Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The letter of intent and authorizing board resolution to establish a new Medicare certified home health agency filed by ABC for District Four for the September, 1989 batching cycle was timely filed with HRS and the Health Planning Council for Northeast Florida, Inc., and met all statutory and rule requirements for filing. The CON application to establish a new Medicare certified home health agency filed by ABC for District Four for the September, 1989 batching cycle was timely filed with HRS and the Health Planning Council for Northeast Florida, Inc. The CON application to establish a new Medicare certified home health agency for District Four for the September, 1989 batching cycle was deemed complete and accepted for review by HRS, effective November 13, 1989. There is a numeric need for one additional Medicare certified home health agency in District Four as determined by HRS and published pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Local Health Plan The 1989-90 CON Allocation Factors Report for HRS District Four (Health Plan) is the applicable health plan with regards to this proceeding. In its application ABC addressed the recommendations found in the Health Plan. The Health Plan recognizes that under the new methodology for determining numeric need, a licensed home health agency within an HRS district could serve any and all counties within the district. However, the Health Plan contains recommendations for allocating home health agencies. The Health Plan makes the following recommendations: Geographic Preference Home health agencies should be allocated to counties on the following basis: Preference should go to applicants who will establish their program in a county which does not have any CON approved agencies or subunits based in the county. Consideration should be given to counties with a low number of Medicare visits per 1,000 persons 65 years and older. Competing Applications In the case of competing applications for the same or similar geographic area, preference should be given to those applicants which demonstrate: They will meet identified needs in the most cost-effective manner. They are addressing a current or potential geographic access problem in the district. They will serve the widest spectrum of the population, including the medically indigent. They have written agreements with a broad spectrum of local hospitals, nursing homes, mental health resources and/or other service providers in order to help ensure continuity of care. They demonstrate in their CON application how they will comply with any conditions placed on the CONs. They will serve AIDS patients. ABC proposes to locate its agency office in Duval County because it contains medical centers, hospitals with discharge planners and physician staff for referrals, and because of enhanced recruiting and retaining of appropriate staff. However, it proposes to serve all patients referred to it in all counties located throughout District Four, including Baker County. Baker County has no CON approved home health agency based within the county. However, it is presently being served by home health agencies based in Duval County. Because of its small population, with a relatively low percentage of the population being 65 years old or older, its distance from hospitals and the recruiting and staffing problems it would engender, it is doubtful that Baker County could support a main office for a home health care agency. In fact, the 1988 Local Health Plan indicated that Baker County should probably not have a home health agency physically located within the county. Baker County has the lowest number of citizens 65 years of age or older and the lowest usage rate for home health agencies. There is no data or documentation to show why the usage of home health services in Baker County is low. However, HRS makes the assumption from the usage rate only that Baker County is underserved. Duval County is not considered as being underserved in terms of Medicare units. By locating in Duval County, ABC does not specifically comply with preference 1A or 1B. However, ABC has proposed to serve all patients within District Four referred to it regardless of where the patient is located, and regardless of the patient's payor class. (Medicare, Medicaid, private pay or indigent) While 1A and 1B of the Health Plan's recommendation is concerned with geographic preferences, 2A through 2F of the Health Plan's recommendations are preferences that relate mainly to situations involving competing applications in the same batch. ABC meets a majority of those preferences, including: 1A. ABC will be among the lowest in cost of the existing providers in District Four. 1B. ABC goes to the patient and has stated it will serve all of the patients within District Four referred to it. 1C. ABC proposed to serve all patients referred to it, including the medically indigent and medicaid. Because of the situation with Medicaid patients, ABC did not project any Medicaid patients. However, ABC proposed to serve all patients on which it has referrals including Medicaid patients. 1D. ABC did not have written referrals with hospital, nursing homes and other resources for patient referrals. However, ABC stated that this was its standard operating procedure and if granted a CON they would establish written referrals. 1E. ABC does not specifically address how they would comply with any condition placed on the CON. 1F. Again, ABC proposed to serve all patients within District Four referred to it, including AIDS and HIV patients. Since ABC has no control over which patients are referred to it, then its payor mix is just a projection. Whether an AIDS or HIV patient is on Medicare, Medicaid, private pay or medically indigent ABC has proposed to served them. In fact, it has a corporate policy to train and educate its employees in this area of service. ABC has shown that it intends to serve AIDS and HIV patients on which it has referrals. State Health Plan The 1989 Florida State Health Plan is the applicable health plan in this proceeding. The State Health Plan is a comprehensive three-volume document which describes Florida's health system and the services available to Florida residents. Specifically, the State Health Plan addresses certain preferences which HRS uses in reviewing home health CON applicants. They are as follows: Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing to serve AIDS patients. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing to provide a full range of services, including high technology services, unless these services are sufficiently available and accessible in the same service area. Preference shall be given to an applicant with a history of serving a disproportionate share of Medicaid and indigent patients in comparison with other providers within the same HRS service district and proposing to serve such patients within its market area. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing to serve counties which are underserved by existing home health agencies. Preference shall be given to an applicant who makes a commitment to provide the department with consumer survey data measuring patient satisfaction. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing a comprehensive quality assurance program and proposing to be accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. As to 16A, ABC has proposed to serve all patients in District Four that are referred to it by referring agencies, including AIDS and HIV patients regardless of their of payor class. ABC has a stated commitment to serving AIDS and HIV patients. The evidence establishes that of all AIDS cases reported in District Four, Duval County has approximately 69 percent. District-wide 52 percent of all reported AIDS cases have ended in death whereas in Duval County the percentage is 56. Very few AIDS patients are medicare eligible. A higher percentage of AIDS patients in Duval County are served as indigents or under Medicaid, notwithstanding HRS' Medicaid Project AIDS Care. As to 16B, ABC proposes to provide the full range of services, including high technology services. ABC included in it application excerpts from its high tech policy manual. There was no data available from local health council on what high tech services are available from existing providers. As to 16C, while ABC's payor mix does not indicate that they would be serving a disproportionate share of Medicaid and indigent patients there is no data indicating what access problem, if any, exists for Medicaid and indigent case patients needing home health care services. ABC proposes service to all patients within District Four that are referred to it be referring agencies. As to 16D, while there is no data available that any county within District Four is in fact underserved, ABC has stated that it will serve all counties in District Four and there is no evidence to show that ABC will not serve all counties in District Four. As to 16E, ABC has indicated it will comply with this requirement and there is no evidence to show that ABC will not furnish the data in terms of consumer survey response. As to 16F, ABC has a quality assurance program in place and HRS agreed that ABC could provide quality of care to its patients. Statutory Criteria Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes - Availability and Access to Services District Four has 20 Medicare certified home health agencies, with five located in Duval County and, one approved but not yet established Medicare certified home health agency. However, as stated in the State Agency Action Report (SAAR) there is a market for another home health agency in District Four as determined by the fixed need pool. ABC's stated commitment to serve all counties in District Four and to serve all patients in those counties referred to it by referring agencies regardless of whether the patient's payor class should enhance the convenience and accessibility to patients. Section 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes - Quality of Care, Efficiency and Adequacy of Existing Area Providers There is no specific data available from HRS concerning the quality of care, efficiency and adequacy of services being provided by existing care providers in District Four. ABC did not conduct a survey to assess the existence of quality care problems in District Four. However, the existence of quality care problems in District Four would be difficult to gauge since the in- home provision of services makes them largely beyond public or professional scrutiny. In fact, generally, with few exceptions, application for home health agencies do not address this criterion. The parties stipulated that the provisions of Section 381.705(1)(c) through (g), Florida Statutes were deemed to have been met or otherwise not applicable. Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes - Availability of Resources and Funds and Accessibility of Service to all Residents of Service District The evidence establishes that ABC has sufficient resources and funds to accomplish what it proposes. HRS has no data suggesting significant access problems for Medicaid patients to home health care nor was there sufficient evidence that AIDS or HIV patients suffer an access problem for home health care. However, due to improvements in terms of Medicaid reimbursement any access problem that may exist should be reduced. ABC has a stated commitment to serving all patients in District Four regardless of the patient's payor class. This commitment should improve the accessibility of home health care to underserved patients if, in fact, there is an access problem for the Medicaid, AIDS, HIV or indigent patients. Section 389.705(1)(i), Florida Statutes - Financial Feasibility ABC projects it will do 12,000 home visits in year one and 14,000 home visits in year two. These projections are based on ABC's experiences in other districts, particularly District Three. These projections also represent approximately 25 and 29 percent of the new visit pool market for each year, respectively. However, ABC clients would not necessarily all come from the new visit pool. ABC's projected home care visits are reasonable based on its experience in other Florida districts and its experience in other states, notwithstanding its lack of an established referral network in District Four and being a new entrant into the District Four market. ABC's financials displayed in its application are reasonable and consistent with its Florida experience. ABC's payor mix and visit each correlate to its actual Florida experience. ABC's pro forma expenses for year one and year two are reasonable. ABC projects a first year profit of $3,914 and a second year profit of $5,010 and after the second year, ABC should continue to show a profit. ABC's proposed project will benefit ABC by allowing it to meet its long term goals. ABC's existing Florida agencies are operating in financially sound manner and there is no reason to believe that ABC's proposed agency will not operate in the same manner. ABC's liquidity ratio is 0.7 to one which means that ABC has excess current liabilities over current assets and is one factor used for determining the general health of a company. ABC has an accumulated deficit of $651,836. From all of the above, ABC's proposed agency is feasible in both the short term and the long term. It was stipulated that Section 381.705(1)(j) and (k), Florida Statutes were deemed to have been met or otherwise inapplicable. Section 381.705(1)(l), Florida Statute - Impact on Competition Since ABC has a stated commitment to serve all patients in all counties in District Four referred to it regardless of the payor class and is offering a full range of services, including high tech, its proposal should only serve to enhance competition within District Four, notwithstanding that the proposal is primarily a Medicare home health care provider which would not provide any financial competition. The parties stipulated that Section 381.705(1)(m), Florida Statutes was deemed to have been met or otherwise inapplicable. Section 381.705(1)(n), Florida Statutes - Medicaid and Indigent Care Very few medicaid and indigent patients are served by the existing agencies in District Four. Most of these patients are served by the Visiting Nurses Association (VNA) which is subsidized by United Way, local governments and other sources. There is no data or documentation that Medicaid patients do not in fact have a significant access problem. Medicare is the predominant payor source in Florida and is ABC's primary payor source even though ABC has a stated commitment to serve all patients regardless of payor class. A high percentage of Florida's Medicaid budget for home health services is used for co-insurance for medicare. Therefore, Medicaid patients that are "dually eligible" are receiving home health care under Medicare. Florida's Medicaid program does not reimburse for physical therapy, speech therapy or occupational therapy for adults. In a Medicare certificate home health agency there is only a certain pool of profit available to serve Medicaid and indigent patients. Therefore, if the percentages of Medicaid service goes up then indigent or charity cases must suffer or the agency cannot operate in the "black". While HRS usually places a condition on the CON concerning Medicaid services, a majority of the recently issued CONs for home health care had no such condition placed on them. The parties stipulated that Section 381.705(2) and (3), Florida Statutes were deemed to have been met or otherwise inapplicable. State Agency Action Report (SAAR) HRS up to and including, the home health care agency batching cycle immediately preceding the instant September 1989 batch, used not applicable (N/A) on those criteria that were not typically addressed by applicants or were not considered to be applicable to an applicant. HRS now enters a "no" in those situations but a "no" in this situation has no adverse or negative impact on HRS' decision. Typically, approved applicants do not meet all the statutory criteria. Some of the criteria may be only partially met and some may not be met at all.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered granting ABC's application for a certificate of need (CON No. 6015). DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, ABC 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the finding of fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 6(2,3); 7(8); 8(7,8,11); 9(8,10); 11(7,14); 15(4); 16(16,17,18,19); 17(16,18); 18(16,21); 19(16,22); 20- 21(23,24); 23(25); 25(4,25); 28-29(25-27); 31-38(29); 40-42(29); 45(32); 48- 52(33,34,35,36); 54-58(32,37,38,41); 61-64(43); 68-70(45,46,47); 72- 77(47,48,49); 79-81(47,49,50); 83(51); 85-87(53); 89(53); 90(54). 