando area created by two distinct health systems, such that there is support for a new LTCH when the existing LTCH has available beds, gives rise in this case to an inference in Kindred's favor. If two distinct hospital systems in the Orlando area can support the addition of 40 LTCH beds, then it is highly likely that Brevard County can support a 60-bed LTCH. The county is not a part of the Orlando Metropolitan Area. LTCH referral patterns are north-south along the I-95 corridor (not to Select-Orlando). There are geographic and roadway access issues from Brevard County to the Orlando area demonstrated by commuting patterns that exclude Brevard County from the Orlando Metropolitan Area. And most significantly, the methodology reasonably established need for more than 60 beds in Brevard County. The Needs Assessment Rule The need for any health care service or program regulated by CON Law for which AHCA has not provided a specific need methodology by rule is governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)(the "Need Assessment Rule"), which states in part: . . . If an agency need methodology does not exist for the proposed project: . . . If an agency need methodology does not exist for the proposed project: The Agency will provide to the applicant, if one exists, any policy upon which to determine need for the proposed beds or service. The applicant is not precluded from using other methodologies to compare and contrast with the agency policy. If no agency policy exist, the applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except when they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory and rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; Market conditions; and Competition. The Agency does not publish a fixed need pool for LTCH beds because it does not have a specific need formula or methodology for LTCH beds. The Agency, furthermore, has not provided Kindred with any policy upon which to determine need in this case. Accordingly, Kindred used its own methodology for determining need in Brevard County and elsewhere in the district (the Orlando Metropolitan Area). Finally, since no agency policy exists with regard to an LTCH need methodology, Kindred is required to prove the existence of need for its proposed project on the basis of the five categories of criteria (referred to in the rule as "topics") listed in sub-paragraphs "a. through e.," of paragraph 2., in subsection (2)(e) of the Rule. Population Demographics and Dynamics In assessing an area's population and demographics for the purpose of evaluating LTCH need, special attention is paid to the elderly population because the majority of LTCH patients are Medicare patients. The elderly are also more likely to produce LTCH patients because they are more likely to be medically complex and catastrophically ill with co-morbidities and dependent on medical equipment like ventilators. Brevard County, while home to only an approximate one-quarter of District 7's population, accounts for more than a third of its seniors. While Brevard County's elderly population is experiencing average or slightly below average growth in relation to the rest of the state, there is no question that Brevard County's elderly population is on the increase and reasonably projected to increase in the future. Availability, Utilization, and Quality of Like Services in the District "[B]y definition, putting a long term hospital in Brevard County will increase accessibility [make LTCH services more available] because . . . the people in Brevard County will no longer have to go all the way to Orlando, or Jacksonville, or Ft. Lauderdale for [LTCH] care." Tr. 48. Mr. Wurdock elaborated on the point of district availability at hearing: We did look at the entire district. . . . [T]here [are] only four counties in the district, three of which orbit around the Orlando and then there is the Palm Bay/Melbourne metropolitan area, which is Brevard. And when we looked at the district as a whole, what we discovered was that there is a need really for two new long term hospitals in the district. There is clearly a need for another one in Orlando [beyond the existing Select- Orlando and the approved not yet operating Select-Orange] and there is also a need for one in Brevard County. . . . [You] could build . . . two new long term care hospitals, both of them in Orlando, but that doesn't . . . make . . . sense when you've got a very large concentration of seniors significantly removed from the Orlando area with six short term hospitals in . . . [Brevard C]ounty comprising essentially its own market. So logically, you . . . put one long term hospital in Brevard and then another long term hospital in Orlando. Tr. 48-49. The presence of six STACHs in Brevard County and the large senior population is significant. The closest LTCH is Select-Orlando more than an hour's drive away. The distance to Select-Orlando and Select-Orange's future site from the municipality in which Kindred proposes to site its proposed LTCH, Melbourne, is more than 60 miles, in a direction not favored by Brevard County residents oriented to driving north or south along the I-95 corridor, but not to the west into the Orlando Metropolitan Area. Furthermore, and most significantly, family members rarely fully understand and accept that their catastrophically ill elderly loved one should be shipped 60 miles away when the patient is in a hospital with a good reputation. Their resistance to a referral at such a distance is unlikely to increase utilization at the Orlando area LTCHs no matter how convinced are their physicians and other clinical practitioners that such a move is required for better care. Medical Treatment Trends LTCHs are recognized as a legitimate part of the health care continuum by the federal government and CON approvals of LTCHs in Florida have been on the upswing throughout this decade. At the federal level, in recognition of their treatment of a small but important subset of patients, Medicare has adopted LTCH DRGs, that is, DRGs specific to LTCHs, for reimbursement under Medicare's PPS. At the state level, the Agency recognizes that "[t]he trend is for LTCHs to be increasingly used to meet the needs of patients in other settings who for a variety of reasons are better served in LTCHs." Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration's Proposed Recommended Order, at 15. This recognition is made by AHCA despite MedPAC's concerns, many of which were tempered and adequately addressed by Kindred in this proceeding. Market Conditions At first blush, market conditions might not seem to favor Kindred's application. The occupancy rate in the District indicates that there are available beds. In AHCA's view, the occupancy rate at the one existing LTCH in District 7, the 35-bed Select-Orlando facility, an H-I-H in a converted nursing home at Florida Hospital Orlando, is not optimal. Select-Orlando opened in 2003, only a few years ago, and it is operating at a high occupancy rate that is approaching optimal. Kindred, moreover, did not confine its need case to its Brevard County methodology. It also presented evidence of need in the Orlando Metropolitan Area consisting, in part, of the three other counties in District 7. Competition While the Agency asserts that it did not give competition much weight in this application, AHCA has not taken the position that Kindred's proposed facility would not foster competition. Having an LTCH in Brevard County would foster competition in the traditional sense in that the only LTCHs in the District, one existing and one approved, are those of Select Medical Corporation, Kindred's chief competitor. A Reasonable Methodology for Brevard County In short, Kindred's methodology is reasonable for determining need in Brevard County and it appropriately includes the topics required by the Needs Assessment Rule. The Agency's argument that there is no need for LTCH beds in Brevard County when there are LTCH beds available elsewhere in the district is defeated by its approval of the Select-Orange facility. Whether Kindred's methodology in this case carries the day for Kindred, given the Agency's approach on a district-wide basis to the need for LTCHs, is addressed in the section of this Order devoted to conclusions of law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue CON No. 9835 to Kindred Hospitals East, LLC, for a 60-bed, long-term acute care hospital in AHCA Health Planning Service District 7, to be located in Brevard County. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan Levine, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Christa Calamas, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sandra E. Allen, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Daniel Francis Sanchez was licensed as a physician by the Florida Board of Medical Examiners having been issued license number ME0038795. At all times relevant hereto Respondent was Regional Medical Director of IMC which operated HMO offices in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties. On October 17, 1985, Alexander Stroganow, an 84 year old Russian immigrant and former cossack, who spoke and understood only what English he wanted to, suffered a fall and was taken to the emergency room at Metropolitan General Hospital. He was checked and released without being admitted for inpatient treatment. Later that evening his landlady thought Stroganow needed medical attention and again called the Emergency Medical Service. The ambulance with EMS personnel arrived and concluded Stroganow was no worse than earlier when taken to the emergency room and they refused to transport him again to the hospital. The landlady then called the HRS hotline to report abuse of the elderly. The following morning, October 18, 1985, an HRS case worker was dispatched to the place where Stroganow lived. She was let in by the landlady and found an 84 year old man who was incontinent, incoherent, apparently paralyzed from the waist down, with whom she could not carry on a conversation to find out what condition he was in. She called for a Cares Unit to come and evaluate the client. An HRS Cares Unit is a two person team consisting of a social worker and nurse whose primary function is to screen clients for admission to nursing homes and adult congregate living facilities (ACLF). The nurse on the team carries no medical equipment such as a stethoscope, blood pressure cuff, or thermometer, but makes her determination on visual examination only. Upon arrival of the Cares Unit both members felt Stroganow needed to be placed where he could be attended. A review of his personal effects produced by his landlady showed his income to be over the maximum for which he could qualify for medicaid placement in a nursing home; that he was a member of IMC's Gold- Plus HMO; his social security card; and several medications, some of which had been prescribed by Dr. Dayton, a physician employed by IMC at the South Pasadena Clinic. The Cares team ruled out ACLF placement for Stroganow at the time because he was not ambulatory but felt he needed to be placed where he could be attended to and not left alone over the coming weekend. To accomplish this, they proceeded to the South Pasadena HMO clinic of IMC to lay the problem on Dr. Dayton, the Assistant Medical Director for IMC in charge of the South Pasadena Clinic. Stroganow had been a client of the South Pasadena HMO for some time and was well known at the clinic and by EMS personnel. There were two and sometimes three doctors who treated patients at this clinic and, unless the patient requested a specific doctor, he was treated by the first doctor available. Stroganow had not specifically requested he be treated by Dr. Dayton. When the Cares team met with Dr. Dayton they advised him that Stroganow had been taken to Metropolitan General Hospital Emergency Room the night before but did not advise Dayton that the EMS team had refused to transport Stroganow to the hospital emergency room a second time the previous evening. Dayton telephoned the emergency room at Metropolitan General to ascertain the medical condition of Stroganow when brought in the evening before. With the information provided by the Cares team and the hospital, Dayton concluded that Stroganow should be given a medical evaluation and the quickest way for that to occur was to call the EMS and have Stroganow taken to an emergency room for evaluation. When the Cares team arrived, Dayton was treating patients at the clinic. A doctor's office, or clinic, is not a desirable place to have an incontinent, incoherent, non- ambulatory patient brought to wait with other patients until a doctor is free to see him. Nor is the clinic equipped to do certain procedures frequently needed in diagnosing the illness and determining treatment needed for an acutely ill patient. EMS squads usually arrive within minutes of a call to 911 for emergency medical assistance and it was necessary for someone to be with Stroganow with the EMS squad arrived. Accordingly, Dayton suggested that the Cares team return to Stroganow and call 911 for assistance in obtaining a medical evaluation of Stroganow. If called from the HMO office, the EMS squad would have arrived long before the Cares team could have gotten back to Stroganow. Dr. Dayton did not have admitting privileges at any hospital in Pinellas County at this time. Upon leaving the South Pasadena HMO clinic, the Cares team returned to Stroganow. Enroute, they stopped to call a supervisor at HRS to report that the HMO had not solved their problem. The supervisor then called the Administrator at IMC to tell them that one of their Gold-Plus patients had an emergency situation. Respondent, Dr. Sanchez, called and advised that Dr. Dayton would take care of the problem. Later, around 2:00 p.m. when no ambulance had arrived, the Cares team called 911 from a telephone a block away from Stroganow's residence and arrived back just before the emergency squad. The EMS squad again refused to transport Stroganow to an emergency room and this information was passed back to Sanchez who directed that Stroganow be taken to Lake Seminole Hospital. This was the first time either Dayton or Sanchez was aware that the EMS squad had refused to transport Stroganow to an emergency room. Although Sanchez did not have admitting privileges at Lake Seminole Hospital, IMC had a contractual agreement with Lake Seminole which provided that certain staff doctors at Lake Seminole would admit patients referred to Lake Seminole by IMC. Pursuant to this contractual arrangement, Stroganow was admitted to Lake Seminole Hospital where he was treated for his injuries and evaluated for his future medical needs.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) should approve the application for certificate of need (CON) 7700 filed by Miami Beach Healthcare Group, LTD. d/b/a Miami Heart Institute (Miami Heart or MH).
Findings Of Fact The Agency is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and taking action on CON applications pursuant to Chapter 408, Florida Statutes. The applicant, Miami Heart, operates a hospital facility known as Miami Heart Institute which, at the time of hearing, was comprised of a north campus (consisting of 273 licensed beds) and a south campus (consisting of 258 beds) in Miami, Florida. The two campuses operate under a single license which consolidated the operation of the two facilities. The consolidation of the license was approved by CON 7399 which was issued by the Agency prior to the hearing of this case. The Petitioner, Mount Sinai, is an existing health care facility doing business in the same service district. On February 4, 1994, AHCA published a fixed need pool of zero adult inpatient psychiatric beds for the planning horizon applicable to this batching cycle. The fixed need pool was not challenged. On February 18, 1994, Miami Heart submitted its letter of intent for the first hospital batching cycle of 1994, and sought to add twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at the Miami Heart Institute south campus. Such facility is located in the Agency's district 11 and is approximately two (2) miles from the north campus. Notice of that letter was published in the March 11, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly. Miami Heart's letter of intent provided, in pertinent part: By this letter, Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., d/b/a Miami Heart Institute announces its intent to file a Certificate of Need Application on or before March 23, 1994 for approval to establish 20 hospital inpatient general psychiatric beds for adults at Miami Heart Institute. Thus, the applicant seeks approval for this project pursuant to Sections 408.036(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The proposed capital expenditure for this project shall not exceed $1,000,000 and will include new construction and the renovation of existing space. Miami Heart Institute is located in Local Health Council District 11. There are no subsdistricts for Hospital Inpatient General Psychiatric Beds for Adults in District 11. The applicable need formula for Hospital General Psychiatric Beds for Adults is contained within Rule 59C-1.040(4)(c), F.A.C. The Agency published a fixed need of "0" for Hospital General Psychiatric Beds for Adults in District 11 for this batching cycle. However, "not normal" circumstances exist within District which justify approval of this project. These circumstances are that Miami Beach Community Hospital, which is also owned by Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., and which has an approved Certificate of Need Application to consol- idate its license with that of the Miami Heart Institute, has pending a Certificate of Need Application to delicense up to 20 hospital inpatient general psychiatric beds for adults. The effect of the application, which is the subject of this Letter of Intent, will be to relocate 20 of the delicensed adult psychiatric beds to the Miami Heart Institute. Because of the "not normal" circumstances alleged in the Miami Heart letter of intent, the Agency extended a grace period to allow competing letters of intent to be filed. No additional letters of intent were submitted during the grace period. On March 23, 1994, Miami Heart timely submitted its CON application for the project at issue, CON no. 7700. Notice of the application was published in the April 8, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly. Such application was deemed complete by the Agency and was considered to be a companion to the delicensure of the north campus beds. On July 22, 1994, the Agency published in the Florida Administrative Weekly its preliminary decision to approve CON no. 7700. In the same batch as the instant case, Cedars Healthcare Group (Cedars), also in district 11, applied to add adult psychiatric beds to Cedars Medical Center through the delicensure of an equal number of adult psychiatric beds at Victoria Pavilion. Cedars holds a single license for the operation of both Cedars Medical Center and Victoria Pavilion. As in this case, the Agency gave notice of its intent to grant the CON application. Although this "transfer" was initially challenged, it was subsequently dismissed. Although filed at the same time (and, therefore, theoretically within the same batch), the Cedars CON application and the Miami Heart CON application were not comparatively reviewed by the Agency. The Agency determined the applicants were merely seeking to relocate their own licensed beds. Based upon that determination, MH's application was evaluated in the context of the statutory criteria, the adult psychiatric beds and services rule (Rule 59C-1.040, Florida Administrative Code), the district 11 local health plan, and the 1993 state health plan. Ms. Dudek also considered the utilization data for district 11 facilities. Mount Sinai timely filed a petition challenging the proposed approval of CON 7700 and, for purposes of this proceeding only, the parties stipulated that MS has standing to raise the issues remaining in this cause. Mount Sinai's existing psychiatric unit utilization is presently at or near full capacity, and MS' existing unit would not provide an adequate, available, or accessible alternative to Miami Heart's proposal, unless additional bed capacity were available to MS in the future through approval of additional beds or changes in existing utilization. Miami Heart's proposal to establish twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at its Miami Heart Institute south campus was made in connection with its application to delicense twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at its north campus. The Agency advised MH to submit two CON applications: one for the delicensure (CON no. 7474) and one for the establishment of the twenty beds at the south campus (CON no. 7700). The application to delicense the north campus beds was expeditiously approved and has not been challenged. As to the application to establish the twenty beds at the south campus, the following statutory criteria are not at issue: Section 408.035(1)(c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (m), (n), (o) and (2)(b) and (e), Florida Statutes. The parties have stipulated that Miami Heart meets, at least minimally, those criteria. During 1993, Miami Heart made the business decision to cease operations at its north campus and to seek the Agency's approval to relocate beds and services from that facility to other facilities owned by MH, including the south campus. Miami Heart does not intend to delicense the twenty beds at the north campus until the twenty beds are licensed at the south campus. The goal is merely to transfer the existing program with its services to the south campus. Miami Heart did not seek beds from a fixed need pool. Since approximately April, 1993, the Miami Heart north campus has operated with the twenty bed adult psychiatric unit and with a limited number of obstetrical beds. The approval of CON no. 7700 will not change the overall total number of adult general inpatient psychiatric beds within the district. The adult psychiatric program at MH experiences the highest utilization of any program in district 11, with an average length of stay that is consistent with other adult programs around the state. Miami Heart's existing psychiatric program was instituted in 1978. Since 1984, there has been little change in nursing and other staff. The program provides a full continuum of care, with outpatient programs, aftercare, and support programs. Nearly ninety-nine percent of the program's inpatient patient days are attributable to patients diagnosed with serious mental disorders. The Miami Heart program specializes in a biological approach to psychiatric cases in the diagnosis and treatment of affective disorders, including a variety of mood disorders and related conditions. The Miami Heart program is distinctive from other psychiatric programs in the district. If the MH program were discontinued, the patients would have limited alternatives for access to the same diagnostic and treatment services in the district. There are no statutes or rules promulgated which specifically address the transfer of psychiatric beds or services from one facility owned by a health care entity to another facility also owned by the same entity. In reviewing the instant CON application, the Agency determined it has the discretion to evaluate each transfer case based upon the review criteria and to consider the appropriate weight factors should be given. Factors which may affect the review include the change of location, the utilization of the existing services, the quality of the existing programs and services, the financial feasibility, architectural issues, and any other factor critical to the review process. In this case, the weight given to the numeric need criteria was not significant. The Agency determined that because the transfer would not result in a change to the overall bed inventory, the calculated fixed need pool did not apply to the instant application. In effect, because the calculation of numeric need was inapplicable, this case must be considered "not normal" pursuant to Rule 59C-1.040(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Agency determined that other criteria were to be given greater consideration. Such factors were the reasonableness of the proposal, the ability to afford access, the applicant's ability to provide a quality program, and the project's financial feasibility. The Agency determined that, on balance, this application should be approved as the statutory and other review criteria were met. Although put on notice of the other CON applications, Mount Sinai did not file an application for psychiatric beds at the same time as Miami Heart or Cedars. Mount Sinai did not claim that the proposed delicensures and transfers made beds available for competitive review. The Agency has interpreted Rule 59C-1.040, Florida Administrative Code, to mean that it will not normally approve an application for beds or services unless the statutory and rule criteria are met, including the need determination criteria. There is no list of circumstances which are routinely considered "not normal" by the Agency. In this case, the proposed transfer of beds was, in itself, considered "not normal." The approval of Miami Heart's application would allow an existing program to continue. As a result, the overhead to maintain two campuses would be reduced. Further, the relocation would allow the program to continue to provide access, both geographically and financially, to the same patient service area. And, since the program has the highest utilization rate of any adult program in the district, its continuation would be beneficial to the area. The program has an established referral base for admissions to the facility. The transfer is reasonable for providing access to the medically under-served. The quality of care, while not in issue, would be expected to continue at its existing level or improve. The transfer would allow better access to ancillary hospital departments and consulting specialists who may be needed even though the primary diagnosis is psychiatric. The cost of the transfer when compared to the costs to be incurred if the transfer is not approved make the approval a benefit to the service area. If the program is not relocated, Medicaid access could change if the hospital is reclassified from a general facility to a specialty facility. The proposed cost for the project does not exceed one million dollars. If the north campus must be renovated, a greater capital expenditure would be expected. The expected impact on competition for other providers is limited due to the high utilization for all programs in the vicinity. The subject proposal is consistent with the district and state health care plans and the need for health care facilities and services. The services being transferred is an existing program which is highly utilized and which is not creating "new beds." As such, the proposal complies with Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing services in the district will not be adversely affected by the approval of the subject application. The proposed transfer is consistent with, and appropriate, in light of these criteria. Therefore, the proposal complies with Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The subject application demonstrates a full continuum of care with safeguards to assure that alternatives to inpatient care are fully utilized when appropriate. Therefore, the availability and adequacy of other services, such as outpatient care, has been demonstrated and would deter unnecessary utilization. Thus, Miami Heart has shown its application complies with Section 408.035(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Miami Heart has also demonstrated that the probable impact of its proposal is in compliance with Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes. The proposed transfer will not adversely impact the costs of providing services, the competition on the supply of services, or the improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of services which foster competition, promote quality assurance, and cost-effectiveness. Miami Heart has taken an innovative approach to promote quality assurance and cost effectiveness. Its purpose, to close a facility and relocate beds (removing unnecessary acute care beds in the process), represents a departure from the traditional approach to providing health care services. By approving Miami Heart's application, overhead costs associated with the unnecessary facility will be eliminated. There is no less costly, more efficient alternative which would allow the continuation of the services and program Miami Heart has established at the north campus than the approval of transfer to the south campus. The MH proposal is most practical and readily available solution which will allow the north campus to close and the beds and services to remain available and accessible. The renovation of the medical surgical space at the south campus to afford a location for the psychiatric unit is the most practical and readily available solution which will allow the north campus to close and the beds and services to remain available and accessible. In totality, the circumstances of this case make the approval of Miami Heart's application for CON no. 7700 the most reasonable and practical solution given the "not normal" conditions of this application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order approving CON 7700 as recommended in the SAAR. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 5th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 5th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4755 Note: Proposed findings of fact are to contain one essential fact per numbered paragraph. Proposed findings of fact paragraphs containing multiple sentences with more than one statement of fact are difficult to review. In reviewing for this case, where all sentences were accurate and supported by the recorded cited, the paragraph has been accepted. If the paragraph contained mixed statements where one sentence was an accurate statement of fact but the others were not, the paragraph has been rejected. Similarly, if one sentence was editorial comment, argument, or an unsupported statement to a statement of fact, the paragraph has been rejected. Proposed findings of fact should not include argument, editorial comments, or statements of fact mixed with such comments. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner, Mount Sinai: Paragraphs 1 through 13 were cited as stipulated facts. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 15 it is accepted that Miami Heart made the business decision to move the psychiatric beds beds from the north campus to the south campus. Any inference created by the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 21 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraph 25 is rejected as repetitive, or immaterial, unnecessary to the resolution of the issues. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 27 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 28 is accepted but not relevant. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. Paragraphs 31 through 33 are rejected as argument, comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 35 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact, or irrelevant as the FNP was not in dispute. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 37 is rejected as repetitive, or comment. Paragraph 38 is rejected as repetitive, comment or conclusion of law, not fact, or irrelevant. Paragraph 39 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41, 42, and 43 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence and/or argument. Paragraph 44 is rejected as argument and comment on the testimony. Paragraph 45 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, and/or not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 47 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 48 is rejected as comment, argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 49 is rejected as comment on testimony. It is accepted that the proposed relocation or transfer of beds is a "not normal" circumstance. Paragraph 50 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 51 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 52 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 53 is rejected as argument, comment or recitation of testimony, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 54 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant, comment, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 56 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 57 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 58 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 59 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 60 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 61 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 62 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 63 is accepted. Paragraph 64 is rejected as irrelevant. Mount Sinai could have filed in this batch given the not normal circumstances disclosed in the Miami Heart notice. Paragraph 65 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 66 is rejected as comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 67 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 68 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 69 is rejected as argument, comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 70 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, Agency: Paragraphs 1 through 6 are accepted. With the deletion of the words "cardiac catheterization" and the inclusion of the word "psychiatric beds" in place, paragraph 7 is accepted. Cardiac catheterization is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 8 is accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or an error of law, otherwise, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraphs 11 through 17 are accepted. Paragraph 18 is rejected as conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraphs 19 and 20 are accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 21 are accepted; the remainder rejected as conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 22 is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 23 is accepted. Paragraph 24 is rejected as argument, speculation, or irrelevant. Paragraph 25 is accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, Miami Heart: Paragraphs 1 through 13 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 14 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to law or irrelevant since MS did not file in the batch when it could have. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted as the Agency's statement of its authority or policy in this case, not fact. Paragraphs 17 through 20 are accepted. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 23 through 35 are accepted. Paragraph 36 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 37 through 40 are accepted. Paragraph 41 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence to the extent that it concludes the distance to be one mile; evidence deemed credible placed the distance at two miles. Paragraphs 42 through 47 are accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as comment. Paragraphs 49 through 57 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Wallace, Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 R. Terry Rigsby Geoffrey D. Smith Wendy Delvecchio Blank, Rigsby & Meenan, P.A. 204 S. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lesley Mendelson Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Stephen Ecenia Rutledge, Ecenia, Underwood, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street Suite 420 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551