2. Proposed findings of fact 1-5, 10, 12-14, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 39, 43, 44, 46, 47, 53, 59, 60, 65-67, 71, 78, 82, 84, 88, 91 and 92 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings of Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, HRS Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 3-9(5,6,7,9,12,13,14); 12- 26(14,18,19); 28-29(15,16); 44-46(32) 48-51(39,40). Findings of fact 1 and 2 are covered in the preliminary statement. Proposed findings of fact 10, 11 as to the last 2 sentences, 27, 30, 31, 32 other than last sentence, 33, 35, 36 other than last sentence, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 47 and 52 are not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The last two sentences of finding of fact 34 are adopted in finding of fact 25, otherwise not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 43 is unnecessary. The first two sentences of proposed finding of fact 53 are adopted in finding of fact 36, otherwise not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Copies furnished to: R. Terry Rigsby, Esq. F. Philip Bank, P.A. 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Edward Labrador, Esq. Assistant General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 103 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Gulf Coast Home Health Service of Florida, Inc. is an existing licensed provider of Medicare-certified home health services in Pinellas County. The parties have stipulated that Gulf Coast has standing to participate as a party in this proceeding. Metro Home Health Care, Inc. is a proprietary agency owned by Ann Durham, Robert Carver and John Timp, a Certified Public Accountant. Metro was incorporated in November of 1984 and has been operating as a home health agency since June of 1985. It currently provides facility staffing with nurses, nurses' aides and mental health workers, and also takes private duty calls from hospitals. Due to the fact that so many patients who are in need of home health care are elderly and eligible for Medicare, referring hospitals and physicians attempt to utilize those home health agencies which are Medicare-certified. Metro proposes to expand its services to provide treatment to Medicare patients, and thus filed an application for a Certificate of Need in December of 1985. A home health agency in Florida must obtain a Certificate of Need from HRS before it can be licensed and become eligible to receive Medicare reimbursement. As the agency is already operational, there is no cost associated with this project. Metro realizes that there is a lag time between the provision of services to Medicare patients and Medicare reimbursement for such services. In order to avoid interest costs, Metro proposes to utilize the profits from its current staffing services to support its home health care program, in lieu of using a commercial line-of credit. Metro believes, however, that lines of credit with banking institutions can be acquired if operational funds are needed in the future. Metro has encouraged and supported the training and continuous education of its staff by providing information and funds for courses offered in the community. It intends to continue this practice. Metro proposes to provide skilled nursing services, physical therapy services, occupational therapy services, speech therapy services, IV therapy, rehabilitative services, social services and home health aid services. Some of these services will be obtained on a contractual basis, as opposed to in-house staffing, depending upon the need for and utilization of such services. Metro proposes to provide two percent of its services to Medicaid patients and two percent of its services to indigent patients during the first year after obtaining a Certificate of Need. During its first year as a Medicare-certified provider, it is anticipated that Metro will provide approximately 75 percent of its services to Medicare patients, 10.5 percent to private pay patients, 10.5 percent to third-party payor patients and 4 percent to Medicaid and indigent patients. In its second year, Metro proposes an aggregate of five percent of its services to be offered to Medicaid and indigent patients. By the end of its first decade, the intent is to have incrementally increased the level of service to indigent and Medicaid patients to ten percent. Metro's current charges for skilled nursing care are in the median range of charges by other home health agencies in the area. Charges for this service range between $40.00 and $60.00, and Metro charges $47.00 per visit. While Metro's Director, a registered nurse, did not have intimate knowledge of the bookkeeping, interim payment reports, cost reports, record keeping or computerization required by Medicare, one of the owners of Metro is a Certified Public Accountant. Since the filing of the Certificate of Need application, the owners of Metro have met with an assigned intermediary for the Medicare program, and they have discussed the completion of forms, patient claims and annual reports, as well as the Medicare reimbursement system. The Medicare program reimburses providers at a rate which represents the lowest of either costs, charges or the Medicare cap for the service provided. Thus, there is little or no profit element in the provision of Medicare services. However, Metro will realize a positive net income through the provision of services to Medicare, private, third party payor, Medicaid and indigent mix of patients proposed for the first year of operation. This is true even with a tripling of the amount of calculated contractual allowances set forth in Metro's application. The figures and projections contained in the pro forma statement of revenues and expenses included in Metro's Certificate of Need application are outdated and some of the utilization estimates may be exaggerated. However, Metro is of the opinion that its existing profits which have greatly increased since the date of its application, will enable it to operate in a financially feasible manner on both an immediate and long-term basis. Metro desires to offer Medicare services so that it will be competitive with other agencies which do so and can receive a fair share of referrals. Hopefully, more referrals will include more private pay and insurance covered patients, which will produce greater profits. The reimbursement rate for services to Medicaid patients is even lower than for Medicare patients, though it has recently been raised. The per visit reimbursement rate for Medicare purposes can be negatively affected by increasing the number of Medicaid and indigent patients served. It would not be financially feasible for a home health agency which served only Medicare patients to provide Medicaid and indigent services. When HRS initially reviewed Metro's application, it utilized an invalid methodology to determine the need for additional home health services in Pinellas County. HRS no longer utilizes this methodology and did not attempt to do so during the final administrative hearing. HRS does not presently have any methodology pursuant to rule or policy for projecting numeric need for new home health agencies. Instead, it looks at the general statutory criteria applicable to Certificate of Need review for all health care services. There were no numeric need methodologies for home health care services offered at the final hearing. While neither the State Health Plan nor the local District Health Plan specifically address or identify the need for home health agencies, both plans emphasize the improvement of access to the medically underserved. There are approximately 29 licensed and approved Medicare-certifed home health agencies in District 5, which includes Pinellas County.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED THAT Metro Home Health Care, Inc. be GRANTED a Certificate of Need to operate a home health agency in Pinellas County, with the condition that a minimum of two percent of total visits be provided to Medicaid patients and two percent of total visits be provided to indigent patients. Respectfully submitted and entered this 5th day of November, 1987, 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 5th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3556 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below: Petitioner Gulf Coast: 9. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 10, 11. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 13-15. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 17. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 22. Rejected as hearsay. 23-27. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 29-30. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 31. Partially rejected. It must be assumed that goals in the State and District Plans reflect need. 36. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Last sentence accepted. 38. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 39 & 41. Rejected as too broad a conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. 45. Second sentence rejected as hearsay. 50, 51, & 53. Rejected, not supported by sufficient evidence. Last sentence accepted only if private pay or insurance-covered patients are not considered. Last sentence accepted only if private pay or insurance-covered patients are not considered. 60. Accepted only-if it is assumed that the percentage of care rendered to private pay or insurance-covered patients decreases. 62 & 63. These factual findings are accepted, but are incomplete in that they fail to recognize the importance of becoming a Medicare-certified provider in order to also obtain referrals of non-Medicare patients. 64-73. These "findings of fact" are addressed in the Conclusions of Law. Respondent HRS: p. 3, last full sentence Accepted only if it is assumed the agency serves only Medicare patients. p. 4, last sentence of first full paragraph Rejected as not supported by competent evidence. Respondent Metro: The "proposed recommended order" submitted on Metro's behalf does not contain proposed findings of fact, and is more in the nature of closing argument. Consequently, it is not possible to render specific rulings upon Metro's proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard A. Carson, Esquire Carson & Linn, P.A. 1711-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 John Rodriguez, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ann Durham, Director Metro Home Health Care, Inc. 10707 66th Street North Pinellas Park, Florida 33565 R. S. Powers, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner Hospice of Palm Beach County, Inc. (Hospice) is entitled to a certificate of need (CON) from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Respondent, (HRS) in CON Action No. 3702 for a home health agency in Palm Beach County and the District IX service area?
Findings Of Fact Hospice provides special interdisciplinary services, including medical, psychological, spiritual, counseling and volunteer services, for persons in the terminal stages of illness. Hospice is licensed by HRS as a hospice under Chapter 400, Part V, Florida Statutes. Hospice has been qualified by the United States Health Care Financing Administration for participation in the Medicare hospice program. See Part 418, 42 Code of Federal Regulations. Hospice was the first hospice program in Florida to be accredited by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH) as a hospice. JCAH accreditation includes approval of the home care component of Hospice's service. HRS has approved issuance of a certificate of need (CON No. 3693) for the establishment by Hospice of its own 24-bed freestanding inpatient facility. Hospice's inpatient facility will be the first free- standing hospice facility in Florida. Hospice's present service area is within Palm Beach County. Hospice's service area reaches from the southern border of Boynton Beach in Palm Beach County north to the Martin County line. Hospice's service area also extends west within the County to include service to Belle Glade, a multi-ethnic rural community. Approximately 25 percent of Hospice's patients are medically indigent, with little or no ability to pay for care. Over 28 percent of Hospice's patients in fiscal 1985 were members of ethnic minorities. Hospice was one of five applicants in its "batching" cycle seeking a certificate of need to establish a home health agency within local health District IX. The others were Palm Beach Gardens Home Health Agency (CON #3699), MEA (CON #3700), Coastal Health Corporation (CON #3701) and Medical Personnel Pool of Treasure Coast, Inc. (CON #3706). (A sixth applicant, Medical Personnel Pool of Palm Beach, Inc., CON #3698, was granted a certificate in an earlier cycle and not considered by HRS in this batch.) By letter dated June 14, 1985, HRS indicated that it had determined to deny Hospice a certificate of need to establish a home health agency in Palm Beach County. Hospice's substantial interests are affected by HRS' determination of denial. Section 400.601(3), Florida Statutes (1985), requires Hospice to provide care to terminally ill patients regardless of ability to pay, and to make such care available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Unless Hospice receives a certificate of need to establish a home health agency, it is ineligible for licensing by HRS under Chapter 400, Part III, as a home health agency and corresponding certification as a Medicare home health service provider. See § 400.462(2), Fla. Stat. (1985). Without a certificate of need for home health care, Hospice's financial ability to serve its hospice patients is not as great as it might be if it held such a CON. Without certification as a home health agency, Hospice cannot presently collect any reimbursement for home health care of medically indigent Medicaid patients. Hospice often experiences difficulty in collecting even private insurance payments for home health care of patients with such insurance. Hospice will suffer injury in fact as a result of HRS' determination and its interests are among those regulated by this action. Hospice filed a timely petition for a Section 120.57 administrative proceeding concerning HRS' decision on CON Action 3702. Prior to the decision in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Johnson and Johnson Home Health Care, 447 So.2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), HRS followed a rule generally precluding the issuance of a certificate of need for a new home health agency until the average daily census of each existing home health agency within the same service area had reached 300 patients. This rule was known as the "Rule of 300." In Johnson and Johnson, supra, the First District Court of Appeal struck the "Rule of 300" as arbitrary and inconsistent with Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, which lists numerous criteria for evaluation of CON applications. In particular, the Court noted, the "Rule of 300" did not allow new agencies "where existing agencies are able but unwilling to provide services of a particular type or for a particular class of patients." 447 So.2d at 362. After the "Rule of 300" was struck, a statewide task force was created to develop new criteria to evaluate CON applications for new home health agencies. The statewide association of hospices, Florida Hospices, Inc., attempted to participate in the development of new criteria, but did not participate in this process. On April 5, 1985, HRS proposed new rule criteria for home health agency evaluations, which were the subject of a proposed rule challenge in September 1985 before the Division of Administrative Hearings. This proposed rule was struck down as invalid on March 12, 1986. These new criteria were proposed for use in addition to other relevant statutory and applicable rule criteria." In acting on the five CON applications in Hospice's "batch," HRS applied its invalidated proposed rule criteria and determined that within District IX as a whole (which includes Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee, St. Lucie and Palm Beach Counties), no new home health agencies were needed. However, in its analysis of the five applications in this batching cycle, HRS also stated that the District IX Local Health Council had indicated that Palm Beach County should be considered a separate subdistrict for home health agency evaluation. Although it found no need for new home health agencies in District IX as a whole in its analysis of this batching cycle, HRS, using its own newly proposed rules, found an existing need for two new home health agencies in Palm Beach County. HRS stated in its June 14, 1985, letter that Hospice's application was denied for the following reason: Use of the methodology developed by the special statewide work group to determine the need for home health agencies in District IX shows no numeric need for additional agencies in this district. HRS has determined for purposes of this proceeding that the following need exists in District IX for home health agencies, indicating a net need of five new agencies in District IX and a net need in Palm Beach County for five new agencies: Application Submittal Date: 12/84 Planning Horizon: 7/86 District 9 1986 (July) population: 65+ = 257,346 District 9 1986 (July) population: <65 = 809,845 1. 