The Issue Whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 10009, filed by HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Ocala, LLC (the applicant or HS-Ocala) to establish a new freestanding 40-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR) hospital in Marion County, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Agency) District 3, satisfies, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for approval.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Applicant HS-Ocala is a wholly-owned subsidiary of HealthSouth Corporation (HealthSouth). Founded in 1984, HealthSouth is the nation's largest provider of inpatient rehabilitative healthcare services in terms of revenue, number of hospitals, and patients treated. HealthSouth employs over 22,000 people in approximately 93 rehabilitation hospitals, six long-term care hospitals, approximately 48 outpatient rehabilitation satellites and 25 hospital-based home health agencies across 26 states and Puerto Rico. All HealthSouth facilities, including the facilities in Florida, are either accredited by the Joint Commission (f/k/a the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations – JCAHO) or the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) or both. HealthSouth has created specific programs for different conditions, including a specialized Stroke Rehabilitation Program nationwide. HealthSouth is one of only four hospital companies receiving Joint Commission Stroke Rehabilitation Certification: 21 of 25 hospitals that have this certification are HealthSouth facilities. HealthSouth owns and operates nine freestanding CMR hospitals in Florida. HealthSouth also owns and operates a 40- bed long-term acute care hospital in Sarasota and owns eight outpatient centers in the state. HealthSouth will provide patients with an interdisciplinary team that includes the services of a physician/physiatrist, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech/language pathologists, psychologists, rehabilitative nurses, case managers, therapeutic recreation specialists, dieticians, and respiratory therapists. Shands Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., was incorporated in 1979 as a Florida not-for-profit corporation. Shands is located in Gainesville, Florida, and operates a health care delivery system that includes the flagship teaching hospital for the School of Medicine of the University of Florida and Shands Rehab Hospital (a division of Shands), a 40-bed freestanding inpatient rehabilitation hospital. Shands serves patients throughout District 3, as well as other areas of Florida. Co-located in the same building with Shands Rehab Hospital is Shands Vista (a division of Shands), an inpatient psychiatric and substance abuse facility licensed to operate 81 beds, of which 57 are psychiatric and 24 are substance abuse. Shands also operates Shands AGH, a 367-bed acute care community hospital in Gainesville; Shands at Lake Shore, a 99- bed acute care community hospital located in Starke, Florida; and Shands Live Oak, a 15-bed acute care hospital located in Live Oak, Florida. Another subsidiary of Shands is Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, a 696-bed teaching hospital in Jacksonville, Florida. Shands Rehab is accredited by the Joint Commission, the Florida Brain and Spinal Cord Injury Program and CARF. Shands Rehab offers a full array of CMR services. Patients at Shands Rehab are served by an interdisciplinary team. LRMC LRMC is a 309-bed acute care hospital located in Leesburg, Florida. LRMC provides a broad array of services including open-heart surgery and neurosurgery and also offers stroke specialty service. LRMC's CMR unit, also known as the Ohme Rehabilitation Center (Ohme), is a 15-bed hospital-based CMR unit located in its North Campus in Leesburg, Florida. Ohme is accredited by the Joint Commission and CARF. CARF has also accredited Ohme as a stroke specialty program. LRMC is part of the Central Florida Health Alliance, which also includes The Villages Regional Hospital (120 beds) located within the development known as The Villages, located in Lake, Sumter, and Marion Counties, and north of LRMC. The Villages is located approximately 15-to-20 minutes from LRMC. Ohme's patients work with an interdisciplinary team of professionals, including a medical director, case managers, registered nurses, rehabilitation techs, certified nursing assistants, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech/language pathologists, recreational therapists, rehabilitation therapists, social workers, and dieticians. AHCA AHCA is the state health planning agency and administers the CON program pursuant to the Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 408.031-.0455, Florida Statutes. CMR Services and Facilities CMR facilities are licensed pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. CMR services are defined by Section 408.032(17), Florida Statutes, as tertiary health services, which "means a health service which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost- effectiveness of such service." Id. The services are integrated and intensive, provided in an inpatient setting by a multidisciplinary team to patients with severe physical disabilities, such as stroke, spinal cord or brain injury, congenital deformities, amputation, major multiple trauma, femur fracture, neurological disorders, polyarthritis, and burns. The patients served by CMR facilities are clinically complex and require an acute care level of nursing and rehabilitative therapies. Facilities such as the one proposed are reimbursed prospectively by the Medicare program under the inpatient rehabilitation prospective payment system, 42 C.F.R. Part 412, and are exempt from the Medicare inpatient prospective patient system for short-term acute care inpatient hospitals. To be eligible for Medicare reimbursement as an inpatient rehabilitation facility, 60 percent of the patients admitted to a CMR facility must have a medical condition that falls within one or more of 13 diagnoses established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which indicate a need for intensive rehabilitative services. These are commonly known as the "CMS-13" criteria. The CMS-13 criteria include: stroke, spinal cord injury, congenital deformity, amputation, major multiple trauma, femur fracture (hip fracture), brain injury, neurological disorders, burns, active polyarthritis, systemic vasculidities, advanced osteoarthritis, and knee or hip replacement with additional co-morbidities. If a CMR facility falls below the 60 percent threshold, it will be reimbursed by CMS as a short-term acute care inpatient hospital. In addition to the above requirements, the federal government mandates that a patient admitted to a CMR facility must require an acute care level of nursing services; that physicians determine the admission of the patient to be medically necessary; and that the patient be able to tolerate three hours of therapy services per day (900 minutes over five days) over a five-day period administered by licensed therapists. Therapy services included in the three-hour requirement include physical, occupational, speech, recreational, neuropsychological, and prosthetics and orthotic. Services or treatments rendered by aides may not be included in the three-hour per day minimum therapy requirement; however, services or treatments provided by licensed assistants can be included in the three-hour per day requirement. Unlike acute care services, access to CMR services is non-emergent. The process used to identify and admit patients from an acute care setting to a CMR facility begins early in the patient's stay, e.g., at an acute care facility. (Patients can be admitted from other entities or from home, but most are admitted from hospitals.) Typically, a patient will be assessed upon admission to an acute care hospital to determine what services they will need upon leaving the hospital. The assessment process involves discharge planners, case managers, physicians, nurses, the patient's insurance provider, and the patient and his or her family. In making the decision as to where a patient should be discharged, those involved in the decision-making process determine the amount of therapy the patient can tolerate; the age of the patient; and any co-morbidities or other conditions the patient may have. Once a decision is made as to what types of post-acute care services are needed, the acute care hospital's discharge planner or case manager is charged with coordinating the required care for the patient. CMR services include the close involvement of a physician (physiatrist) and the availability of 24-hour nursing care because the patients requiring CMR services typically have significant medical conditions and co-morbidities. In the CMR setting, nurses are trained to be a part of the entire therapeutic team. In coordinating post-acute care for a patient, some Marion County acute care hospitals such as Munroe Regional use the Allscripts or ECIN electronic referral system. Other local hospitals, such as Ocala Regional and West Marion, do not. However, the director of admissions at TimberRidge has access to patient charts at Ocala Regional and West Marion. (It appears that eight Ocala-area SNFs are listed on the ECIN system.) The ECIN system allows hospitals to transmit a patient's medical information to post-acute care facilities for consideration for admission in electronic format. The system also allows a hospital and the potential discharge facility to communicate if additional information or explanation is needed. The system is viewed as a valuable tool because it allows CMR facilities to obtain detailed information on potential admissions without having to travel to the referring facility to review medical records. The Allscripts system is also utilized by a CMR facility to assist with placement decisions at the time the patient is discharged from the CMR facility. Once the patient is referred to a CMR facility, the CMR admissions team receives the patient's information and begins its own assessment to determine whether the patient is a good candidate for admission. Typically, a nurse liaison is assigned to a referred case and gathers information on the patient to be used in the admissions decision. A patient assessment sheet is typically completed and the CMR admitting physician will be called on to review the information. The admitting physician will look for information regarding the nature and extent of a patient's illnesses and whether the patient had any complications that could affect the patient's ability to participate in rehabilitation. The ability to participate in rehabilitation is significant to a CMR facility because the patient is typically expected to begin exercising as soon as possible after admission. All of the above factors are considered in addition to the CMS-13 criteria. Even if a patient falls within one of the CMS-13 diagnosis codes, the CMR facility staff also determines if the patient requires at least two disciplines of therapy as required by Medicare. A patient who does not meet this criterion may not be considered a candidate for admission to a CMR facility notwithstanding the fact that he or she may fall within one of the CMS-13 diagnoses. Utilizing all of the above indicators, a final decision is made and communicated to the acute care facility or other referring entity to coordinate the transfer of the patient or re-refer the patient to a more appropriate setting. When a patient is admitted to a CMR facility, a patient assessment instrument that captures the patient's diagnostic and functional abilities must be completed. During this admission assessment process, the patient's level of independent functioning is measured for a number of activities. This comprehensive review of the patient's functions is performed within three days of admission. This measurement is known as the patient's functional independence measurement (FIM) score. The FIM score is both a quality and outcome and progress measure. The FIM measures 18 items on a scale of 1 (most severe) to 7 (independent). FIM scores are not utilized in the skilled nursing home industry, which has made it more difficult to compare the care delivered in CMR facilities and skilled nursing homes. All CMR providers utilize FIM scores. The FIM score in part determines the level of reimbursement the facility receives from Medicare because it indicates that the patient will typically require more services. FIM scores are measured again upon discharge. The Proposal HS-Ocala proposes to build a new 40-bed freestanding CMR hospital in Ocala, Florida, at a cost of $19,620,449 in a 49,900 square foot facility. All of the beds will be private. This prototype has been built by HealthSouth at least ten times since 2001, including twice within Florida. HS-Ocala plans to build the hospital on 6.2 acres located on Southwest 19th Avenue Road in, Ocala, Florida. The property is a portion of the approximately 7.63-acre tract identified as Marion County tax parcel number 23721-003-00. HealthSouth has an active contract to purchase the property. The projected construction cost contained in the application is $9,237,800 or $185.12 per gross square feet. The applicant agreed to condition the proposed project on the following: providing a minimum of 2.5 percent of the hospital's annual inpatient patient days to Medicaid and charity patients; implementing a Stroke Rehabilitation Program to begin upon licensure; obtaining Joint Commission Certification of its stroke rehabilitation program; and providing an AutoAmbulator and other appropriate technology upon licensure. In its preliminary approval of the application, AHCA conditioned the approval on the conditions indicated above, and that the facility is located in close proximity to the intersections triangulated by Interstate 75, SR 200, SR 40, and U.S. Highway 27. The applicant proposes to offer a full range of CMR services. The applicant does not propose to have a spinal cord or brain injury unit. These patients are typically transferred to a facility like Shands Rehab consistent with the tertiary nature of CMR services. HealthSouth CMR facilities have traditionally offered high quality CMR services at all of its facilities, including the nine facilities in Florida. Consistent with the general description of CMR services provided herein, HealthSouth has developed diagnostically distinct programs which offer specialized inpatient and outpatient services with an interdisciplinary approach. These programs are developed and implemented at each HealthSouth facility consistent with the needs of the market. These specific programs improve outcomes for the patients. HealthSouth's interdisciplinary therapy team primarily consists of physical, occupational, and speech therapists. The physical therapy team integrates with the other interdisciplinary team members, including physicians, nurses, prosthetists, orthotics, and other team members. From the initial assessment, the interdisciplinary team develops a plan of care through treatment interventions provided to the patient. A comprehensive review of the patient's functionality, including the FIM score determination, is performed on each patient is performed within three days of admission. Throughout the patient's stay, patient goals are constantly being assessed and implemented. Conferences are held with the patient and family to make sure the goals are being accomplished. The team also evaluates the home setting and prepares the patient and the family for discharge. HealthSouth's main mission is to provide quality outcomes. The outcomes are measured on admission, throughout the patient's stay and on discharge. HealthSouth takes the necessary measures to assure that it provides the patient with at least three hours of therapy a day. HealthSouth uses state-of-the-art technology as part of its ongoing quality initiatives. The Ocala facility will have access to state-of-the-art equipment including the AutoAmbulator, a device developed and implemented by HealthSouth and only offered at most of the HealthSouth facilities in the United States. (The AutoAmbulator is a sophisticated treadmill using the therapeutic concept of body weight supported ambulation and robotics to help patients with gait disorders. The equipment has produced quality outcomes for HealthSouth patients. There are no studies that compare the use of this device with other similar devise such as a LocoMat.) HealthSouth also proposes to offer other technology such as the Balance Master (assessment of balance); EquiTest (used to diagnose and treat imbalance and postural instability); Visipitch (computerized analysis of voice); SaeboFlex wrist splint and exercise station (promotes increased function in shoulder, wrist, elbow, and hand); Interactive Metronome (promotes motor learning); and VitalStim (targets swallow function); and Bioness (helps patients regain lost mobility for upper and lower extremities). See T. 707-16. HealthSouth tracks and measures quality provided to the patient pursuant to its contract with the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation, which is the most widely used system in the country. This system tracks function outcomes for CMR patients through the use of FIM data captured from approximately 900 rehabilitation hospitals in the United States. HealthSouth monitors patient satisfaction outcomes. Each HealthSouth CMR facility has a quality review council that examines patient safety measures, FIM outcome data, patient satisfaction data, and infection controls. HealthSouth encourages family participation before admission, during treatment, and after the patient is discharged from one of its CMR facilities. Travel barriers may impact the ability of family members to access a CMR facility. District 3 and the Proposed Service Area (PSA) District 3 is the largest health service planning district in the state of Florida composed of 16 counties, including Hamilton, Suwannee, Lafayette, Dixie, Columbia, Gilchrist, Levy, Union, Bradford, Putnam, Alachua, Marion, Citrus, Hernando, Sumter, and Lake. § 408.032(5), Fla. Stat. District 3 encompasses more than 11,000 square miles with nearly 1.6 million residents. Much of District 3 is rural covering approximately 20 percent of the state's land areas, but home to approximately eight percent of the state's population. Marion County is the most populated county within District 3 with more than 317,000 residents. There is a natural geographic barrier in the area with the forest to the east of Marion County. The service area for the proposed facility defined in the application comprises zip codes in Marion County and the easternmost portion of Levy County. A portion of zip code 32784 is located in Lake County. As of calendar year 2007, the total population for all of the zip codes within the PSA was 334,868 and is projected to increase to 377,543 by calendar year 2012, a 12.7 percent increase. The applicant projects receiving approximately 95 percent of its patients from within the PSA. Ms. Kelleher and Ms. Greenberg developed the PSA with the assistance of Wanda Pearman of Dixon Hughes. The process included the creation of various maps outlining the service area as it evolved prior to filing the application. The process utilized an August 2007 market analysis performed by Dixon Hughes on 27 or 28 markets across the United States, including the Marion County/Ocala market. The August 2007 market analysis was not performed specifically for the purpose of the CON Application. Rather, it was performed on potential markets across the country as a "50,000-foot" level market analysis of demographics and lack of CMR services in an effort to identify potential markets. HealthSouth would use the information to look further into each identified potential market and decide what the appropriate service area would be. Beginning on January 22, 2008, a number of zip codes were realigned and deleted from the original Dixon Hughes document to form the service area identified in the application. The HealthSouth team examined existing in and out- migration patterns for existing hospitals within Marion County. Existing roadways were driven. Local providers, including local doctors, were contacted and provided favorable comments regarding the proposed project. The Villages were excluded because they were not in close proximity to Ocala. Any area south of the Marion County line was also excluded due to travel distances. The analysis led to the conclusion that the Ocala area has developed into its own medical market and that the placement of a CMR facility in the Ocala area would not overlap with Ohme's or Shands Rehab's service areas such that their CMR services (quality of care, e.g.) would be compromised in any significant way. It was also important to the applicant that trauma patients, spinal cord and brain injury patients would continue to go to the Shands system for their post-acute care. From a demographic standpoint, 2007 data indicated that approximately 23 percent of the residents in the Ocala area are 65 years of age or older (increasing to approximately 25 percent by 2012) compared to the statewide average of 17 percent. This age cohort is expected to increase approximately 20 percent between 2007 and 2012 with some zip codes increasing between 24 and 37 percent. Approximately 75 percent of CMR patients are covered under Medicare and Medicare managed care. Statutory and Rule Review Criteria Section 408.035(1)(a): The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed. "A favorable need determination for proposed new or expanded [CMR] inpatient services shall not normally be made unless a bed need exists according to the numeric need methodology in paragraph (5)(c) of this rule." Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.039(5)(a). "The future need for [CMR] inpatient services shall be determined twice a year and published by the agency as a fixed need pool for the applicable planning horizon." Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.039(5)(b). Pursuant to the Agency's need methodology, Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.039(5)(c), the Agency published a fixed need pool of zero (0) for CMR beds for District 3 in the CON batching cycle at issue in this case in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 34, Number 4 (January 25, 2008). By Agency precedent, this determination creates a presumption of no need. The applicant seeks approval based on "not normal" circumstances. Generally, pursuant to Subsection 408.035(1)(a), the need for a tertiary health service such as CMR is to be determined on a district-wide basis. See T. 2324, 2327-2332. But see Conclusions of Law 349-52. By its express terms, Subsection 408.035(1)(b) requires consideration of the stated criteria in reference to the service district of the applicant. Using the applicant's service area approach yields bed need projections in excess of those established by the Agency's rule, in large part because the applicant established a PSA using a series of zip codes in an area where there is no existing CMR facility. The applicant ultimately concluded that the PSA is a unique (and not-normal) market for which CMR services are unavailable. The Agency preliminarily approved the project based on the applicant's representations in its CON application of need for the service in the 25 zip code area. See generally T. 2327- 2390. The Agency considered several factors including the disparity in the "conversion rate" of patients who reside in the 25 zip codes comprising the applicant's PSA compared to other areas of the state where HealthSouth operates CMR hospitals; transportation difficulties; letters of support; and physician concerns in transferring patients to existing hospitals in the District. B. Section 408.035(1)(b): The availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant. Availability, accessibility, and utilization There are four acute care hospitals, ten skilled nursing facilities, and one long-term care hospital within the PSA. The acute care hospitals are: Munroe Regional Medical Center (Munroe Regional)(421 beds); Ocala Regional Medical Center (ORMC) (200 beds); West Marion Community Hospital (West Marion)(70 beds), a satellite of Ocala Regional Medical Center; and Nature Coast Regional Hospital (Nature Coast) (40 beds). The long-term care hospital, Kindred Hospital Ocala (31 beds), is located on the fifth floor of Munroe Regional. There is no persuasive evidence that area hospitals are experiencing problems placing patients in post-acute care settings. Munroe Regional has an average daily census of approximately 300 and offers open-heart surgery, cardiovascular services and neurological services, and orthopedic surgery. HS-Ocala's application contained numerous letters of support, including letters from ORMC and West Coast.2/ See HS Ex. 1 at 663-705 and JPS at HealthSouth's exhibit list, p. 1, n.1. Most of the letters were not authenticated. There was no objection to letters of support submitted by Drs. Tabbaa and Canon and the letter of support submitted by Linda F. Berry, RN, PCRM, employed with the University of Florida College of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, apparently as a case manager. Id. T. 497-98, 504-505, 525-27, 579; HS Ex. 1 at 664 and 667; HS Ex. 24. There are three existing CMR facilities in District 3. HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital-Spring Hill (Spring Hill), in Hernando County, is a 70-bed (16 private and 54 semi- private rooms) freestanding rehabilitation hospital and has been approved to add ten beds pursuant to a CON exemption. Spring Hill is approximately 70 miles from the downtown Ocala area. Spring Hill's primary service area is Hernando County and a small piece of Pasco County and Spring Hill receives 85-to-90 percent of its patients from its primary service area. (In seeking approval of the original 60-bed Spring Hill hospital around the Fall of 1999, the applicant used Marion County data to support its argument that there was a need for the facility and included Marion County as part of its defined service area.) Between 2004 and 2007, Spring Hill comprised 60 beds, a majority of which were semi-private. During that same time period, the average daily census at Spring Hill ranged from 50 to 57, with the average number of available beds ranging from three to ten. In 2008 and thus far in 2009, Spring Hill was at 92 and 94 percent occupancy, respectively, with an ADC of 64 and 66 for these years for 70 beds. Shands Rehab Hospital is a 40-bed freestanding rehabilitation hospital, and is part of the larger Shands Health Care System (with over 1,000 acute care beds) described above and which provides over 70 percent of the referrals to the Shands Rehab unit. Shands Rehab has 16 private and 24 semi-private beds. Shands Rehab is located approximately 40 miles from the downtown Ocala area or the center point of the PSA. There are two primary physician groups that work within Shands Rehab: University of Florida Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, which includes Shands Rehab's medical director, Dr. James Atchison and Southeastern Integrated Medical (SIMED). While it may vary from week to week, SIMED covers approximately 60 percent of the inpatient population at Shands Rehab, whereas Dr. Atchison's group has the remaining 40 percent. The two physician groups have agreed to accept only two unfunded (charity) patients each "at any particular time," although for key diagnostic groups that are seen regularly, such as brain and spinal cord injury and stroke patients, the physicians will consider serving them if Shands Rehab is the best facility for the patient. Dr. Atchison further explained that if Shands Rehab did not have an opening for an unfunded patient on a particular day, the referring facility would be told to consider waiting a few days to refer a patient as an alternative pathway with the decision to refer or not left with the referring facility. No such restriction exists for other patients including Medicaid patients. (From approximately April 2006 through November 2008, it appears that a few patients were not admitted to Shands Rehab because the allotted charity beds (not other beds) were full, including approximately three patients at Munroe Regional and one patient from West Marion Community Hospital.) Between 2004 and 2007, Shands Rehab operated with an average daily census (ADC) of between 26 and 31, and runs at functional capacity at an ADC of 39 for its 40 beds. T. 1653, 1688; HS Ex. 66 at 25, 41, and 53. But see SL Ex. 212 for years 2004 through 2007 - ADC range of 25 to 28 and an average of 12 to 15 available beds. For 2008, the ADC was 29 and up to 31 in 2009. HS Ex. 69 at 144. Shands Rehab has a strong referral base from within the Shands Health Care System. Shands Rehab does not admit many patients from the Ocala area acute care hospitals and has not been successful in increasing referrals from the "northern tier" in and around Lake City, and "southern tier" in and around the Ocala area, notwithstanding a potential patient population to be served. But see Findings of Fact (FOF) 319-20. LRMC's Ohme Rehabilitation Center is a 15-bed unit (seven private and eight semi-private beds) located in the north campus of and approximately one mile from LRMC. Ohme is located approximately 50 miles from the downtown Ocala area. The CMR unit is located on the third floor of a building that also houses the 120-bed nursing home on the second floor. The gym for the CMR unit is located on the first floor of the same building. Between 2004 and 2007, the ADC at LRMC ran between 11 and 12 beds and the available number of beds ranged between three and four. In or around 2006, LRMC received an exemption from the Agency to add seven beds to its existing CMR facility. However, at the time of the final hearing the exemption granted to LRMC had expired. It appears that LRMC's senior executive team decided not to add the beds in light of a declining census and because of the significant expense to satisfy code requirements. LRMC considers the Spring Hill location as a distinct medical market. Since 2005, approximately 90 percent of Ohme's CMR patients were admitted from hospitals within the LRMC system or hospitals within the Lake County area. Since 2005, between 69 to 77 percent of the CMR patient admissions have come from LRMC. See also FOFs 328-339. A negligible number of patients have been referred to and admitted from Ocala area acute care hospitals, i.e., Munroe Regional, Nature Coast Regional Hospital, Ocala Regional Medical Center, and West Marion Community Hospital. The persuasive evidence indicates that LRMC does not do any meaningful marketing in the Ocala area for CMR patients. Sixteen CMR beds have also been approved for Seven Rivers Medical Center in Citrus County. The Seven Rivers unit was scheduled to become operational by June 2009. However, testimony indicated that the beds were still under development at the time of the hearing. For the year ending December 31, 2007, the occupancy rate for all CMR beds in District 3 was 82 percent. As noted, there are ten skilled nursing facilities in the PSA with 1,552 licensed beds. TimberRidge Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (TimberRidge), is a skilled nursing facility (SNF) and comprises 180 beds (174 semi-private and six private) and owned by Munroe Regional. TimberRidge provides nursing and rehabilitative care based on a patient's needs and is Medicare-certified. TimberRidge is located on the west side of Interstate 75 next to Munroe Regional's new freestanding emergency department. TimberRidge is not at functional capacity and had 50 available beds at the time of this hearing. Approximately 40-to-50 percent of TimberRidge's admissions come from Munroe Regional and approximately 25-to-30 percent from Ocala Regional and the same percentage from West Marion. (If Munroe Regional has 100 discharges, TimberRidge receives 20 percent of those which comprise 40-to-50 percent of TimberRidge's admissions.) TimberRidge and Oakhurst Rehab and Nursing Center are the Ocala area largest SNF recipients of discharges from Munroe Regional. TimberRidge has not had a physiatrist on staff for approximately seven years. The applicant argued that approval of the proposed facility would promote quality of care based on the assertion that patients in the PSA are not being admitted to a CMR facility but are instead admitted to a "lesser, and often inappropriate, level of care" such as long-term acute care hospitals or SNFs. However, this contention was not persuasively supported by the facts. The issue of whether patients are better served in one post-acute