257,346 x .0578 = 14,875 Projected use for 65+ population 2. 809,845 x .00058 = 470 Projected use for <65 population 3. (14,875 + 470) x 33.3 = 510,989 Projected visits 7/86 4. 9,000 + (510,989 x 270) - 24,330 5. 410,989 9,000 ? 21,000 = 24 Agencies needed in District 9 for 7/86 24 Agencies - 19 licensed and approved = 5 Agencies needed in District 9 Subdistrict Allocation: Need: Indian River Projected 2 Existing 1 Net 1 Martin 2 2 0 Okeechobee 0 1 (1) Palm Beach 18 13 5 St. Lucie 2 2 0 This need is related solely to the planning horizon of July 1, 1986 established by HRS for Hospice's CON batch and other home health applications filed before the end of 1984. This need is not related to the later planning horizons applicable to District IX home health agency CON applications filed after 1984. Therefore, applicants in batches following Hospice's, which was the last batch submitted in 1984, are not substantially affected by this determination of need. For the purposes of this hearing, there are only two (2) denials by HRS of certificates of need for home health agencies in District IX and proposing service in Palm Beach County in CON batches prior to Hospice's (Joseph Morse Geriatric Center, CON Action No. 3621; A Professional Nurse, CON Action No. 3492) that have been challenged in administrative proceedings and are still pending without Final Order in those proceedings. Thus, Hospice's CON application as a home health agency is, in the worst case, third in line for licensure as a home health agency in District IX, without regard to the special circumstances of Hospice's case and assuming these denials by HRS are reversed in final agency action. Since there is a need for more than 3 new home health agencies in District IX and Palm Beach County based on the planning horizon applicable to Hospice's batch and no other valid request is pending in Hospice's batch, there is a numeric need for granting a CON to Hospice as a home health agency. There is a special need for access within Hospice's actual service area in Palm Beach County to home health services for the terminally ill, which services are provided by a hospice as opposed to existing or other proposed traditional home health agencies. There is additional need for access by the medically indigent to home health services within Hospice's service area in Palm Beach County, and within Palm Beach County in general. The 1985 District IX Hospice Services Plan provides that hospices generally should be licensed as a special type of home health agency. Of all pending applicants in this and the immediately prior batching cycles since 1984 seeking a certificate of need to provide home health services in Palm Beach County, Hospice is committed to providing the greatest percentage of its services for Medicaid and other medically indigent patients, in accordance with the State Health Plan. Hospice, due to its existing and proposed provision of home health services to the medically indigent, its service in Belle Glade, and its service to AIDS patients, as well as its services to the elderly, serves the need for care of low-income persons, medically underserved groups and the elderly. Hospice can provide higher quality of home health care to the terminally ill in its service area than any other existing home health provider or current applicant for a certificate of need to provide home health services in Palm Beach County. Hospice offers a new type of home health service within its service area for terminally ill patients and their families, including a special pediatric program for children with irreversible diseases. This type of service is an alternative to inpatient care, nursing home and traditional home health services. The applicant home health agencies affiliated with hospitals in District IX in Hospice's batching cycle have not shown that they can achieve greater economies or improvements of service than Hospice. Hospice provides the following research and health educational facilities: a) rotational internships for fourth- year medical students at the University of Miami Medical School; training for R. N. candidates at Florida Atlantic University; research support service to the Tropical Disease Center and Palm Beach County Public Health Department through Hospice's care for AIDS patients in the Belle Glade area; d) training for graduate students in psychology at Florida Atlantic University; e) training for seminary students at St. Vincent's Seminary in Boynton Beach; f) training for candidates for master's degrees in social work from Florida State University; and g) designation as second research and training site by the International Hospice Institute, an international research and professional education accrediting institution. No other home health agency in Palm Beach County provides or has proposed to provide the research or educational facilities referenced in the preceding paragraph. Hospice proposes to control its home health agency rather than to allow the home health agency to control its hospice functions. Hospice will have a positive effect on the clinical needs of health professional training in hospice care and related services in District IX and will make such training available to health professional schools. Hospice's proposal, which is based on a conservative growth projection of its historical patient service care needs, demonstrates the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of Hospice's non-profit project goals. Hospice's provision of home health services under a certificate of need will have a positive effect on the costs of and charges for home health services for the terminally ill and their families. Due to its inpatient hospital capability, Hospice is a regional resource and teaching center for the care of the terminally ill. Hospice has a positive impact on competition among providers of care to the terminally ill. Hospice has a positive impact on promotion of quality assurance due to its accreditation by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. No other home health agency in District IX is accredited by that national joint commission for provision of home health services. According to HRS' own determination, the District IX health plan calls for evaluation of home health services needs within the subdistrict of Palm Beach County. Under HRS' determination, that county subdistrict needs five additional home health agencies without regard to the special needs of the terminally ill. In addition, the 1985 District IX plan for hospice health services provides that hospices should be licensed as special home health agencies. Nothing in the 1985 District IX Health Plan suggests that "surplus" home health agencies in other District IX counties can provide access to service needed by the terminally ill and their families within Palm Beach County. According to HRS' determination, the provision of the State Health Plan addressing home health services deals with access of Medicaid and medically indigent patients to home health services. Hospice's proposal meets this goal of the State Health Plan because Hospice will provide 25% of its care to the medically indigent, even if Medicare reimbursement is available as a result of CON approval and home health agency licensure. On a percentage basis, Hospice proposes to provide 3 times more home health care services to the medically indigent than any other District IX applicant in its batching cycle and even a greater incidence than any District IX home health agency applicant in the immediately preceding batching cycle. Hospice's proposal also satisfies other goals and priorities of the State Health Plan not considered by HRS, including but not limited to the continued fostering of the hospice care alternative, potential increased provider participation in the Medicaid home health services program, and creation of funding mechanisms for hospice care of the medically indigent. Hospice is the only hospice program located within Palm Beach County providing and proposing to provide home health care to terminally ill patients and their families in its service area. Hospice can provide a higher quality of home care for the terminally ill than any other existing home health care provider in Palm Beach County due to its accreditation by JCAH and qualification for the Medicare hospice program including home health services. Hospice's home health care, due to provision of additional hospice services, and continuity of home health personnel serving each patient and patient family, is also more appropriate for the terminally ill than other traditional home health services. Hospice's on-call home health personnel must, by Hospice policy, reside no farther than 30 minutes from patients to be served on a round-the-clock basis. The 1985 District IX Health Plan endorses the 30-minute travel maximum for provision of hospice care at home. Even prior to Hospice's provision of service in Belle Glade, nearly one-third of Hospice's patients were members of ethnic minorities. The Belle Glade area served by Hospice is populated by ethnic minorities in need of home health care service. Hospice's development of a special program to serve AIDS patients in Belle Glade and throughout Palm Beach County will make needed home health care available to this underserved group. Other home health agencies recognize the special type of home health care provided by Hospice through their referrals to it. The existence of the Gold Coast Home Health Agency serving Broward County was the basis for HRS' determination that of all five applicants, only Hospice did not meet the criterion in Section 381.494(6)(c)6, Florida Statutes, evaluating the need for special services in adjoining areas. Both traditional and hospice-based home health agencies exist in adjoining District IX areas. Hospice has at present a paid staff of 33 and approximately 270 volunteers. As shown in its financial statements submitted with its application, Hospice has a broad base of community support sufficient to achieve its goals with the aid of the Medicare reimbursement mechanism. Since home health care is a vital component of hospice care, the operation of a home health agency by a hospice is both logically and philosophically a natural outgrowth of the developing hospice movement in the United States. Hospice has excellent prospects for the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its project, especially if the regular Medicare reimbursement mechanism is made available. Hospice served more than 565 patients in fiscal 1985 and currently serves approximately 110-20 patients per month. Its estimated patient census used to calculate its 1985 and 1986 operating income and expenses in its CON application, therefore, is based on historical data and is conservative. Since Hospice has received approval for the first free- standing inpatient facility for the terminally ill in Florida, it will serve as a regional resource and training center for care of complex cases. Hospice, unlike any other applicant, will offer services complementary to home health care not available in adjacent service districts. Hospice's market entry as a licensed home health agency should stimulate other hospices to seek to meet the rigorous JCAH standards. Hospice provides many services not offered by traditional home health agencies at per visit charges that are competitive with those presently charged by those agencies. Hospice's market presence encourages competition among all home health agencies serving Palm Beach County, particularly for care of patients who are terminally ill or in the near-final stages of a catastrophic illness.
The Issue The issues concern the question of the entitlement of Petitioner to the grant of a certificate of need (CON) to provide home health services in District III.
Findings Of Fact On December 15, 1986, Petitioner made application for a certificate of need (CON) to provide home health services in Citrus County, Florida. That application was denied by Respondent on December 14, 1987. The basis for denial as set out in Respondent's State Agency Action Report (SAAR) was to the effect that there was no demonstrated need when resort was made to the methodology suggested by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council in its 1986 District III Health Plan. (At that time Respondent did not have a methodology for determining need). It was felt that some advantage might be gained in serving the needs of underserved groups; however, there was limited information to demonstrate that existing home health agencies in the county could not meet the demands for service. Finally, it was stated that the referral agreement between Petitioner, as a source of clients from its hospital operation, and Intervenor as an existing home health care provider, to include use of Petitioner's employees in the provision of care, care which was as "hi-tech", as Petitioner could provide, was sufficient. Following the application denial, Petitioner filed a timely request for formal hearing under the authority set forth in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On February 17, 1988, Intervenor was allowed to intervene. Given that the Respondent did not have a rule methodology in place to consider this application when first filed or at the point in time where the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration, on May 12, 1988, Respondent moved, unopposed, to have the case returned to the agency to await the promulgation of a new home health rule. The motion was granted. On September 12, 1988, the new rule became effective as Rule 10- 5.011(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Which provided as follows: (d) Medicare Certified Home Health Agencies. Definitions. Home Health Agency. A home health agency is defined as a Medicare certified home health agency in accordance with subsection 381.702(10), F.S. Home Health Services. Home Health Services are defined in accordance with subsection 400.462(3), F.S. Home Health Services Provider. For the purpose of this rule, a home health services provider is defined as the person or corporate entity to which the certificate of need or license is issued. District. District means a service district of the department as established in subsection 20.19(5), F.S. Service Area. A certificate of need for the establishment of a home health agency shall authorize a home health services provider to locate a home health agency and serve persons anywhere within the district for which the certificate of need is awarded. Planning Horizon. The planning horizon is the anticipated time frame within which the agency is expected to be licensed. The planning horizon for applications submitted between January 1 and June 30 of each year, shall be July of the following year; the planning horizon for applications submitted between July 1 and December 31 of each year shall be January of the year following the year subsequent to the application deadline. Approved Home Health Agency. For the purpose of this rule, an approved home health agency is defined as a new agency within the district which holds a valid certificate of need and has not been licensed by the department one moth prior to the publication date of the semi-annual fixed need pool. Persons or corporations who do not operate Medicare certified home health agency in the district and are the holder of one or more certificate of need approvals within the same district, shall only be counted as one approval. Persons or corporations who do operate a Medicare certified home health agency in the district and are also the holder of a certificate of need approval for the same district, shall not be counted in the inventory of approved agencies. Quality of Care. Home health agencies regulated under this rule shall meet the minimum of care standards contained in HRS rules 10D-68, F.A.C. Need Methodology. The establishment of a home health agency by a provider who does not currently operate a Medicare certified home health agency in a district, shall require a certificate of need for the operation of a Medicare certified home health agency in the district. Applications for home health agencies shall be reviewed against all applicable statutory and related rule criteria. Applications for home health agencies shall not normally be approved unless a need is indicated in accordance with the formula under paragraph 3. The establishment of additional Medicare certified home health agencies, additional offices, mail drops, or any other physical presence by a Medicare certified home health services provider within the same district is not subject to a certificate of need. The need for the establishment of a new home health agency within the HRS district shall be determined twice a year. The net need for new Medicare home health agencies in each HRS district is calculated as follows: HHNN = ((PHHV - AHHV)/CEAS) - AHH Where: HHNN equals the Medicare certified home health agency net need. PHHV equals the projected number of home health agency visits for the respective district and planning horizon. The projected number of home health agency visits is calculated by multiplying the number of home health visits per 1000 population 65 years and over provided by the Medicare certified agencies in the district for the most recent year for which data available, by the projected population 65 years and over for the respective district. The population projections shall be based on the population projects issued by the Executive Office of the Governor available to the department 1 month prior to the publication date of the semi- annual fixed pool. AHHV equals the actual number of home health agency visits provided by all Medicare certified home health agencies in the district based on cost report data obtained from Medicare Intermediaries for the most recent year available to the department 1 month prior to the publication date of the semi-annual fixed need pool as specified in Rule 10-5.008(2), F.A.C. CEAS is the cost efficient agency size in numbers of visits at which economy of scale is achieved according to the data available to the department. If the fraction (PHHV - AHHV)/CEAS is .5 or exceeds .5, the fraction shall be rounded upward to the nearest whole number. CEAS shall be updated by the department annually and shall be determined by the department according to the following methodology: Rank all agencies by visit size, excluding hospital-based agencies. calculate the average cost for all visits for each remaining agency. Calculate the mean visit cost for all agencies, excluding hospital-based agencies, and two standard deviations from the mean for the remaining agencies. Eliminate agencies with average visit costs at or exceeding two standard deviations above and below the mean visit cost from further calculations. Array remaining agencies by visit size from low to high, and sort agencies into 4 groupings by visit size containing an equal or similar number of agencies, and calculate the mean cost for each groupings. Calculate the percentage reduction, if any, in mean visit cost for each grouping as compared to the previous grouping. Identify the agency size groupings which have a mean visit cost reduction of 5 percent or more compared to the mean visit cost of the previous groupings. Select the agency size grouping for which the last 5 percent or more reduction in mean visit cost is achieved prior to a grouping for which a less than 5 percent reduction is achieved as compared to the previous grouping and determine the median agency size for this grouping rounded to the nearest thousand. This agency size is defined as CEAS. AHH equals the number of approved home health agencies in the district. Preference shall be given to applicants proposing to provide home health care services to indigent persons and Medicaid patients. Preference shall be given to applicants proposing a comprehensive range of home health services if it is determined by the department that certain types of services are unavailable or that there is a shortage of certain types of home health service. Preference shall be given to applicants proposing to provide home health services and establish a physical presence underserved areas of the district. Data Reporting Requirements. Home health agencies regulated under this rule shall provide the following information to the department or its designee. The information shall be provided for the same reporting period covered by the annual cost reports submitted to the Medicare Intermediaries, and shall be submitted to the department or its designee at the same time the annual cost report is submitted to the Medicare Intermediary. The total number of patients served less than 65 years of age and 65 years of age and over by county of residence. The total number of visits provided by type of service. The total number of patients served by payment source including Medicaid, Medicare, and uncompensated care. As can be seen, this rule considers the need question district-wide as opposed to a county-by-county analysis in effect at the time of application by Petitioner. District III, which contains Citrus County, has fifteen other counties. The rule in its text is not found to be applicable per se to this application, although its underlying concepts arguably have an influence on the case outcome. While the Petitioner and Respondent urge that the rule does-have retroactive effect and the Intervenor disagrees, all parties acknowledge the logistical awkwardness of trying to employ the rule's terms in a literal sense. In fact, the rule cannot be used as it is written, for reasons to be explained and in any event neither of the proponents have exercised its terms in exact detail. When Respondent reviewed the application using a modified version of the new rule in the interest of what Respondent believed to be an equitable treatment of pending home health applicants who had waited for the rule to be enacted, it changed its position from one of recommended denial to recommended grant of the CON. The case was returned to the Division of Administrative Hearings and upon motion by the Intervenor, as granted, the Petitioner updated its application on December 5, 1988. This lead to the hearing on the dates previously described The updated information was provided to the other parties in this case. It was not given to the local health council for further review by that organization. Petitioner is a public not-for-profit healthcare organization created by state law. The hospital is governed by a Board of Trustees appointed by the Governor of the State of Florida. The proposed home health agency would be owned and operated by Petitioner. It treats indigent and Medicaid patients and other medically underserved groups. The hospital's mission is to serve the residents of the community regardless of their ability to pay. This approach would be continued in home health care. Petitioner provides high quality patient care and this could be expected to continue if a CON for home health care was granted. The quality assurance plan and mechanisms in place at Petitioner's hospital would be used in its home health agency to help assure high quality patient care. Petitioner would also develop a utilization review plan similar to what is in effect at the hospital that would help insure proper utilization of the home health agency. Petitioner is JCAH accredited and licensed by the State of Florida, and is currently in compliance with all State of Florida licensure requirements. Petitioner's home health agency would be a hospital-based home health agency, as opposed to a free-standing home health agency. There are benefits to being a hospital-based home health agency. The home health agency employees have the advantage of being part of the hospital's employment benefit package; the home health agency has the ability to tap into the expertise of the hospital in such areas as accounting, data processing, and so forth; discharge planning is easy to coordinate; and, the home health agency has the potential ability to use trained hospital personnel who have high tech skills and expertise and can provide services to the home health agency in their area of expertise. However, the suggestion that employees would be involved in both roles of hospital care and home health care is suspect in that certain employees such as nursing staff are not expected to fulfil that dual role and other employees such as the dietician were unable to consistently aid the patient in the home and carry out the duties in the hospital under an arrangement by which the Intervenor per agreement with the Petitioner sought to have continuation of services from the hospital to the home. If this could not be done, given the demands on the dietician in the hospital duties at that time, then there is no reason to believe that it would be any easier to achieve if the hospital had a home health agency. None of the aforementioned benefits are significant improvements over existing conditions in Citrus County where home health care is provided by freestanding agencies. More specifically, Petitioner currently has physical therapists, respiratory therapists, dietitians, and social workers on its full-time paid staff that could conceivably be available to the home health agency. Since these persons are already full-time salaried employees of the hospital, it would not cost the home health agency any additional amount for these skilled persons to provide services to home health care patients, assuming the ability to meet the needs of hospital patients and home health care patients, again a real uncertainty. Petitioner's personnel would be available to assist in the development of policy and procedure manuals, quality assurance plan and utilization review plan for the home health agency. There are other possible economies in service that could be derived from Petitioner's operation of a hospital-based home health agency. These include: the hospital-based agency is easily accessible to physicians; discharge planning is facilitated due to the close cooperation of nursing, social worker, and home care provider while the patient is still in the hospital; services will be available 24-hours a day through the use of hospital switchboard and communications systems; and use of current medical records systems will mean a patient's entire medical history will be available to practitioners. Again, these arrangements do not afford a significant improvement over existing home health services. Petitioner has sufficient resources available to initiate and operate a hospital-based home health agency. Necessary staff can be employed to the extent they are not already working at the hospital. Petitioner is in sound financial condition. Petitioner would be able to hire a qualified administrator. Petitioner's projected payor mix of 88% Medicare, 3% Medicaid, 4% insurance and 5% indigent, is an admirable goal. However, there is some question about whether the projections of Medicare and indigent care levels of service will be achieved. Petitioner as a referral source from its hospital operations had not achieved those projected levels of referrals in the past. This is important because Petitioner expects to obtain its home health patients from the hospital referrals. Consequently to promote the grant of the CON premised solely upon the belief that underserved groups will be better off would not be warranted. The possibility exists that with greater awareness more underserved persons might be referred for home health care but nothing in this case points to any increased effort to publicize the availability of home health for the underserved to justify the optimistic levels the applicant predicts. In a home health agency, all of the patient services are provided in the patient home. Thus, the only space requirement is for office space for the administrative staff and working space for the employees to do their necessary paperwork. Petitioner Memorial Hospital has about 1,600 square feet of vacant space available in which to house the home health agency offices. This building is currently owned by Petitioner. There is no debt associated with this building, and the building has been fully depreciated. Contrary to the statement in its application, Petitioner has decided not to offer prescription delivery services. This is not a significant change. Intervenor is a licensed home health agency in Citrus County. It first became licensed by the State of Florida in February, 1986. Intervenor has been surveyed annually by Respondent since 1986. In each of these surveys, it received no deficiencies. Intervenor is a full-service home health agency. It offers a range of "hi-tech" home health services, including: skilled nursing services; physical therapy; occupational therapy; speech therapy; social services; home health aide services; dietary guidance; medical supplies; home IV therapy; parenteral nutrition; interostomal therapy; home phlebotomy and lab testing services; and respiratory care. It has offered these services since its inception. Intervenor provides some homemaker services during home health aide visits, such as cleaning, straightening, and laundry. Intervenor's personnel include registered nurses, certified home health aides, physician therapists, licensed physical therapist assistants, speech therapists, occupational therapists, a medical social worker who holds a masters in social work, interstomal therapists, nutritionists, and respiratory therapists. Intervenor offers quality of care and ensures continuity of care in the delivery of home health services. Petitioner has never complained that a patient could not be discharged quickly enough due to Intervenor's shortcomings in taking on home health services for the discharged patient. Intervenor makes every effort to coordinate its operations with Petitioner to ensure quality and continuity of care related to patients referred by the hospital. The service area of Intervenor is Citrus County. Until late 1988, about 70% of Intervenor's referrals came directly from Petitioner. On average, Intervenor provides about 28.6 home health visits per patient. Intervenor provides home health services to all patients regardless of ability to pay. Intervenor provides home health services to the following payor classes: Medicare, Medicaid, VA, workmen's compensation, private insurance, and indigent. Its CON contemplates 2% Medicaid and 3% indigent patients. Since opening in 1989, Intervenor has treated 985 patients. Of these 985 patients, only ten (10) have been indigent and fifteen (15) have been Medicaid patients. This works out to one percent (1%) indigent care and one and one half percent (1.5%) Medicaid care. Community Care publishes a brochure that advertises its services to the community. Nowhere in this brochure does it indicate that Community Care serves indigent patients. The brochure stresses that services will be provided through reimbursed coverage, either Medicare, insurance, or other reimbursement sources. On the other hand it does not require any deposit or up-front payment from new home health patients and has never refused a patient due to an inability to pay. As stated until recently a very substantial portion of the Intervenor's referrals came from Petitioner and levels of service to the underserved, that is, Medicaid and indigent, have been low. This ties back to the observation that the 3% Medicaid and 5% indigent projection of service made by Petitioner may not be any easier to achieve and probably less so than the 2% Medicaid and 3% indigent which Intervenor is committed to. This is supported by the fact that on the first 11 months in 1988, Petitioner referred less than 2% Medicaid and 1% indigent. Moreover, the District III average for existing agencies of services to these underserved groups is .8% Medicaid and 1.3% indigent. As alluded to before, in December, 1985, Petitioner and Intervenor entered into an agreement. Per that agreement, Petitioner would refer all home health patients to Intervenor unless a patient or physician specifically requested otherwise. The agreement provided that Petitioner would provide certain services and personnel to Intervenor in exchange for compensation. It was a two-year agreement with an automatic one-year renewal. Petitioner chose to extend the contract for three years through the latter part of 1988. Since late 1988, Petitioner rotates its hospital referrals in the instance where the patient, patient's family or physician did not specify which home health agency was preferred. This means that as many as seven agencies could be involved in the rotation if Petitioner gained a CON, with Petitioner having no greater share than the rest. At present, there are four providers, two in the rotation are from the ABC home health group, the Intervenor and Upjohn another home health provider. Petitioner would make five. To make seven, VNA and Gulf Coast Home Health Services who have come into Citrus County would be added. VNA is another provider with a history of service to underserved patients. In this connection, Petitioner argues that its equal treatment of existing providers and itself, if granted a CON, minimizes the adverse impact of another competitor arriving on the scene and allows existing providers who are for profit agencies to remain financially viable. This together with trends toward early release in DRG for the hospital inpatient sector; provision of home health care through the Catastrophic Healthcare