care setting versus another, and in particular, whether particular patients should be admitted to SNF or CMR facilities, including resulting outcomes, is a debated topic. In response to the debate, CMS has engaged the services of Research Triangle Institute (RTI) to conduct a study known as the CARE Project. The CARE Project was created to undertake research to develop a common tool or instrument that could be used to assess patients in multiple settings so that home health agencies, CMRs, and SNFs would be able to report comparative data. CMRs and SNFs provide different levels of care service. SNFs, even when providing rehabilitation services and therapies, do not provide the level of intense interdisciplinary rehabilitation services provided at CMR facilities. In general, a SNF, such as TimberRidge, offering rehabilitation services in a distinct portion of the SNF, provides appropriate rehab care for the patients it serves. TimberRidge, however, is not a pure substitute for a CMR facility. Richard Soehner, the Administrator for TimberRidge testified in opposition to HS-Ocala's representation that SNFs are often inappropriate levels of care for patients needing inpatient rehabilitation. TimberRidge's 180 beds are split into three 60-bed wings -- West, East, and South. The West Wing houses the most acute, intensive rehabilitation patients. Additionally, the rehabilitation population overflows into the East Wing. The remainder of the East Wing and South Wing house long-term residents. TimberRidge provides nursing and rehabilitation services to geriatric patients in and around Ocala. Employees of TimberRidge are involved in daily communications with discharge planners at hospitals, and help to determine whether TimberRidge can accept a resident. A registered nurse will often visit patients in hospitals and discharge planners to gather necessary information for admission to TimberRidge. TimberRidge employs or contracts with 30 to 35 therapists and has a medical director. Rehabilitation therapy disciplines include physical, occupational, and speech therapy. Therapists are available seven days a week and coordinate a patient's particular clinical needs with one another. Nursing care is provided 24-hours a day. After admission, each patient at TimberRidge undergoes a lengthy assessment process by therapy staff, nursing staff, social services, activities, dining services, and dietician. Then, a care plan is formed that outlines the goals and objectives and how these goals and objectives are going to be reached by the interdisciplinary care plan team. Physician orders and a therapist's judgment are used to determine how much therapy a patient can tolerate and what the patient needs. TimberRidge also receives input from families from the assessment standpoint. Families are encouraged to visit, attend and participate in care-planning meetings. Families are a key component of successful rehabilitation. Family members are also provided training by nurses or therapists. In like manner, families are an important component of the patient services offered at CMR facilities. Mr. Soehner reviewed HS-Ocala Exhibit 1, Bates Stamp 556, which contains the chart summarizing differences in care between area SNFs and Florida CMR hospitals. Although not a clinician, he testified the average charges for therapy of $62 per patient day indicated in the exhibit is diluted because the calculation includes patient or resident days related to patients not receiving rehab therapy. As a SNF administrator, Mr. Soehner knows of no correlation in the size of gym space or lack of gym space being detrimental to care provided. Therapy is still provided with successful outcomes. (On average, among CMR facilities in Florida, more space is devoted to gym space as a percent of the total square footage, than in Ocala area SNFs.) The chart on HS-Ocala Exhibit 1, Bates Stamp 556, states that the average pharmacy and lab charges are $16 and $2 a day, respectively, which would indicate that the patients are not receiving very much medication or lab work. However, this data tends to dilute the numbers for pharmacy and lab charges per patient day because the total patient days used includes long-term patients. Notwithstanding the testimony of Mr. Soehner, Ms. Greenberg's analysis of the different levels of service generally offered at SNFs and CMR facilities is at least consistent with the finding that CMR facilities offer more intense levels of rehabilitation services (for the categories shown) to its patients. Patients are admitted to a SNF. The first five days are considered to be an initial assessment period. TimberRidge provides different levels of rehabilitation based on a patient's needs. The Medicare program has established Resource Utilization Groups or RUGs. SNFs are reimbursed according to dollar allocations among the various RUG codes. But, RUGs are not outcome based. Each code represents a specific skilled level code or reimbursement code. The "R" codes are rehabilitation codes. There are several rehabilitation RUGs. There are five ultrahigh categories, i.e., RUX, RUL, RUC, RUB, and RUA. This means that each patient in this ultrahigh category must receive a minimum of 720 minutes (12 hours) of therapy over a five-day period (within a seven-day period) and includes more than one discipline. This also equates to 2.40 hours per day. (The rehab very high category requires 500 minutes of therapy per week.) In contrast, a person in a CMR facility must be able to tolerate three hours per day of therapy over a five-day period, whereas a patient receiving rehab in a SNF may have a minimum of approximately 2.40 hours per day if they are classified in the ultra high category. There are other levels of rehabilitation categories very high, high medium, and low, with RUG subcategories within each. For example, there are five RUG classifications within the very high category, e.g., RVC, RVB, RVA, RVX, and RVL. The RUGs categories are represented by a three-digit alpha code, with the first two digits representing the level of rehab, e.g., RU being rehab ultrahigh, and the last character, C, B, A, X, or L representing activities of daily living scores and the nursing care needs of the patient.3/ The RUG category for a patient can change throughout their stay. In other words, a patient may initially be assigned and placed in an ultra-high RUG category and later assigned a lower category. The RUG factors, like RUC (ultra high), are a measure of the intensity of therapy. It does not necessarily mean that the patient is any sicker than other patients, but it does mean that at least they have the stamina to tolerate more therapy. Medicare reimburses SNFs for rehabilitation services based on RUG scores and the amount of rehabilitation therapy a patient receives, whereas Medicare pays a CMR facility a total amount depending on a particular diagnosis of a patient. Like Ms. Gill, Mr. Soehner testified that reimbursement is determined by a comprehensive assessment, including the amount of rehabilitation projected or provided. Although it is not an outcome based reimbursement system, the RUG system is designed to reimburse a skilled nursing facility based on the resources a patient is expected to consume while admitted. TimberRidge's goal is to provide patients the services needed to attain and maintain the highest level of functioning the patient can sustain regardless of whether TimberRidge is reimbursed for it. In rare cases, this goal may allow for three hours of therapy a day, but for most cases, the patient cannot tolerate that intense level of care nor is it medically necessary. Ms. Gill examined data regarding rehabilitation patients admitted and discharged from TimberRidge by RUG classification based on age and length of stay during 2008.4/ Patients fitting within the rehab ultra high and very high, high, medium, and low were separated from the other rehab categories. The ultra-high category was chosen because any patient admitted to a SNF and deemed appropriate for any category lower than ultra high means that the patient cannot tolerate any more than 500 minutes (two and a half hours of therapy a day) of therapy a week, which would disqualify them from admission to a CMR facility. Thus, the ultra-high category was chosen as a proxy for CMR services, at least for therapy utilization. Approximate 35.8 percent of the ultra-high patients were over the age of 75 and 28.9 percent were 85 and older. Approximately 60 percent of the patient population is over 75 years of age, which is different from what one would normally see in a CMR facility. Of the 881 total rehab patients admitted and discharged from TimberRidge in 2008, 461 (or approximately 52 percent) were placed in the ultra-high category and 420 in the remaining rehab categories. (Based on a 2008 Medicare cost report, TimberRidge's ultra-high RUGs have grown from 26 percent to 50 percent, which, according to Ms. Greenberg, places TimberRidge on par with the state averages.) The ultra-high category has increased significantly since 2001. Of the 461 patients, 28.7 percent returned to home; 43.8 percent returned to home with home health; 18.7 percent returned to a hospital; and other small percentages were discharged to other settings. The percentages are slightly higher for those patients returning to home and some with home health when age is considered. Patients in the other rehab categories (very high, high, medium and low) had lower percentages of patients discharged to the home (20.1 percent) and home with home health (30.8 percent) and a higher percentage discharged to a hospital (27.2 percent). It is a fair inference that these patients may not have been able to tolerate significant therapy and were also sicker and with co-morbidities. The number of patients in the ultra-high and high RUG therapy categories is consistent with statewide averages and is normal. The same is true for the level of RUG therapy provided by SNFs in areas where HealthSouth has a CMR facility. The applicant views this information as an indication that SNFs are "filling a role, but they are not filling a gap." TimberRidge has won the local area's rehabilitation award and Reader's Choice award as the area's number one nursing home. The facility receives a lot of repeat business and referrals. There is a fair inference that TimberRidge is an appropriate placement for patients. TimberRidge is not at functional capacity; as of June 22, 2009, TimberRidge had 50 available beds. The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the care provided through SNFs in the Ocala area is appropriate and produces quality outcomes. On the other hand, the rehabilitation services provided to SNF rehabilitation patients is not a pure substitute for the rehabilitation services, including therapies, provided at a CMR facility for patients requiring that particular service. Also, as noted herein, there are several material differences between CMRs and SNFs.5/ Thirty-to-50 percent of the patients at a SNF such as TimberRidge could be placed in a CMR or in a SNF. Overall, patients receiving rehabilitation services in the Ocala area appear to be receiving appropriate care, and the quality and intensity of care being provided by the existing SNF rehabilitation providers is equivalent to, if not better, than national averages and does not present a not normal circumstance. Alternative bed-need methodologies HS-Ocala's healthcare planner performed several bed- need analyses. The applicant assumed that 95 percent of the patients would come from within the proposed service area of 25 zip codes. The first methodology considered bed need by age mix. The bed-need methodology yielded a need for 45, 46, and 48 beds by 2010-2012 at 85 percent occupancy. The second bed need was based on a discharge use rate for freestanding CMR market areas versus the areas that did not have a freestanding CMR. This methodology yielded a bed need of 53, 55, and 57 for 2010-2012 with the same occupancy rate. A third bed-need approach was based on an analysis of CMS 13 diagnostic codes in relation to the population within the proposed 25 zip code service area. This analysis is also known as the conversion rate analysis. Based on this analysis, the applicant projected a bed need of 51, 52, and 54, for years 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively. The applicant projected that 12 of the 54 beds or 22 percent of the bed need is potentially attributable to stroke patients and 42 to non-stroke patients. These projections are based on a 15 percent conversion rate. The "conversion rate" The argument that "not normal" circumstances exist in District 3 is based in large part on a comparison of "conversion rates" in various areas of the state with the proposed service area. The "conversion rate" is a ratio calculated by the applicant to determine the utilization of CMR services by Medicare fee-for-service patients in the primary service area of each of HealthSouth's facilities. HealthSouth has used this conversion rate as a means of evaluating the success of its facilities since approximately 2004. The calculation begins by determining the primary service area for each HealthSouth Florida facility. The applicant defines the primary service area of any particular facility as the zip codes from which that facility derives between 75 percent and 85 percent of its patients. The HealthCare Concepts Group of Dixon Hughes, a consulting firm retained by HealthSouth, determined the zip codes comprising the primary service area for each HealthSouth Florida facility using HealthSouth patient admission information (not Medicare or MedPar data) for calendar year 2007. Dixon Hughes determined the zip codes from which each facility derived approximately 80 percent of its patient admissions for each HealthSouth CMR facility. Although Dixon Hughes sought a goal of 80 percent, the percentage of patient admissions comprising the primary service area for the Florida facilities used in calculating the conversion rate varied somewhat, ranging from as low as 73.6 percent at HealthSouth Treasure Coast, to as high as 90.83 percent at HealthSouth Sea Pines. HS Ex. 53A, Bates Stamp 515-44. After establishing the zip codes comprising the primary service area of each facility, Dixon Hughes requested another consulting firm, Health InfoTechnic (HIT), to provide summary data for certain CMS-13 discharges and admissions for each primary service area for the nine HealthSouth CMR facilities. This CMS-13 data was collected from HIT in 2008 and available to HealthSouth in January of 2009. The summary tabulated data provided by HIT was generated from the MedPar database (approximately 13,300,000 records per year) for federal fiscal year 2006 (October 2005 through September 2006). (HIT received the MedPar data file around September 2007.) MedPar data only includes fee-for-service patients and does not include any Medicare HMO or Medicare Advantage patients. The MedPar database records and generates information contained in the medical history of patients covered by the Medicare fee-for-service program and discharged from acute care hospitals. The MedPar database records up to nine diagnosis codes for each patient. Using the MedPar database, HIT first determined the number of Medicare fee-for-service patients discharged from only acute care hospitals who resided in a HealthSouth facility's primary service area (by zip code provided by Dixon Hughes) and who had one of the CMS-13 diagnosis codes in their medical history. These were identified as CMS "qualifying patients." Once the qualifying patients were identified, HIT determined how many of those qualifying patients (within the primary service area for each HealthSouth CMR facility) were discharged to a CMR facility anywhere in the United States. HIT used the diagnosis procedure codes that are HIPPA protected fields to determine whether the patient is a CMS qualified patient. Other information, such as the patient's name, date of birth, and the codes are prohibited from release. HIT is prohibited by CMS and pursuant to a data use agreement from providing any of the underlying claims data to anyone including HealthSouth. The number of diagnosis codes examined to determine whether a patient qualified as a potential admission to a CMR facility under CMR rules varied depending on the particular impairment group being examined. For example, for brain injury and for burns, only two of the nine available diagnosis codes were examined. For stroke, only four of the nine available diagnosis codes were examined. For joint replacement and hip fractures, all nine available procedure codes were examined. No evidence was presented to determine the number of diagnosis codes examined for the other CMS-13 diagnoses, such as amputation, major multiple trauma, neurological disorders, spinal cord injury, congenital deformities, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic vasculidities. A patient with a psychiatric or obstetrical condition who may have also had a qualifying CMS-13 diagnosis code in his or her medical history was automatically excluded from the total CMS-13 qualifying patients for purposes of determining the conversion