Act, and the general trend in increased home health visits in Citrus County make it possible for both the existing providers and the Petitioner to survive in the market place, if you accept the point of view of those who favor the grant of a CON to Petitioner. In fact, the DRG situation and the Catastrophic Healthcare Act, as events, are too speculative to say what their influence will be in promoting greater use of home health services. Otherwise, the trend toward increased visits that have been pointed out are now being met with an increased number of providers to deliver those visits. This dilutes market share. The Petitioner's rotation system further dilutes market share, especially as to the Intervenor. Thus, the question is raised on the matter of whether the historical trend toward increased visits is enough to sustain the existing providers with the advent of the Petitioner's presence and choice to rotate referrals. On the whole, the Petitioner's influence on competition is not positive and is not acceptable. The Petitioner's projections concerning its own market acceptance are unrealistic and unacceptable. The projections in the original application and in the December 5, 1988 update to that application as to skilled visits per patient far exceed the experience in the service area, Citrus County. The applicant speaks in terms of 53 visits when the historical experience in the county is approximately 30. Nothing in the record of the hearing tends to support the idea that Petitioner can deliver such an excessive increase in visits. Additionally, estimates of total home health visits in the first two years of operation are generally out of line. The estimate by Petitioner ranges as high as 42,000, plus visits. Some of the items in that count are not comparable to referrals made out of the hospital at present. Examples of this incomparability are homemaker services, DME and the category listed as general items. Again, prescription service is no longer proposed thereby reducing the numbers. Nonetheless, the estimate is still excessive. This is made the more apparent when taking in account that by annualizing available data 464 patients were referred by Petitioner in 1988. In examining what had been referred out in 1988 in number of patients, the number of visits on average by history and the idea of rotation of referrals, Petitioner cannot achieve the performance level it predicts. Moreover, projections for population in 1990 and 1991, the furtherest years out given by Petitioner in support of its application, don't change this impression because the increases in population will not justify the Petitioner's projections on market share as a function of number of visits. The estimates of visits at 1990 and 1991 based upon 50% retention of referrals projected from Petitioner's hospital for home health services is unrealistic in that retention could be as low as 15% to 20%. Therefore, visits would be much less than 5,693 and 7,950 in 1990 and 1991, respectively. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 22.) The failing in the estimate of performance level means that the revenue projections are inaccurate. Although Petitioner is a not for profit institution, its proposed home health operation is not seen to be financially feasible in the short term or long view. The fact that approximately 80% of costs in a home health operation are variable and that home health delivery is cost-based reimbursed does not relieve the Petitioner from giving a more realistic estimate of those costs, its performance and net financial position. The effect of this failing leaves the record unclear and the trier of fact unconvinced concerning the true facts about this project's financial feasibility. The pro formas as written do not identify employee benefits ranging in costs from 25% to 30%. Transportation costs are not reflected. If other facts were favorable to Petitioner, there would be very little additional costs associated with the start-up of its operation. Only minor "sprucing up" would be necessary before occupying existing space. Excess office furniture is currently available at the hospital. The addition of Petitioner as a provider of home health services will not significantly advance variety or quality of care sufficient to justify the issuance of a CON. At present, existing providers offer a wide variety of home health services and provide quality care. The fact that the Petitioner is a hospital based not for profit institution, does not alter these findings. The addition of Petitioner promotes no positive influence in competition in the market place. The risk is presented that overall cost in the health care system can be increased if the Petitioner is added and the market place becomes overburdened. Based upon past experience, the Intervenor needs to achieve around 8,700 visits a year to be financially viable, and to break even. Petitioner's proposal together with other competitors in the market, some recently arrived, Upjohn, VNA and Gulf Coast Home Health Services jeopardize the ability to remain financially viable. Nothing can be done about the other competitors, but the issue of Petitioner's presence can be dealt with and should be rejected as an outcome. At a minimum the addition of Petitioner does not foster cost containment in that it could cause the existing providers to up requests for reimbursement nearer the caps in the Medicare segment at public expense. While there is a need for homemaker services in Citrus County, that fact doesn't justify the grant of a CON to Petitioner because it is willing to provide them. In home health care delivery there is credible evidence that initial economies of scale occur between 6,000 to 9,000 visits per annum. There is a serious question about the Petitioner's ability to achieve that level of performance under the facts found previously. When initially reviewing the compliance of the application with the 1986 District III Health Plan, in addition to problems of compliance with the need methodology in that plan, Petitioner did not respond to the need for home health services in Hamilton County and expansion of the range of services in Columbia and Suwannee Counties. These counties are within District III. These latter items concerning the other counties do not hinder the Petitioner's attempt to gain a CON because at present the decision to grant or deny a CON is on a district-wide and not county-by-county basis. Therefore, in theory, the Petitioner could serve Hamilton, Columbia and Suwannee Counties. Admittedly, that is unlikely given the proximity of these counties to Citrus County. More importantly, there has been no showing that some other applicant entitled to comparative review with the Petitioner sought to serve the other three counties putting into effect the local planning guidelines on priorities for grant of a CON. Likewise the local planning council methodology is of no moment. It deals with a county-wide analysis, not a district-wide analysis of need. The district-wide concept applies in this case per the change in the method of assessment that was fostered by the agreement to wait for the Respondent to enact a rule methodology and with that delay the tacit acceptance of the idea that approved and licensed home health providers could expand their services throughout the district. By contrast the fact that the local council reported that 148% of need was being met in Citrus County is telling and works against Petitioner. Finally, the support of the application by the local council as advisor to the Respondent is noteworthy but cannot overturn the adverse facts in this hearing which cause the application to be rejected. Petitioner is basically in compliance with the Florida State Health Plan in effect at the time of application except for the question of whether the Petitioner can achieve the aforementioned economies of scale at 6,000 to 9,000 visits per annum and the possible adverse influence on existing providers in maintaining economies of scale. Rule 10-5.0111(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, supra, is the product of a considerable effort by Respondent to establish a balanced method of measuring the need for additional home health care providers in the various districts throughout the state. Unfortunately, it has limited utility in trying to resolve this controversy. The proponents of the use of the rule point out that nothing in the rule states that it cannot be applied retroactively to the case facts. Intervenor reminds us that nothing says it can be applied in that way. As hinted before, the rule cannot be seen to apply retroactively as it is written to render a defensible projection of need at the theoretical planning horizon of January, 1988. First, the service area in December, 1986 through January, 1988 was in reality Citrus County, not the district. There is no way to postulate who might have taken advantage of the opportunity to serve the overall district and come into Citrus County from outlying counties within the district because that was not allowed as a matter of right back then as it is now in the terms of the rule. The present situation has shown that there is such interest in coming into Citrus County with the addition of Upjohn, VNA and Gulf Coast Home Health Services. Next, the idea of who would have been shown as approved as a home health agency taking into account the January, 1988 planning horizon cannot reasonably be ascertained. The annual fixed need pool publication did not occur such that one could see who had been approved, or held a CON, one month prior to that publication to serve the district. Although one could argue that the identification of the pool can be hypothetically set for the fall of 1986, problems with identifying the 1985 data to establish that pool based upon information that was available to the Respondent at the time to announce the pool or availability of a complete data set about 1985 at the point of hearing persist. Associated with this dilemma is the influence agency expansions into other counties would have on calculation of CEAS. In the area of CEAS the exact nature of that situation cannot be ascertained. It cannot because one doesn't know which existing providers might have determined to go out of the counties in which they had offered their services and into other counties to open new units. This would have some influence on the average agency size within the district, which in turn causes a possible different answer in deriving the number of needed providers by the use of the formula. All this makes the exercise of accurately setting the pool unlikely and it wasn't done in this hearing. In using the district-wide service analysis back in time to fit the Petitioner's situation, an application by VNA in District III, Alachua County, pending and denied in December, 1987, the same month as Petitioner's denial, was not comparatively reviewed with the Petitioner as the law would theoretically require. VNA was subsequently approved and is functioning now. Consequently, comparative review is no longer possible. On the topic of the 1985 data, which is mandated in exercising the rule, what data in this category was available in the fall of 1986 is uncertain. The data about 1985 presently held by the Respondent is incomplete. This incompleteness is in AHAV where visits in all categories cannot be shown for 1985. This tends to understate what the formula derives as an answer. The derived answer for needed agencies is .7, rounded up per terms in the rule is one agency if the other factors that were described are ignored. They should not be. Especially, compelling is the existence of VNA, Alachua County which could use up the net need of one agency. Concerning the applicants who waited for the Respondent to enact a rule who applied for a CON in the period June, 1985 through December, 1987, the Respondent modified the use of the rule. In its thinking to make certain that no applicant along that time continuum was treated unfairly, Respondent picked 1986 data and a July, 1988 planning horizon in deciding the question of need. The result in the Petitioner's case was to use inappropriate data and an inappropriate planning horizon, according to the rule. This produced an answer of 1.1 agencies rounded down to 1. This is the same answer as before and no purpose is served in criticizing the Respondent's choice to deviate from the terms of the rule. On balance the concept of this rule as opposed to the ability to use the rule per se may look appealing as an abstraction, but it is unappealing as a means to resolve the factual dispute. It superimposes a system of district review at a time of county level service. For that reason, it cannot answer the riddle of how many providers would have exercised the right to serve Citrus County from other counties in the district as they have begun to do when the rule took effect in September, 1988. Using the rule retroactively anticipates a planning horizon which is already past. In recognition of this anomaly the parties have spoken to the future in their proof through the years 1990 and 1991. This has been necessitated by the agreement to wait for the Respondent to enact a new home health rule. That future is not conducive to the grant of the CON on the facts in this case which are more instructive about the true need in the district than the exercise of the formula in some past period. Had the Petitioner chosen to reapply and fallen under the clear terms of the rule, the result might be different. It did not, and it must accept the results of that choice.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of facts found in the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which denies the request for Certificate of Need as applied for by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Boone, Boone, Klingbell Boone & Roberts, P.A. 1001 Avenida Del Circo P. O. Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Stephen M. Presnell, Esquire Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James C. Hauser, Esquire Joy Heath Thomas, Esquire Messer, Vickers, Caparello, French & Madsen, P.A. O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-0386 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Finding of Facts The first paragraph and the first sentence to the second paragraph are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentences within paragraph 2 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 3 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 4-7 are subordinate to facts found with exception the last sentence in paragraph 7 which is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 8 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 9 may express the statement of policy by the Respondent, but it is not an acceptable outcome in this instance. Paragraphs 10-12 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is an accurate portrayal of the facts as far as its goes; however, it does not account for the problems of imposing the new home health rule over the time period associated with the filing date in this application. Paragraphs 14-16 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 17 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 18 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 19 is not necessary to resolution of dispute. Paragraph 20 in all sentences except the latter is subordinate to facts found. The latter sentence is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 21 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 22 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 23 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 24 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 25 is true in that at the time the local health council examined the application there was an indicated need for home health for Medicare and indigent patients. That need is being met at present to the extent that those classes of patients have been made aware of the existence of the home health services. Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 27 and 28 are contrary to facts found. Suggestions in Paragraph 29 do not comport with the situation in Citrus County at present. Paragraph 30 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 31 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 32-36 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 37 and 38 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 39-43 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 44 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 45-51 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 52 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 53 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 54-56 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 57 is subordinate to facts found. As to Paragraph 58 it is uncertain whether the staff levels are adequate given the failure to accurately portray the volume of visits. In a related sense, Paragraph 59 as to salary level made to depicts the cost of those salaries, but it fails to include the benefits. Paragraph 60 is to general in its contention. It does not answer the failure to identify the more reasonable statement of staffing levels. Paragraph 61 is subordinate to facts found. The pro formas were not clear and the complementary proof offered at hearing did not confirm the assertion set out in paragraph 62. Paragraphs 63-65 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 66 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 67 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 68 is not necessary to the-resolution of dispute. Paragraph 69 depicts a situation that is to speculative to have relevance in this case. Paragraphs 70 and 71 are contrary to facts found. While the Paragraphs 72-74 accurately states the circumstance related to the intervenor in its initial involvement in the market. This situation has changed since that time and if Petitioner were to gain entry into the market the probability is that the intervenor's business would be seriously impacted. Paragraph 75 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 76 and 77 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 78 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 79-82 with exception of the last sentence in 82 are subordinate to facts found. The last sentence in paragraph 82 is not accepted. Paragraph 83 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 84 and 85 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 86 is true if one fails to take into account the advent of services by the intervenor and additional providers who has come into the market who are willing to undertake service to those patients. Paragraphs 87 and 88 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 89 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 90 and 91 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 92 is subordinate to facts found. In Paragraph 93, while it is true that Petitioner has an excellent record of service to the Medicaid population in Citrus County, it is unclear why Medicaid patients are not receiving sufficient home health services, compared to what one would expect the demand to be. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1-3 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 4-6 are contrary to facts found. Suggestion in Paragraph 7 is not a certainty and is not accepted in the fashion presented in these proposed facts. Paragraphs 8-10 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 11 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 12 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 13 and 14 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 15 is a true statement if other factors which have been discussed in the recommended order are not taken into account. Paragraph 16 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 17-19 are not sufficiently relevant to this case to be reported as facts. Paragraph 20 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 21 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 22 and 23 may be basically an accurate statement of the Respondent's policies; however, this arrangement is not satisfactory on this occasion. Paragraph 24 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 25 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 27 and 28 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 29 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 30 is true if the rule was found to be applicable. Paragraph 31 and 32 are not necessary to resolution of dispute. Paragraph 33 may be true in terms of the prospective use of the rule but is not influential in this case. Paragraph 34 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 35 is speculative and has little relevance absent a showing that the expansion into the other areas within the district offset new providers coming into Citrus County, to include the Petitioner. Paragraphs 36 and 37 are subordinate to facts found. The suggestion in paragraph 38 is a statement of limited value in that there are no other competitors in District III from other batches. Paragraphs 39-43 are subordinate to facts found. The first sentence to paragraph 44 is subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentence is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 45 and 46 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 47 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 48 is accurate as for as it goes; however, it fails to take into account the fact that the Intervenor began to provide home health care to indigent and Medicaid patients. Paragraph 49 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 50 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 51-53 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 54 is subordinate to facts found. 35 The suggestion in the first sentence of paragraph 55 is true. Again it fails to take into account the change in circumstances with the advent of the Intervenor's services. The second sentence is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 56 is not in meaningful contribution to the fact finding in the context of the overall facts reported in the recommended order. Paragraphs 57 and 58 are subordinate to facts found. Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Facts Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 3-5 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 6 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 7 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 is; not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 9 through the first sentence in paragraph 16 are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentences in paragraph 16 are not necessary to the resolution in dispute nor is the first and last sentences within paragraph 17. The other sentence within paragraph 17 is subordinate to facts found. The first sentence in paragraph 18 is subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentences are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 19 through the first sentence of paragraph 23 are subordinate to facts found. The second sentence in paragraph 23 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute nor is paragraph 24. Paragraph 25 in all sentences save the last is subordinate to facts found. The last sentence is not necessary to resolution of dispute. Paragraph 26 through all sentences in paragraph 30 except the last sentence are subordinate to facts found. The last sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The first sentence of paragraph 31 is subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentence is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 32 and the first sentence to paragraph 33 are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentence in paragraph 33 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 34 and the first sentence of paragraph 35 subordinate to facts found. The last sentence in paragraph 35 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 36 through the first sentence of paragraph 38 are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentence in paragraph 38 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 39 cannot be utilized in that the rule in question was not provided to the Hearing Officer under official recognition and is unavailable to confirm the assertion set out in that paragraph. Paragraphs 40 through 43 are subordinate to facts found. The suggestions in paragraphs 44 through 45 are contrary to the impression of the Hearing Officer. Paragraphs 46 through 48 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 49 and 50 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 51 and 52 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 53 through 55 as an approach to resolving factual disputes are rejected. Paragraph 56 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 57 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 58 is not in keeping with the analysis of this case and the facts found in the recommended order nor is paragraph 59. Paragraphs 60 through 65 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 66 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 67 and the first two sentences within paragraph 68 are subordinate to facts found. Remaining sentences within paragraph 68 are not in keeping with the analysis performed in the fact finding within the recommended order. Paragraph 69 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 70 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 71 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 72 through 76 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 77 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 78 and 79 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 80 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 81-86 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 87 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 88 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 89-91 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 92 through 94 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 95 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 96 through 101 in the first sentence to that paragraph are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentences in paragraph 101 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraph 102 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 103 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 104 and 105 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 106 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 107 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 108 through 116 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 117 and 118 are not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 119 through 122 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 123 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 124-126 are subordinate to facts found. Suggestion in paragraph 127 that the rotation system will not be employed is rejected. The remaining contents within that paragraph are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 128 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragraphs 129 through 133 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 134 is contrary to the facts found. Paragraph 135 is contrary to the facts found. Paragraph 136 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute.
Findings Of Fact The Applicants And Their Applications Petitioner, Medical Personnel Pool of Southwest Florida, Inc. (Medical Personnel Pool), is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Medical Personnel Pool, Inc., an operating division of Personnel Pool of America, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of H & R Block, Inc. Personnel Pool of America, Inc., operates 215 home health agency offices in 42 states and in Canada, 145 of which are Medicare-certified. In Florida, Medical Personnel Pool, Inc., operates 27 offices, 5 of which are Medicare-certified. Medical Personnel Pool's corporate headquarters are in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Medical Personnel Pool has applied for a Certificate of Need for Medicare-certified home health services in Lee, Collier and Charlotte counties in HRS District VIII. The services are proposed to be provided out of Personnel Pool's existing Fort Myers office which has been in operation over ten years. Medical Personnel Pool's existing operations out of Fort Myers are not Medicare-certified and do not serve Medicare patients. Medical Personnel Pool has represented in its application that it will commit 2% of its total visits to Medicaid patients and one hour of uncompensated visits to indigent patients for every 20 hours of visits to Medicare patients for which it is reimbursed. The indigent commitment would be recorded and accumulated until the commitment reaches the approximately 10 to 20 visits necessary to start and finish a case for an indigent patient. Medical Personnel Pool also represents that it will operate all of its home health services out of the same corporate entity out of which it operates Medicare-certified home health services. In this way, Medical Personnel Pool is committing to charge its Medicare-certified patients no more than it charges its private pay patients. Petitioner, DeSoto Memorial Hospital (DeSoto Memorial), is a private, not-for-profit acute care community hospital located in HRS District VIII in Arcadia, DeSoto County, Florida. DeSoto Memorial has provided health care services to DeSoto County since 1968. It is the only acute care general hospital located in DeSoto County. It provides services to patients regardless of ability to pay and commits in its application to provide 10% of its home health services to Medicaid patients and 8% to indigent patients. DeSoto Memorial has applied for a Certificate of Need to provide home health services in DeSoto County. Its proposed home health agency would be located at the existing hospital facility. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(c)1. (The need for the health care facilities and services and hospices being proposed in relation to the applicable district plan and state health plan adopted pursuant to Title XV of the Public Health Service Act, except in emergency circumstances which pose a threat to the public health.) 1985-87 State Health Plan. The 1985-87 State Health Plan states in part: "Policy makers are increasingly concerned about providers' willingness to serve Medicaid recipients and medically indigent Floridians." The State Health Plan references efforts by the Medicaid program since 1981 to increase Medicaid reimbursement for home health services and to increase medically indigent access to home health services. However, the State Health Plan concludes: "Rather than attempt to establish unrealistic performance expectations for private providers, the Legislature will either have to increase resources available to reimburse those providers for home health services to the indigent or provide support to the county health units." The State Health Plan also cites as an objective: "To assure that the number of home health agencies in each service area promote the greatest extent of competition consistent with reasonable economies of scale by 1987." It recommends: "Develop a need methodology based on historic cost data for Florida home health agencies." However, the evidence in this case was that additional Medicare-certified home health agencies will not significantly contribute to price competition. To the contrary, the evidence was that additional Medicare-certified home health agencies actually will cause a relatively small increase in the cost of Medicare-certified home health services. This cost increase will be small because home health services are not capital intensive, and duplication of services and under-utilization of home health services will not require as much of a price increase to cover costs as would duplication of services and under-utilization of capital intensive hospital services.(Only 2% of a home health agency's costs are capital costs while 15 to 20% of a hospital's costs are capital costs.) In addition, the price for Medicare- certified home health services is subject to a cap which most home health services already are close to. Additional numbers of home health agencies would foster competition in the quality of services and responsiveness of services to the needs and wants of the patients in an area. Additional Medicare-certified home health agencies that serve a significant percentage of Medicaid recipients and medically-indigent patients would have a competitive advantage in getting referrals over Medicare-certified home health agencies that do not serve Medicaid recipients and the medically-indigent. To compete, existing Medicare-certified home health agencies probably would initiate comparable service for Medicaid and medically-indigent patients. This desirable effect of competition would help alleviate the policy makers' concerns referred to in Finding Of Fact 7 above. But see Conclusion Of Law 1 below. (ii.) District VIII Local Health Council Health Plan. The 1985 District VIII Local Health Council Health Plan adopted August 21, 1985 states: "Home health care services are generally available to all residents within District Eight." However, this conclusion drawn by the local health council is based upon an application of HRS proposed rule 10-5.11(14), Florida Administrative Code. This rule has been held invalid. See, Final Order, Home Health Services and Staffing Association, et al. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 85-1377R, March 12, 1986. In addition, based upon the evidence in this case, the proposed rule does not accurately assess the need for the home health agencies proposed by Medical Personnel Pool and DeSoto Memorial. See Findings Of Fact 27 through 70 below. The District Health Plan also establishes sub- districts. Pertinent to this case, Charlotte County, Collier County, DeSoto County and Lee County are established as separate sub-districts. Sarasota County also is established as a separate sub-district. Glades and Hendry counties are combined as the last sub-district. The District Health Plan's sub-district designations were established on the basis that they: (1) have a geographic size which meets reasonable travel distances and travel times; (2) have a population size adequate to support at least one agency; (3) are geo-politically consistent; and (4) have available population, socio-economic and health statistics to document use rates and projections. The District Health Plan also recommends: "Sub- districts without a home health agency office in one or more of its principle [sic] communities should be identified as a priority area for the expansion or new establishment of a home health agency." In addition, the District Health Plan establishes the policy: "Continuity of patient care should be assured through the establishment of formal coordination arrangements between home health agencies, and physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, and community social service agencies and organizations." Finally, as another policy, the District Health Plan states: "Home health care should be accessible to all persons in need, regardless of ability to pay or source of payment." But see Conclusions Of Law 1 below. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(c)2. (The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant.) There are 19 existing licensed Medicare-certified home health agencies (sometimes referred to simply as home health agencies) with home offices in District VIII. This number excludes Home Care Services of Hendry County which ceased operations as of March 22, 1985. In addition, one home health agency in District VIII has been approved, but is not yet licensed and operating. (Homecare of Glades and Hendry Counties, approved in a later batching cycle is now on administrative appeal in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 85-4308, should not be counted as available for purposes of assessing the need for the Medical Personnel Pool or DeSoto Memorial proposals.) In addition, three home health agencies with home offices outside District VIII in Manatee County hold licenses enabling them to operate within District VIII. But one of them Visiting Nurses Association of Hardee County ceased operations in District VIII (DeSoto County) approximately six months before the final hearing in this case. These home health agencies are referred to in HRS proposed rule 10-5.11(14) as multi-district agencies. They also are commonly referred to as cross-over agencies. The total number of available home health agencies in District VIII is 22. This total excludes Home Care Services of Hendry County, Visiting Nurses Association of Hardee County and Home Care of Glades and Hendry Counties. Medical Personnel Pool and DeSoto Memorial did not prove that any other of the licensed and approved home health agencies in District VIII should be excluded from the total number of available home health agencies. Five of the 22 available home health agencies are in Lee County. Four of the available home health agencies are in Charlotte County. Three additional home health agencies have home offices in other counties, but are licensed to operate in Charlotte County. Three of the 22 available home health agencies have home offices in Collier County. In addition, three have home offices in other counties, but are licensed to operate in Collier County. One of the 22 available home health agencies has a home office in Arcadia in DeSoto County. In addition, another home health agency is licensed to operate in DeSoto County, but has its home office in another county. Neither Medical Personnel Pool nor DeSoto Memorial proved or disproved the quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness or extent of utilization of the 22 available home health agencies in District VIII. The accessibility and adequacy of the 22 available home health agencies in District VIII actually is addressed by an analysis of the need for the Medical Personnel Pool and DeSoto Memorial proposals. See Findings Of Fact 27 through 70 below. Analysis of Need for the Proposed Home Health Agencies. (i) HRS proposed Rule 10-5.11(14), Florida Administrative Code. The basic approach of the invalid HRS proposed Rule 10- 5.11(14) was to apply historical use rates for specific age cohorts of the population to the projected population within those age cohorts in a given district in a future year, or "planning horizon." This widely-accepted type of approach to projecting need is referred to by health planners as a "utilization-based methodology." There were five steps included in the methodology of the proposed rule. The first step was to project the number of elderly Medicare recipients who would utilize home health services. This number is denoted by the letter "A". To calculate "A", one multiplied the projected population aged 65 and over in the district by a constant which was intended to represent a percentage of the elderly who have historically used home health services. The proposed rule included a number, or a constant, to be used for this purpose. The value of the constant presented in the proposed rule, .0496, purportedly represented the percentage of elderly Medicare enrollees who actually used home health services in Florida in 1982. This percentage for'.. 1982 was misstated in the proposed rule and should have been 5.06% (.0506), rather than 4.96% (.0496). HRS has now acknowledged this error and agrees that .0506 (5.06%) was the appropriate 1982 age 65-and-over utilization rate. According to the proposed rule, then, to calculate the number of elderly people projected to need home health services, the population aged 65 years-and-over two years in the future was to be multiplied by the 1982 use rate for this group, .0506 (5.06%). The second step in the methodology of the proposed rule was to project the number of disabled under-65 Medicare recipients ("B") who will utilize home health services. To calculate "B", one first multiplied the projected district population two years in the future under the age of 65 by the percentage of that population estimated to be disabled. In the proposed rule, HRS used constants for both the proportion of the population under 65 years of age which was projected to be disabled (.01755), and the portion of those disabled persons who would be expected to use home health services (.0297). As in the first step, these values were taken from 1982 Medicare utilization data for Florida. Thus, in the second step of the formula under the proposed rule, the number of under-65 disabled persons who were projected to need Medicare home health services equaled the number of persons in the district under the age of 65 two years in the future, multiplied by .017555, the result of which was then multiplied by .0297. The third step of the proposed rule's formula projected the number of Medicare home health visits (as opposed to persons) needed in the district two years in the future, by multiplying the total projected number of people needing Medicare home health services by the historical number of average visits per person for Florida in 1982. The average number of visits per person in 1982 was 31.5, also derived from 1982 Medicare data. The total number of home health visits was projected as being equal to "A" plus "B", or the sum of the first two steps, multiplied by 31.5. The fourth step of the formula of the proposed rule calculated the number of needed Medicare home health agencies, given the number of projected Medicare visits calculated in the third step. The gross number of Medicare agencies projected as needed in the planning horizon ("G") was calculated by dividing the number of projected total Medicare visits per agency per year ("S"). "S" was determined through another calculation, and varied, depending upon the total number of projected Medicare visits in the district and the calendar year in which a CON application was filed. "S" was obtained by adding to a presumed base agency size of 9,000 Medicare visits per year, an additional adjusted number of visits (the so-called "additive factor"). This adjusted number of visits equaled the total projected number of Medicare visits divided by 9,000, then multiplied by what was called the "C" factor. The "C" factor varied with the calendar year in which an application was filed. For applications which were filed in 1984 and 1985, "C" was equal to 270. For applications to be filed in 1986 and 1987, "C" was equal to 225. For applications to be filed in 1988 or later, "C" was equal to 180. If the calculation of "S" resulted in a number which was larger than 21,000, then "S" was to be assigned a value equal to 21,000. This meant that the divisor "S", or the number of visits an agency was expected to provide, would range from 9,000 visits to 21,000 visits. Thus, districts would have different values for "S", and even within a district, the value of "S" would vary from year to year. The fifth and last step of the formula was to calculate the net number of Medicare-certified home health agencies needed ("N"). "N" was calculated by subtracting the number of "licensed and approved" agencies currently located in a district from the gross number of agencies projected as needed in the planning horizon, "G". The number of "licensed and approved" agencies, denoted as "L" in the proposed rule, included a count of all licensed agencies located within a district and all approved agencies that are not yet licensed. As of the date of the final hearing in this case, HRS was applying proposed Rule 10-5.11(14) to its review of home health agency CON applications, as though the rule were in full force and effect, with several significant modifications to the express language of the proposed rule. First, as noted above, HRS had agreed that its use of the value .0496 in Factor "A" of the published proposed rule was the result of an erroneous reading of the published 1982 Health Care Financing Administration ("HCFA") home health utilization rates for over-65 persons in Florida, and that the correct 1982 value was .0506. Second, HRS had abandoned the requirement of the published version of the proposed rule that decimal values of "G" always be rounded down to the next lower whole number and had modified its application of the proposed rule to conventional rounding of value "G", i.e., decimal values of .5 or greater were rounded up to the next larger whole number, and decimal values less than .5 were rounded down to the next lower whole number. In applying proposed Rule 10-5.11(14) in its review of Medical Personnel Pool's CON application, HRS included in the inventory of licensed and approved agencies ("L") three (3) agencies located in other districts, which although licensed to serve individual counties in District VIII, were not licensed to serve any of the counties in Medical Personnel Pool's proposed service area, and which had not yet applied for nor been approved to set up new agencies or sub-units in District XI under the now defunct paragraph (e) of the former proposed rule. The "additive factor" is the term which has been used to refer to everything appearing to the right of the first appearance of the figure 9,000 in the definition of the divisor, factor "S," of the methodology found in paragraph (a) of the former proposed rule. As previously discussed, the purpose of the divisor in the formula of paragraph (a) of the former proposed rule was to convert the expected number of Medicare visits needed in the appropriate planning horizon to a gross number of Medicare home health agencies needed. In order to accomplish this, an agency size of some sort had to be used, defined by number of visits, for the denominator in the formula. One intent of the value in the denominator in the methodology of the former proposed rule was to represent an optimal minimum efficient economic operating size. The premise for this concept of optimal minimum efficient economic operating size was a health planning concept that below a certain minimum range of agency size in number of visits, fixed start-up costs result in a relatively high cost per visit ratio for new small agencies. All of the available data indicates that there is a range of "economies of scale" in costs per visit for new start-up home health agencies, breaking somewhere between 6,000 and 9,000 or 10,000 visits. Once this breaking point is reached, the relatively small level of fixed costs in home health level off, and the data do not show any further significant points of economies of scale. Specifically, a distinction must be drawn between the theoretical economies of scale argument and what the actual available reported data show to be the experience of the home health industry in Florida. Using a sample of over 85% of the home health agencies in Florida (all of the agencies cost reporting through the State's Medicare fiscal intermediary), and plotting their actual reported 1984 number of visits and cost per visit, it is clearly seen that there is no predictable relationship between actual reported agency size in visits and actual reported cost per visit. A statistical regression analysis performed on this same data for three years experience, i.e., 1982, 1983 and 1984, confirms this absolute lack of any significant relationship between reported agency size and reported agency cost per visit in Florida's existing Medicare home health agencies. For example, in the most recent reporting year, the largest agency in Hillsborough County also reported the highest cost per visit in Hillsborough County. Further, whatever argument these may be as to economies of scale and start-up costs for a new home health agency, the undisputed evidence is that an existing, fully-staffed, fully- equipped home health agency has all of its necessary patient referral sources in place and functioning. Thus, the economies of scale argument relating to start-up costs of new home health agencies is not applicable to existing agencies. Nevertheless, to accomplish the goals of translating gross number of visits projected as needed in the appropriate planning horizon to gross number of Medicare agencies needed, HRS proposed in the methodology of its former proposed rule to use a denominator of 9,000 visits, inflated by the so-called additive factor in two ways, i.e., (1) by incorporating an additive factor of total Medicare visits in the district, divided by 9,000, and (2) by then multiplying this ratio by the so-called "C" factor, which consists of three different arbitrary values, 3% of 9,000 (270), 2 1/2% of 9,000 (225), and 2% of 9,000 (180), depending on the filing year of the application being reviewed. This entire value was then added to 9,000 visits. The effect of including "MV" divided by 9,000 in the additive factor was to yield a final value for this factor, with or without the "C" multiplier, which varied in size from one HRS Local Health Planning District to any other. This occurred because "MV" would differ from district to district, driven as it was by district population in the given planning horizon. For the same reason, this ratio within the additive factor would also vary from year to year. Absolutely no rationale or purpose has been offered for thus varying the "target agency size" from district to district and year to year. This result of including MV/9,000 in the additive factor is, therefore, totally arbitrary in its own right. As previously noted, the "additive factor" contained its own internal additive factor; a multiplier referred to as "C". The arbitrary values which were substituted for "C" are set forth above. In its first value, "C" caused the methodology of the proposed rule to yield a statewide average district net need under the formula as proposed of only two (2) new agencies, the closest whole value possible to the existing number of Medicare home health agencies as of the date of the proposed rule's publication. The only evidence tending to explain the derivation of "C" is testimony that HRS files contained several computer "runs," each with a different value and showing different net need results, and that the value chosen by HRS for the first two years (270) yielded the overall statewide average district net need which closest approximated the status quo. No evidence was introduced to show how either the values attributed to "C" or the existence of "C" itself were empirically justified or served a valid health planning purpose. Proposed