rate. Patients who died in an acute care hospital were not excluded. Patients in rehab facilities were excluded. A summary of the analysis generated by HIT was provided to Dixon Hughes in order to calculate a conversion rate for each of the nine HealthSouth Florida facilities by dividing the number of qualifying patients discharged to a CMR facility by the total number of qualifying patients. For example, for HealthSouth Spring Hill, there were 1,206 total CMS-13 cases (by discharge and derived from MedPar data and HIT) that were discharged from acute care hospitals for patients residing within one of the zip codes within the facility's primary service area. Of the 1,206 patient discharges, 305 or approximately 23 percent were discharged to a CMR facility somewhere in the United States. See, e.g., HS Ex. 53A at 2. The 23 percent number is the conversion rate for that facility. (Again, in order to establish the zip codes for each HealthSouth CMR facility, all of the admissions (not just Medicare fee-for-service) were recorded from HealthSouth's internal admission data.)6/ The conversion rate for each of HealthSouth's nine Florida facilities, as determined in the manner described above, is contained in HS-Ocala Exhibit 53, Bates Stamp 484. The numbers on HS-Ocala Exhibit 53 are a subset of all the CMS 13 discharges because the data used is MedPar data. As stated by Mr. Edward Stall for Dixon Hughes, the conversion rate is not a market penetration rate. "It's really a measure of does a specific market utilize rehab care or does it not? It's more of an indicator of reasonable access to care" for the nine HealthSouth CMR facilities. Ms. Greenberg opined that the conversion rate was synonymous with a penetration rate, i.e., it is a determinant of what percentage of patients are likely users of a service. Ms. Bedard considers a conversion rate to mean the number of patients coming to rehab. She was not used to seeing data arrayed in the manner depicted on HS-Ocala Exhibit 53, Bates Stamp 484. The applicant originally calculated a conversion rate of 17.7 percent. However, the applicant was unable to produce any persuasive documentation supporting the calculation and, upon attempting to recreate the conversion rate, arrived at an average conversion rate of 17.9 percent. The Ocala Conversion Rate Once the PSA was defined, the applicant determined the Ocala Conversion Rate using the area from which the proposed facility would generate 95 percent of its patients. The Ocala Conversion Rate was generated using discharge information from the AHCA database for calendar year 2006, rather than MedPar data. Unlike the MedPar database, the AHCA database captures discharge information for all patients discharged from acute care hospitals, regardless of payor. Also unlike the MedPar database, the AHCA database records up to 31 diagnosis codes for each. The AHCA database is far less restrictive than the MedPar data base. The AHCA database was used to determine the Ocala conversion rate "because that's the universe of the patients that [the applicant] will serve." She did not use MedPar data because it contains only Medicare fee-for-service patients only. She used MedPar data to determine the conversion rate for the nine HealthSouth facilities because HealthSouth uses MedPar data as a benchmark to compare their market across the country and the data was available. Using the AHCA database, it was determined the number of patients residing in each of the 25 zip codes comprising the PSA who were discharged from an acute care hospital with a medical history including one or more CMS-13 diagnosis code In short, the applicant's analysis assumed that any discharge with a CMS-13 diagnosis code in the patient's medical history as described in the above paragraph would be a "qualifying patient" for purposes of calculating the Ocala Conversion Rate. This method yielded a total of 3,658 qualifying patients from the PSA for calendar year 2006. This method is also called a resident service rate. Of the 3,658 discharges, approximately 80 percent came from the four acute care hospitals in the service area; two percent from Leesburg; and 10 percent from Shands. The remaining discharges came from facilities outside the service area other than the facilities mentioned. Having identified the qualifying patients, the AHCA rehab data base was used to determine how many of the qualifying patients were discharged to a CMR facility. The determination of the number of patients discharged to a CMR facility included patients discharged to a CMR facility anywhere. This method yielded a total of 90 qualifying patients who were discharged to a CMR facility.7/ Dividing the number of qualifying patients discharged to CMR facilities (90) by the total number of qualifying patients (3,658) yielded the Ocala Conversion Rate of 2.46 percent. HS-Ocala contends that the Ocala Conversion Rate of 2.46 percent is unacceptably low compared to the 17-to-18 percent average conversion rate for HealthSouth's nine Florida facilities. According to the applicant, this comparison indicates "not normal" circumstances which are indicative of artificial geographic and programmatic barriers to accessibility to CMR services to residents of the proposed PSA. However, there are numerous problems with the conversion rate approach that make it inappropriate for use in determining need. The "conversion rate" is a self-defined concept unique to HealthSouth. It is not a use rate, nor a concept recognized in any rule governing the CON process, or recognized in the discipline of health planning, but it is used by HealthSouth. Rather, the conversion rate analysis is a marketing tool that is driven by and relies solely on HealthSouth's own experience. The HealthSouth Conversion Rate is driven by, among other things, HealthSouth's determination of what constitutes a primary service area for its own facilities. HealthSouth is the sole determinant of what constitutes a particular facility's primary service area. Because the calculation of the HealthSouth Conversion Rate begins with the determination of each HealthSouth facility's primary service area, the procedure cannot truly be replicated except in those areas where existing HealthSouth facilities are located. For example, there is no way to determine if Orange County has a conversion rate consistent with the HealthSouth Conversion Rate because HealthSouth does not have an established facility with a primary service area there. HealthSouth's determination of what constitutes the service area of the proposed Ocala facility also drives the determination of the Ocala Conversion Rate. Because there is no existing HealthSouth facility in the PSA, there is no historical HealthSouth patient admission data from which to determine a primary service area. Instead, HealthSouth "carved out" a 25 zip-code area within District 3 from which it claims the proposed Ocala facility will derive approximately 95 percent of its patient admissions. Even among the nine HealthSouth facilities in Florida, the areas HealthSouth has designated as the primary service area varies greatly. For example, while the primary service area for HealthSouth Treasure Coast constitutes the area from which the facility derives approximately 73.6 percent of its admissions, the primary service area for HealthSouth Sea Pines constitutes the area from which that facility derives approximately 90.83 percent of its admissions. Put another way, the primary service area of HealthSouth Sea Pines is over 23 percent larger in terms of admissions than the primary service area of HealthSouth Treasure Coast. The record is devoid of any explanation of whether this difference affects the HealthSouth Conversion Rate and, if so, how. Moreover, the variance in the conversion rate among HealthSouth's nine Florida facilities is also substantial, ranging from a low of 10.8 percent at HealthSouth Treasure Coast to a high of 25.29 percent at HealthSouth Spring Hill. There is no persuasive evidence in the record to explain why the conversion rate for HealthSouth Spring Hill is almost two and a half times that of HealthSouth Treasure Coast. According to the applicant, based on 93 HealthSouth markets around the United States, HealthSouth's conversion rate is approximately 16 percent. As noted above, the PSA constitutes the area from which the proposed facility will derive approximately 95 percent of its admissions. This service area is almost 30 percent larger in terms of patient admissions than that for HealthSouth Treasure Coast and is over 18 percent larger than the stated goal of 80 percent used to determine the HealthSouth Conversion Rate. The result of the larger patient origin percentage for the PSA is that it tends to overstate the potential demand for CMR services. The conversion rate is also driven by the manner in which HealthSouth chose to analyze the patient data to calculate the rate. HealthSouth used MedPar data, which only captures Medicare fee-for-service patients, for the calculation of the HealthSouth Conversion Rate. HealthSouth further limited the potential pool of patients by only using a portion of the data available in the MedPar database. For example, HealthSouth's consultant reviewed only primary and secondary diagnosis codes for certain CMS-13 categories, four diagnosis codes for others, and potentially all nine diagnosis codes in the MedPar database for other CMS-13 diagnosis categories. However, when the PSA conversion rate was determined, the potential patient pool was not limited in a similar manner. Rather, there was testimony that the use of the AHCA database, which includes patients from all payors, increased the pool of CMS-13 qualifying patients used for the calculation of the Ocala conversion rate. Since the MedPar data is a subset of the AHCA data, the number 3,658 would have been approximately 70 percent of 3,658 if MedPar data was used. Stated otherwise, the 3,658 number contains approximately 30 percent more people than would have been included if MedPar data was used. The MedPar database captures far less diagnosis codes than the AHCA database. This difference serves to further inflate the pool of CMS-13 qualifying patients in the PSA. Although the applicant could have evaluated the patient population for the PSA in the same manner that HealthSouth did to arrive at the HealthSouth Conversion Rate, the applicant chose not to do so. The MedPar and AHCA databases are not comparable. Mr. Balsano, in an attempt to compare apples-to-apples, calculated a conversion rate for HealthSouth's nine Florida facilities using AHCA data limited to Medicare fee-for-service patients only. Utilizing the same zip codes that HealthSouth used to calculate the HealthSouth Conversion Rate, Mr. Balsano calculated a conversion rate of 13.2 percent for the nine HealthSouth facilities, compared to the 17.9 percent determined using the MedPar database. Thus, the AHCA database, even when limited to Medicare fee-for-service like MedPar, yields a lower conversion rate. Mr. Denney, with HIT, testified that there are several reasons not to use the AHCA database for such an analysis. For example, the discharge status codes used by AHCA are not the same as universal billing codes and are not always in what are called UB04, or universal bill 04, codes as used by MedPar. Another problem with using the AHCA database is that Florida law allows distinct rehabilitation units of acute care hospitals not to report admissions to AHCA. The inconsistencies described herein do not allow for a valid comparison of the HealthSouth and Ocala Conversion Rates. The HealthSouth Spring Hill Case Study The application also contains a historical analysis of the conversion rate for the HealthSouth Spring Hill facility to support the argument that there is a need for the proposed facility. HS Ex. 1, Bates Stamp 550. Ms. Greenberg testified at length regarding the method by which she personally conducted the HealthSouth Spring Hill Case Study, including the method she used to determine the Spring Hill conversion rate utilized in the case study. Ms. Greenberg performed the Spring Hill Case Study using the AHCA database for calendar year 2006, but limited to only Medicare fee-for-service patients, arriving at the conversion rate for Spring Hill of 25.6 percent for calendar year (CY) 2006 (4.3 percent in CY 2002 prior to operation). This means that 25.6 percent of the CMS 13 discharges were residents within Spring Hill's primary service area (as defined by the applicant) who went to a CMR facility somewhere. (In HS-Ocala Ex. 53, Bates Stamp 484, the conversion rate is 25.3 percent.) Ms. Greenberg testified that the similarity in the numbers generated using the AHCA database limited only to Medicare fee-for-service and those generated using the MedPar database supports her conclusion that the MedPar and AHCA databases are comparable data sources. It was ultimately acknowledged that, in fact, like the HealthSouth Conversion Rate, the Spring Hill Case Study presented on pages 41-43 of the CON Application was derived from a summary of MedPar data for fiscal years 2002 and 2006 (October 1, 2005-September 30, 2006) that HealthSouth provided to Ms. Greenberg. The actual MedPar database was not reviewed. Rather, the analysis for the Spring Hill Case Study consisted of calculating the percentages based on the summary MedPar data provided by HealthSouth. Because the HealthSouth Spring Hill Conversion Rate was calculated in the same fashion as was the HealthSouth Conversion Rate, it does not reasonably serve as a comparison to the Ocala Conversion Rate for the same reasons. A conversion rate for the HealthSouth Spring Hill facility was calculated using the AHCA database prior to completing the application. However, that calculation was not included in the application. The summary data sheet, HS-Ocala Ex. 53, was sent to counsel for Shands and LRMC in a letter dated April 24, 2009. The information was then conveyed with the HealthSouth Conversion Rate to the applicant's health care planner. The underlying work papers were not saved. The applicant had to examine the 2006 Medpar data base and rerun the numbers. HS Ex. 53. The applicant produced a document indicating the reworked HealthSouth Conversion Rate along with the April 24, 2009, letter (written to counsel for Shands). HS Ex. 53, Bates Stamp 484. The document appearing as HS-Ocala Ex. 53, Bates Stamp 484 is a recreation of the numbers given to Ms. Greenberg. The underlying data upon which the applicant based the HealthSouth Conversion Rate, including the zip codes comprising the primary service area for the HealthSouth facilities, was available and in HealthSouth's possession (its computers) throughout the discovery phase of this proceeding. While some summary documents were provided, the underlying data which apparently would support the evidence was not. Instead, Mr. Stall and Mr. Denney described the process that was used to calculate the HealthSouth Conversion Rate. However, the testimony only served to further highlight some of the inconsistencies between the methodologies used to calculate the HealthSouth and Ocala conversion rates and to further support the conclusion that the rates are not necessarily comparable. Without the underlying data, it was difficult to confirm the comparison between the Spring Hill Conversion Rate and the Ocala Conversion Rate. Geographic and Programmatic Access The applicant alleges that there are geographic and clinical (programmatic) access problems that compromise the level of care and clinical outcomes of patients who would benefit from CMR services. Family travel distance can impact a patient's decision to access CMR services. The family access issue described by the applicant in this proceeding is not unique to District 3 or Marion County. Transportation of patients from acute care to CMR facilities is accomplished by emergency vehicles and, in some instances other forms of transport, including family automobiles. Potential patients within the applicant's PSA would not have typical or not normal problems accessing existing CMR providers in District 3. Shands provides free transportation to families who visit patients at its facility, and to those who need to be involved in the discharge planning process. Shands also provides other accommodations either free or at reduced costs. HealthSouth has a corporate policy of not providing transportation for Medicare patients to bring their family members to one of its CMR facilities for visits. The same policy applies for all patients. For HealthSouth, it is a compliance issue and considered an improper inducement. T. 544. Whether free transportation is improper is not resolved based on the record in this proceeding. But see HS Ex. 76. Interstate 75 is the main road through the Ocala area and runs north to Gainesville and south to Leesburg. Interstate 75 is a four-lane road and even six lanes in some instances. There are segments of road configurations which are composed of two-lane black tops with little or no lighting. Roadway segments north and south of the PSA are often rural with soft shoulders. There is evidence that some of these roads north and south out of the PSA are congested depending on the time of day and other conditions. The forest east of Marion County represents a natural geographic barrier. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.039(6) addresses the access standards for patients in need of CMR services. CMR "inpatient services should be available within a maximum ground travel time of 2 hours under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of the district's total population." The applicant, and Shands and LRMC jointly, engaged traffic experts to conduct travel time studies to measure the length of time it takes for residents of the area to reach area hospitals. The applicant's travel expert, Lorin Brissett of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., conducted a travel time study from Shands Rehab Hospital and LRMC to various locations or points within the PSA. Locations 1 through 4 were based on zip code information provided by the applicant in terms of the general coverage of the PSA, and denote the centroid of different population densities in the four quadrants of the PSA.8/ Location 5 represented the approximate center of the City of Ocala and the PSA. Mr. Brissett used a floating car method in performing the travel time study between locations one through four and location five. This method involves the driver attempting to pass as many cars as passed him, that is, the car would float with the traffic. Two runs were performed for each of the routes, going from locations one through four to location five. Two runs were performed for each return route. The runs were performed during peak travel times (typically between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.) on a typical weekday, that is, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. The weather was clear and no accidents were noted. The travel study indicated that the average travel time to and from Shands was 52 minutes, with a high of 67 minutes and a low of 33 minutes. The average travel time from and to LRMC was 63 minutes, with a high of 90 minutes and a low of 37 minutes. The overall average travel time was 46 minutes from the center of the PSA to either Shands or LRMC. Mr. Brissett also commented that these travel times may be a bit longer for elderly drivers and that elderly drivers tend to travel more on local roads. Also, older drivers are not likely to drive using the floating car method. (None of the drivers used in the study were 65 years of age or older.) The travel study also noted that many of the roadway segments were rural in nature and there were conditions where the road was not properly lit. Mr. Brissett was not asked to conduct any study that would indicate what percentage of the District 3 population would be within two hours' average travel time to any existing CMR facility in District 3. Mr. Brissett was not asked to conduct travel studies for any CMR facility in District 3 other than Shands and LRMC and he did not do so. Mr. Brissett stated that rural roadways are not unique to Marion and Levy Counties, but exist in other Florida counties as well. Mr. Brissett concluded that anyone within the five zones would be able to access Shands Rehab Hospital in less than 70 minutes, even driving from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., although it may take the elderly a bit longer. The travel expert retained by Shands and LRMC, William Tipton, Jr., based travel time runs on the location of the existing CMR facilities and population data for 2008 and 2013 published by AHCA for District 3. According to Mr. Tipton, "[l]ooking at the district and knowing the road systems available and the orientation of the populations to the existing facilities, it was evident that the adjacent counties to existing facilities could certainly make their runs within the access rule standard of less than two hours" or "substantially less time than two hours by each of the existing facilities within District III." Mr. Tipton's team conducted two runs in the morning peak hour, 7 a.m. to 9 a.m.; two runs in the midday off-peak hour, 11 a.m to 1 p.m.; and two runs in the evening peak hour, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. to arrive at a complete cross section of the different travel patterns throughout the day.9/ Additionally, one of the test drivers in Mr. Tipton's team, was 70 years old and accomplished runs on 441 from Ocala to Shands, and on U.S. Highway 441 from Ocala down to Leesburg Regional Medical Center, and also the Interstate 75 runs. The elderly test driver's results were consistent with other runs accomplished by non- elderly drivers. Mr. Tipton's team also used the floating car method, but adjusted the methodology so that none of the drivers exceeded the posted speed limit by more than five miles per hour. In Mr. Tipton's opinion, this adjustment would give results that are more typical of what an average driver would do and more accurately reflects the driving patterns of elderly drivers. Mr. Tipton's results show that all of the facilities could be reached by at least 90 percent of the population in one hour or less; half the time required by rule. The roads traveled for Mr. Tipton's analysis were typical roadways found throughout central Florida. Mr. Tipton's study concluded that existing CMR facilities could be accessed within the requirements in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.039(6) and that a geographic access issue for an elderly person or someone else did not exist. Although the applicant argued that conditions existed that led to patients and family members not accessing CMR services, no testimony at hearing from area residents supported the contention. No residents of the PSA testified as to their personal experiences accessing existing CMR hospitals in the District. Rather, several of the applicant's expert witnesses testified as to their experience with local road conditions driving from the PSA to and from Shands Rehab and LRMC. Dr. Lohan opined that elderly persons may find it more difficult to drive at night versus the daytime, which is consistent with the evidence in this record. Further, the transportation of patients to CMR facilities is not problematic because they are usually transported by ambulance or similar method of transport. It does not appear that patient safety or quality of care has been compromised because of the alleged travel times and distances to existing CMR hospitals. On the other hand, the construction of the proposed facility would reduce the average travel time to an existing CMR hospital for persons residing within the PSA. However, the number of persons whose travel time will likely be enhanced was not persuasively quantified by the applicant, aside from projecting occupancy rates for the first two years of operation. It is expected that patients with multiple trauma, brain, and spinal cord injuries would most likely be referred to Shands Rehab. For the most part, patients with brain and spinal cord injuries are receiving rehabilitation and typically are referred to Shands Rehab. The applicant does not propose a spinal cord and brain injury unit like the service offered at HealthSouth's Spring Hill facility. Consequently, whatever travel challenges might exist for these patients and their families would still exist even after HealthSouth is approved. The testimony was consistent that, in part due to the nature of CMR services as tertiary, patients and their families at times experience problems accessing such services. These problems, or challenges, include not only the time and distance required to reach such facilities, but other factors, such as whether a patient should be admitted to a CMR facility rather than to other post-acute care settings and whether the patient's insurance policy provides coverage for such services. The testimony was also consistent that these challenges occur not only throughout Florida but, in fact, occur throughout the nation on a daily basis. These challenges do not represent "not normal" circumstances but are normal. Quality of Care No evidence was presented indicating any deficiencies in the quality of care provided by Shands or LRMC. The services or equipment to be provided at the proposed facility are not necessarily superior to the services that are provided at Shands or LRMC. The applicant will offer the use of an AutoAmbulator to its patients. The AutoAmbulator was developed for and is exclusively available at HealthSouth facilities. No independent study indicates that the use of the AutoAmbulator results in better outcomes for patients, compared to similar equipment used at existing District 3 CMR facilities. Economic Access Notwithstanding the applicant's proposed commitment to provide at least 2.5 percent of its annual inpatient days to Medicaid and charity patients, there is no persuasive evidence that there are financial barriers to access CMR services by the residents of the PSA. It was not proven that the resident population of the PSA, including the medically indigent, Medicare recipients, and the elderly, has been or is likely to be denied access based on economic factors. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.030(2). Section 408.035(1)(c): The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. The applicant's quality of care will benefit from the hospital's affiliation with its parent, HealthSouth, which offers high quality CMR services country-wide. HealthSouth has invested in state-of-the-art quality measurement systems to monitor processes and outcomes, allowing each facility to maintain high standards of quality of care. The applicant has demonstrated that it has the ability to adequately staff the facility and will provide high quality of care. Section 408.035(1)(d): The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. HealthSouth is a publicly traded corporation and is the largest provider in inpatient rehabilitative health services in the United States in terms of revenue, number of hospitals, and patient treated. HealthSouth has the financial resources needed to ensure project accomplishment and operation of the proposed project. HealthSouth is committed to assisting the applicant with fiscal and legal services, specialized accounting functions, and reimbursement expertise and information system services. There continues to be a shortage of healthcare personnel in Florida and it is inevitable that a portion of the staff for the proposed facility may come from other facilities in District 3. Nevertheless, the applicant is able to draw upon the managerial resources and broad range of established and services provided by HealthSouth, including the recruitment and retention of staff. The applicant has the available resources, including health and management personnel for the completion and operation of the project. Schedule 6 of the application describes the applicant's estimate of the projected staff and staff needed for the project HealthSouth will need 17 new RNs in Year Two based on its staffing projections. HealthSouth recruits personnel to staff its facilities locally as well as on a national and international level. HealthSouth also satisfies its staffing demands internally, as its employees have the ability to transfer from one HealthSouth facility to another. HealthSouth has been successful in recruiting therapists and nurses to staff its facilities. HealthSouth uses a variety of tools to recruit its nurses, and once hired, HealthSouth invests significant efforts in training its employees. From time-to-time, HealthSouth has paid for contract nurses to fulfill its staffing demands. HealthSouth is not expected to limit its recruiting efforts to the Ocala area, but will recruit from other areas as is necessary to appropriately staff the facility. There was a difference of opinion offered by the parties' experts as to whether the applicant's staffing projections in its application were reasonable. Testimony from the applicant's experts indicated that the staffing projections included in the application were reasonable and appropriate based upon the projected occupancy and utilization numbers for the proposed facility. Shands' and LRMC's experts testified that the applicant's projected therapist staffing needs in the application were inadequate to fulfill the projected utilization by patients at the proposed facility. It was also estimated that the FTEs projected in the application for therapy staff was short by anywhere from four- to-five FTEs. Despite the challenges presented by medical personnel shortages and the shortfall in the staffing needs projected in the CON application, it is reasonable to conclude that the applicant will be able to recruit the staff needed for the proposed facility. Staffing of the proposed facility may impair to some degree the ability of Shands and LRMC to staff their facilities, but not to the extent that the services and the quality of care provided will be reduced. Weighing all the testimony presented on this issue, the evidence supports the conclusion that the applicant's staffing projections are reasonable. The proposed average annual salaries in Schedule 6A are reasonable. Appropriate funds have been budgeted for management personnel. Section 408.035(1)(e): The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district. The applicant's proposed CMR facility will enhance access to health care for the residents of that portion of District 3 within the PSA, except for patients with brain injury or spinal cord injury who are expected to go to Shands. Notwithstanding historical referral and admission patterns, at the very least, Shands and LRMC are viable alternatives for the residents needing CMR services residing within the applicant's PSA. Section 408.035(1)(f): The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal. Immediate Financial Feasibility Immediate or short-term financial feasibility refers to the ability of an applicant to fund construction, start-up, and operation of the proposed project. By rule, the Agency incorporated by reference Schedule 3 among other portions of the CON application. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(1)(f). The applicant's witnesses testified it was feasible for the project to be financed internally or by a third party in which case the third party would finance the acquisition of the property and the construction of the building and the applicant would lease the property from the third party. In support of its ability to obtain financing for the project, the applicant submitted a letter from GE Healthcare Financial Services (GE) with its application. The letter from GE did not represent a binding or enforceable commitment to provide the financing described in the letter. Notwithstanding the testimony regarding the GE letter, the ability of the applicant to obtain funding through a third party or to internally finance the building and startup costs of the project was established. Neither Shands' nor LRMC's witnesses disagreed with the applicant's ability to obtain sufficient funds for capital and initial operating expenses. The project is financially feasible in the short- term. Long-term Financial Feasibility Long-term financial feasibility is generally referred to as the ability of a project to show a profit at the end of its second year of operation. The projected utilization of a proposed facility is a critical factor to assess when determining whether the facility will be financially feasible in the long-term, given that projected revenues and expenses are driven by utilization projections. Schedules 7 and 8 set forth the financial projections for the project for years one and two. The applicant projects a net profit for Year Two from operations of $483,512 (net operating revenue minus total operating expenses) and an overall net profit of $299,777. These dollar amounts are derived based on projected utilization of the project in Year Two minus projected expenses. Shands and LRMC contend that HealthSouth overstated projected revenues and understated projected expenses. The projected revenues appear to be overstated, whereas the projected expenses appear to be reasonable. The projected utilization was determined by applying the "conversion rate" equal to 15 percent of the discharges identified. The conversion rate was then applied, which is based only on Medicare fee-for-service patients, to both Medicare and non-Medicare patients. Application of the use rate to the projected population in the proposed service area yielded 9,828 patient days and approximately 677 admissions in the second year of the facility's operation. The patient days projected in turn yielded an occupancy rate of 67.3 percent in year two. HS-Ocala Ex. 1, Bates Stamp 639-640. The 3,658 patients identified by Ms. Greenberg as potential patients requiring CMR services generated 90 admissions to a CMR facility in 2006. It is not reasonable to assume that the population defined in the PSA area will generate almost six times the number of admissions to CMR facilities that are presently generated. The applicant also assumed that 95 percent of the patients would come from the PSA area and five percent from other areas (in-migration). Mr. Balsano noted the financial projections are based upon the assumption that CMR admissions of patients residing in the PSA would increase from 90 patients in 2006 to approximately 644 patients by Year Two of the proposed project. Mr. Balsano testified that such a significant increase is not a reasonable assumption and overstates the market. As a result, Mr. Balsano's opinion was that revenues included in the applicant's financial projections were significantly overstated and that he had serious concerns about the proposed project's financial feasibility. The applicant did not provide financial projections assuming it would build and own the proposed facility itself without the involvement of a third party. According to Mr. House, this was because the costs were greater to HealthSouth if it were to utilize third party financing, so basing the financial projections on such a scenario presented a more conservative picture of the financial projections. Mr. House testified that the financial projections included in the application were reasonable. The rent expense included in the financial projections in Schedule 8 of the application included a cushion of approximately $371,000. Applying the cushion results in an increase in year two profit from $483,512 to $854,512. It appears that funding is available on the same terms as proposed in the GE letter and that that the rent projections are reasonable. Schedule 8 of the application did not include a management fee charged by HealthSouth to its subsidiaries despite the fact that the application's narrative assumptions represented that a management fee of five percent was included. Ms. Greenberg prepared the assumptions and she inadvertently indicated that a management fee was included. The actual management fee charged by HealthSouth at the time of the hearing was approximately three percent (2.78 percent in 2008). If the management fee referenced in the application is factored into the equation at the rate of five percent, it adds $515,548 in expenses to the project. If the management fee is factored at the rate of three percent, it adds $309,328 in expenses to the project expenses. Ms. Greenberg stated that the rent expense included in the financial projections did not include an adjustment for sales tax. At 6.5 percent, this would add approximately $95,000 to the expenses. Assuming this additional expense for Year Two, the effect would be to reduce the net profit from operations from $854,512 to $759,512, which would not affect the long-term financial feasibility of the project. Mr. Balsano also opined that the real estate taxes included in the financial projections were understated by approximately $158,000. In response, Ms. Greenberg opined that if a shortage existed, it would be between $113,341 and $153,244, with an average of $133,293. When coupled with the omitted sales tax (-$95,000), and after adjusting for the inflated rent expense (+$371,000), this reduces Schedule 8, Line 27 from $854,512 ($483,512 plus $371,000) to approximately $450,184 (-$309,328/management fee of three percent and -$95,000/sales tax on rent at 6.5 percent). The profitability in year two would be reduced further if the real estate taxes are considered, i.e., $316,891(Greenberg projection) versus $292,184 (Balsano projection). Further, according to Mr. Balsano, the staff projections included in the application are understated by $469,391 assuming a shortage of 6.2 FTEs, or approximately $300,000 assuming a shortage of four FTEs. The applicant did not concede a shortfall existed. Also, as noted herein, the staffing projections are reasonable and there is no projected shortage. In balancing the net effect of the adjustments suggested by Shands and LRMC and the applicant's responses, it is concluded that the project will be profitable in Year Two if the applicant achieves the projected net operating revenue on Schedule 8A, Line 1. (It was conceded that if the management fee charged by HealthSouth to its subsidiaries was 2.7 percent as opposed to five percent as stated in the application's assumptions, a $20,000 profit in year two would be projected.) While reasonable persons could differ as to whether the expenses in the financial projections included in Schedule 8A are reasonable, the long-term financial feasibility of the proposed project is based upon revenues which are calculated using the projected utilization from Schedule 5 of the application. The projected utilization is driven by the conversion rate calculated by the applicant that materially overstates the potential market for these services in the proposed PSA. Because the applicant's revenue projections are not reasonable, the proposed facility is not likely to be financially feasible in the long-term. Section 408.035(1)(g): The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost- effectiveness. Mr. Gregg testified that there is no evidence within the Agency's ability to analyze whether the application will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness. However, as Mr. Gregg testified, the ability of healthcare providers to promote competition is very limited because payors have very narrow policies about what they will pay. The overwhelming portion of patients who require CMR services are served by the Medicare program. There is no price competition involved in the provision of the services proposed in this application. 306 There is no persuasive evidence showing that competition for the services proposed is lacking, that the quality of the care provided to residents of the District is other than excellent, or that the services or equipment proposed are superior to those already available to patients in the District. While approval of the project will likely provide some residents of the PSA a closer alternative to CMR services and perhaps some savings in terms of travel expenses and time, no persuasive evidence proved that the project is likely to foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness. Section 408.035(1)(h): The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction. The projected costs of construction in Schedule 1 are reasonable. The architectural plans are a reasonable. The architectural design and space for the proposed 40-bed freestanding rehabilitation facility are reasonable. The projected duration for construction of the facility is reasonable. The dates for construction are no longer accurate and would need to be extended due to the timing of the hearing. The projected land cost for the hospital is reasonable. The equipment listed in HS-Ocala Exhibit 6 is reasonable for the proposed facility. The equipment list does not include certain equipment, such as the AutoAmbulator, Bioness, and SaeboFlex, identified on pages 56-57 of the application. The cost of the AutoAmbulator was not included in equipment costs (although it is included on HS-Ocala Exhibit 6 at 8 of 16) because it is part of HealthSouth's research and development budget. The projected costs of the equipment are reasonable. Section 408.035(1)(i): The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. HealthSouth has a history of providing health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent, notwithstanding compliance issues relating to several of HealthSouth's Florida CMR facilities. Overall and based on the experience of HealthSouth, the applicant meets this criterion. Section 408.035(1)(j): The applicant's designation as a Gold Seal Program nursing facility pursuant to s. 400.235, when the applicant is requesting additional nursing home beds at that facility. This criterion is not applicable. Adverse Impact Shands and LRMC contend that approval of the proposed project would have a substantial negative impact on their operations. The issue of adverse impact is resolved in favor of Shands and LRMC, although it is a closer call than suggested by these parties, given the historical referral and admission of patients from within the PSA to Shands and LRMC. Consideration of adverse impact on existing providers is relevant to prove standing in a formal hearing involving a CON application pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, and is a relevant factor to consider under Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes, which includes consideration of the impact of approving a new hospital on an existing hospital in the same service district. Baptist Med. Ctr. of Clay, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Admin. and Orange Park Med. Ctr., Inc. d/b/a Orange Park Med. Ctr., Case Nos. 06-0555CON, 06-0563CON, and 06-0843CON (DOAH Dec. 3, 2007, at ¶ 316; AHCA May 30, 2008), per curiam aff'd, 12 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Impact on Shands Mr. Balsano and Ms. Greenberg looked at the admissions to Shands from the defined PSA to determine the projected impact of the proposed facility on Shands. For the 12-month period ending June 30, 2007, Shands admitted 119 CMR patients from the zip codes comprising the PSA. To assess impact, Mr. Balsano and Ms. Greenberg agreed that patients with spinal cord or brain injury should not be considered, because those patients will likely continue to be treated at Shands. This left a total of 77 admissions. Mr. Balsano multiplied Shands' average contribution margin per patient, which he calculated to be $6,673, by the 77 patients to conclude that Shands would lose $513,821 in contribution margin. Mr. Balsano also considered the admissions to Shands from the secondary service area for the proposed facility that was referenced in the pre-application materials developed by Dixon Hughes. In 2007, Shands admitted 24 cases from this extended service area after subtracting the brain and spinal cord injury cases. Mr. Balsano concluded that Shands would lose half of those admissions. Applying the contribution margin to those cases resulted in an additional $80,076 of lost contribution for a total of $593,897. Ms. Greenberg disagreed with Mr. Balsano's use of the patients from the extended service area in his analysis of the potential impact on Shands. Ms. Greenberg opined that the use of these patients was inappropriate given the service area defined in the CON application, and the fact that HealthSouth considers the PSA a distinct medical market. Ms. Greenberg testified that major multiple trauma patients would also continue to be treated at Shands and, therefore, should be removed from the pool of at-risk patients. By doing so, Ms. Greenberg determined there were approximately 54 at-risk patients. Ms. Greenberg further reduced this number to account for patients who were admitted to Shands Rehab from within the Shands system because, according to Ms. Greenberg, those patients are likely to continue to be treated at Shands rehab. Applying this methodology to the 54 at-risk patients, Ms. Greenberg determined that the maximum number of at-risk patients was 19.3 and that the minimum number of at-risk patients was 13.5. Ms. Greenberg then multiplied Shands' average contribution margin per patient, which she determined to be $5,98410/ by the minimum and maximum at-risk patients she calculated, to determine that the impact to Shands would range from $80,787 to $115,196 in lost contribution margin. Using the contribution margin determined by Mr. Balsano resulted in a range of impact from $90,086 to $128,789 in lost contribution margin. Assuming consideration of the criticisms, Mr. Balsano testified that his estimate of 77 cases lost from the PSA was reasonable. Mr. Balsano based his conclusion, in part, on the fact that HealthSouth is projecting in excess of 600 admissions from the PSA in the Year Two. According to Mr. Balsano, to meet those projections, it is reasonable to assume the 77 non- spinal/non-traumatic brain injury patients that Shands is currently serving from the PSA will be redirected to the proposed facility. Having considered all of the evidence on this issue, including the historical referrals and admissions of patients to Shands, see, e.g., FOF 87, and while there is a wide variation in projected losses, it is concluded that Shands would lose significant dollars in contribution margin if the proposed facility were constructed. Impact on LRMC Similar to the analysis conducted with respect to Shands, Mr. Balsano looked to the admissions to LRMC from the applicant's HealthSouth defined PSA to determine the projected impact of the proposed facility on LRMC. For the 12-month period ending June 30, 2007, LRMC admitted 13 patients from the zip codes comprising the applicant's PSA. Notwithstanding the financial impact noted herein, from 2006 through 2008, the financial performance (excess revenues over expenses) of LRMC's CMR facility has improved. Mr. Balsano then multiplied LRMC's average contribution margin per patient which he calculated to be $8,007, by these 13 at-risk patients from the applicant's defined PSA to determine that the impact to LRMC for these 13 patients if the proposed facility is built would be $104,091 in lost contribution margin. Mr. Balsano also considered the admissions to LRMC from the extended service area for the proposed facility that was referenced in the pre-application materials developed by Dixon Hughes. In 2007, LRMC admitted 205 cases from the extended service area. Mr. Balsano determined that it was reasonable to assume that LRMC would lose half of those cases. Applying the contribution margin to those cases would result in an additional $824,721 in lost contribution for a total combined impact of $928,812 in lost contribution margin to LRMC if the proposed facility is built. Ms. Greenberg disagreed with Mr. Balsano's use of the patients from the extended service area in his analysis of the potential impact on LRMC. Ms. Greenberg felt that the use of these patients was inappropriate, given the service area defined in the CON application, and the fact that the applicant considers the PSA a distinct medical market. See FOFs 91-92. Ms. Greenberg's impact analysis focused on the hospitals from which LRMC derives its patients. Based on LRMC's data, Ms. Greenberg determined that in 2007, approximately 89 percent of LRMC's patients came from Leesburg Regional, Villages, Waterman or South Lake hospitals. In 2008, approximately 90 percent of LRMC's patients came from those hospitals with 81 percent coming from the Leesburg facilities. Since there were no admissions to LRMC from the three acute care hospitals in Marion County in 2007 and 2008, Ms. Greenberg determined that the likely impact to Leesburg if the proposed facility is built would be zero. For purposes of determining an upper limit of the potential impact on LRMC, Ms. Greenberg assumed that LRMC would lose the 10 percent of patients not coming from Leesburg Regional, Villages, Waterman or South Lake. Multiplying the 10 percent by the 13 total cases admitted to LRMC from the PSA, Ms. Greenberg determined that a total of 1.3 patients were at risk. Multiplying these at-risk patients by the contribution margin used by Ms. Greenberg of $7,27011/ results in an impact to LRMC of $9,451 in lost contribution margin. Notwithstanding the minimal impact to LRMC calculated by Ms. Greenberg, there is considerable overlap, in terms of either like or contiguous zip codes, between the Leesburg area and the PSA. For example, in fiscal year 2008, LRMC admitted eight patients from zip code 34491, three patients from zip code 32195, two patients from zip code 34420, and three patients from zip code 32784, or 16 patients. These zip codes are included in the defined PSA. LRMC admitted 37 patients from zip code 32159, 39 patients from zip code 32162, and 21 patients from zip code 34788, which are all zip codes that are contiguous to the defined PSa. In all, for fiscal year 2008, LRMC admitted 113 patients from zip codes that are either within or contiguous to the PSA. See also T. 2119. Applying Ms. Greenberg's contribution margin for LRMC to those 113 cases results in a loss to LRMC of $821,510. These 113 patients represent approximately 41 percent of LRMC's admissions. According to the Agency, a loss of approximately one-third of LRMC's admissions would be considered a substantial disruption of the patient flow pattern. Additionally, it is reasonable to assume that the applicant may attract patients from zip codes contiguous to its service area. Further, it is expected that the applicant will aggressively market to areas including contiguous zip codes and not stop at a bright line between zip codes. Having considered all of the evidence on this issue, including but not limited to the number of patients admitted from Ocala area hospitals, see, e.g., FOFs 91-92, it is concluded that while there is a wide variation in projected losses, LRMC, like Shands, would potentially lose significant dollars if the proposed facility were constructed. Such a loss in contribution margin and therefore admissions would substantially affect the facility. The loss of the contribution margins, coupled with the potential impact on existing staff and programs, is substantial enough to recognize the standing of Shands and LRMC.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying CON Application No. 10009. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 2009.