Rule 10-5.11(14) provided for annual updating of the projected population data to be used therein, but froze as "standards" the 1982 Medicare Florida home health agency utilization rates which appeared in factors "A," "B," and "C". More recent use rates, i.e., 1983 values for each of these use rates, are, and have been, readily available. This data, published by HCFA, is released at least annually, and is readily available to anyone requesting it, with a minimum of effort. It is unreasonable not to update these utilization rates to the most recent available data. In addition, there are several specific health planning reasons why refusal to consider the readily available updated 1983 use rates would be unreasonable in this case. First, since at least 1978, when such records became available, HCFA data has shown a steady and consistent trend of increases in all three of these utilization rates, both in Florida and in the nation as a whole. There are several reasons explaining this trend: there have been ever-increasing pressures in the health care delivery system to "deinstitutionalize" patient services, with an emphasis on outpatient and home health services a major part of the reason for this emphasis is budgetary restraints home health services are far less expensive than comparable inpatient services; there has been an increase in the need for home health services for younger populations for things such as post-surgical care; there have been innovative technological developments in home health care, including the so-called hi-tech services which in the recent past, if available at all, were only available in inpatient settings; there has been a demonstrated increased awareness of home health services and their advantages, both in the physician community and among the public at large; and there have also been significant changes and expansions in Medicare reimbursement of home health services which have encouraged increased utilization. The 1982 Medicare utilization reporting period pre- dated the October, 1983, implementation of the Medicare prospective payment system for hospitals, which has been identified as a specific cause of increased home utilization. Furthermore, most of the previously discussed innovative hi-tech home health services were not in use in home health in 1982, and that reporting year's data ignores their effect on home health utilization. The proposed rule, in paragraph (e), provided that home health agencies shall be restricted to providing services within a single departmental district. The proposed rule further provided that any multi-district or cross-over agency should be included in the inventory of the home health agencies in the district into which it crosses over. As reflected in Findings Of Fact 19 and 20 above, multi-district or cross-over agencies should logically be taken into account in determining the adequacy of existing home health agencies to serve the needs of a particular district. Multi-district or cross-over agencies are licensed to operate in some of District VIII and must be presumed to be operating in parts of the district absent a showing that they are not. In this case, the evidence was that one of the three multi-district or cross-over agencies Visiting Nurses Association of Hardee County is not operating in District VIII, but there was no similar evidence as to the other two multi- district or cross-over agencies. Those two should be counted in District VIII's inventory of home health agencies. HRS did not prove by the evidence in this case that proposed Rule 10-5.11(14), if proposed as non-rule policy, is reasonable. (ii.) Quantification of Need. As mentioned, the utilization method of quantifying need for Medicare-certified home health agencies is a reasonable approach. As also mentioned, it is most reasonable and accurate to use the most recent available utilization data for 1983 in quantifying need for Medicare-certified home health agencies. According to the 1983 data: (1) 5.78% of elderly Medicare enrollees receive home health services; (2) 0.058% of the population under 65 receive Medicare home health services and (3) recipients average 33.3 home health visits each. The next element of quantifying need is determining the planning horizon on which the need is to be projected. The evidence in this case was persuasive that it is reasonable to project need two years into the future from the date of the final hearing. The date of the final hearing itself would roughly coincide with a planning horizon two years from the date the applications were deemed complete. This would leave no lead time for start-up. While the evidence was that start-up time is relatively minimal in home health, it cannot be assumed that start-up would begin at or near the time of the final hearing. The Recommended Order has just now been entered, and an additional period of time can be expected to elapse before final agency action. Finally, placing the planning horizon two years from the date of the final hearing is consistent with past agency policy before the decision in Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 10 FLW 1983 (Fla. 1st DCA, August 20, 1985); clarified on rehearing, 11 FLW 437 (February 14, 1986). Using the 1983 utilization data, the gross number of visits projected for 1988 can be obtained by multiplying the projected district population of persons 65 years of age or older times the 5.78% utilization rate and adding that number to the product of the projected district population of persons aged O to times 0.058%, the percentage of persons 0 to 64 estimated to be using Medicare home health services. Using this method, the total number of visits projected in District VIII for 1988 is 449,483. Having determined the estimated number of total visits, this number must then be translated into number of home health agencies by dividing the total by a number of visits per home health agency. Because of economies of scale, this number must be at least in the range between 6,000 and 10,000 visits per agency. The evidence is that, beyond the minimum size for a home health agency, there is no causal and predictable relationship between number of visits per agency and the cost; efficiency of a home health agency. Some of the evidence has suggested that total number of visits in a district should therefore be divided by the minimum agency size. But this would change the analysis from the analysis of the need for an additional home health agency to an analysis whether the market could bear an additional home health agency. Whether certificate of need regulation in the area of home health makes sense on the evidence of this case, the rationality of the law in effect must be presumed. Under the law in effect, the analysis must measure the need for an additional home health agency, not the ability of the market to absorb an additional home health agency. See Conclusion Of Law 3 below. Throughout the state, the number of Medicare visits per home health agency varies broadly from the minimum size agency to almost 80,000 visits per year. In District VIII, Redi-care operated in 1984 at 34,641 visits, while another agency in the district operated at only approximately a tenth of those visits. The District VIII average in 1984 was 19,206 per year. Since there are no apparent economies of scale above six to ten thousand visits per year, there is no general optimum size for a home health agency. The volume at which a home health agency can efficiently operate is instead a function of demographics. The size of a home health agency will vary in relationship to the size and composition of the population within reach of the agency and the number of other agencies actively competing for the same market. For this reason, the most appropriate available number to use as the visits per agency per year for planning purposes is the number of visits per year agencies are now making. The only evidence of this nature in the record is the average size of home health agencies in District VIII in 198419,206 visits per year or, approximately, 19,000 visits per year. 449,483 visits divided by 19,000 visits per year results in 23.7 or, rounding, 24 Medicare-certified home health agencies needed in District VIII. As previously discussed, there are for planning purposes 22 licensed and approved Medicare-certified home health agencies in District VIII, resulting in a net need in District VIII in 1988 for 24 minus 22, or 2 Medicare-certified home health agencies. However, the evidence in this case is that Medicare- certified home health agencies are limited by federal regulations and practical considerations to a range of approximately 50 miles and by HRS to the counties of their licensure. (HRS proposed Rule 10-5.11(14), Florida Administrative Code, would have expanded licensees' authority to operate throughout the district, but it has been held invalid and is not in effect.) Therefore, it is not rational for planning purposes to end a home health need analysis at the district level. If, for example, the two agencies needed in District VIII are needed in the southern part of the district, it would serve no health planning purpose to authorize two additional agencies in the northern part of the district. There are two ways of analyzing home health need on a sub-district basis: First, using the utilization method, and secondly, allocating district-wide need by percentage of the elderly population in each sub-district. Under the utilization method, Lee County is projected to require 147,686 Medicare home health visits in 1988. Dividing the total visits by the district average-sized agency (their being no evidence of the average size per agency on a county basis), Lee County would need 7.8 or, rounding, 8 Medicare- certified home health agencies. Since Lee County only has five existing or approved Medicare-certified home health agencies at this time, it has a net need of three agencies. On the other hand, using the same analysis, the Charlotte, Collier and DeSoto Counties have no need projected for 1988. For Charlotte County: 64,735 visits divided by 19,000 per agency per year equals 3.4 or, roughly, three Medicare-certified agencies needed in 1988. Charlotte County now has four Medicare- certified home health agencies with home offices in Charlotte County, and three others are licensed to operate in Charlotte County. Collier County is projected to have 57,909 visits divided by 19,000 visits per agency per year equals a need for three agencies projected for 1988. Collier now has three agencies based in Collier County and three others licensed to operate there. In DeSoto County, only 7,659 visits are projected for 1988. This is less than the average-sized agency in District VIII, but it is assumed that there is a need for one home health agency in DeSoto County in 1988. There is one based in DeSoto County now, and another is authorized to operate there. Multiplying the total district-wide need of 22 Medicare-certified home health agencies projected for 1988 by the pertinent county's percentage of the elderly population of District VIII results in the following allocation: Lee County 32.785% x 22 = 7.2 Collier County 12.77% x 22 = 2.8 Charlotte County 14.54% x 22 = 3.2 DeSoto County 1.67% x 22 = .4 As a result of this sub-district analysis, it becomes apparent that there is a need for at least two additional Medicare-certified home health agencies in Lee County, but there is no quantifiable need elsewhere in District VIII projected for 1988. (iii.) Other Need Considerations. Since 1978, utilization of home health services in Florida has consistently increased in all categories for which utilization rates are kept the number of persons over the age of using home health services, the number and percent of disabled persons under the age of 65 using home health services, and the average number of visits provided per patient per spell of illness. In recent years, there also have been significant innovations and reimbursement changes in health care, both in home health and elsewhere in the health care industry, which have significantly increased the utilization of home health services. In October, 1983, hospitals came under the new Medicare prospective payment system whereby they no longer are reimbursed for services to Medicare patients on a reported cost basis, but rather are reimbursed on a fixed-fee-for-service basis, known as Diagnostic Related Groupings, or "DRGs". Hospitals are now reimbursed a fixed amount for each defined DRG service or procedure, regardless of the costs incurred by the hospitals in delivering that service. The effect of this new reimbursement methodology has been to encourage hospitals to find ways to deliver services at lower costs, and thus maximize reimbursement. One obvious way to accomplish this is to shorten the length of the patient's stay in the hospital. Another is to defer several services, previously performed in an inpatient setting, to home health providers for provision in the patient's home, or on an outpatient basis with subsequent follow-up care in the patient's home. In either event, the experience of the industry has been that since the implementation of DRGs, many patients are being discharged by hospitals sooner, in a sicker or more acute condition, and in greater need of home health services. At the same time, the industry has experienced the recent development of several so-called hi-tech home health services more advanced treatment and care procedures now being widely provided in the home, which a very short time ago were only provided in inpatient settings. These services include such procedures as chemotherapy, hyper-alimentation, and various other forms of indirect tube feeding. In addition, the industry has seen the development of new modernized equipment which has enabled many of these and other advanced procedures to be provided more inexpensively in the home. Complicating matters further, Florida's nursing homes have, for some time now, been operating at very full levels. Often the physician is left with only two choices - very expensive hospitalization or home health care. Some of these other need considerations already have been taken into account in the quantification of need just analyzed. The analysis does not, however, take into account continued increases in utilization after 1983 which, while not exactly speculative, are not certain and are not quantifiable. DeSoto Memorial's proposal for a hospital-based home health agency affords some advantages in enabling DeSoto Memorial to utilize currently under-utilized hospital facilities and services. It also increases the likelihood that patients will benefit from better continuity of care. However, the evidence did not prove or disprove the extent of continuity of care which can now be achieved without the DeSoto Memorial proposal as a result of efforts to coordinate care of patients among the hospital, the existing home health agencies and the physicians. In other words, while continuity of care using existing home health providers may take more effort, there is no evidence that it cannot be provided. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(c)3. (The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care.) The parties have stipulated to the ability of both Medical Personnel Pool and DeSoto Memorial to provide quality care. Both applicants have the ability to provide socalled "hi-tech" home health services such as chemotherapy and indirect tube feeding. As previously mentioned, the DeSoto Memorial proposal will facilitate continuity of care. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(c)8. (The availability of resources, including health manpower, management of personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation; the effects the project will have on clinical needs of health professional training programs in the service district the extent to which the services will be accessible to schools for health professions in the service district for training purposes if such services are available in a limited number of facilities the availability of alternative uses of such resources for the provision of other health services and the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district.) Both Medical Personnel Pool and DeSoto Memorial have available the resources, including health manpower, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures necessary to accomplish and operate the project. There was no evidence of the effects of either project on clinical needs of health professional training programs. There was no evidence that the services proposed by either Medical Personnel Pool or DeSoto Memorial will be available to schools for health professions in the service district for training purposes, or that such services are available in a limited number of facilities. As proposed home health agencies, both the Medical Personnel Pool and the DeSoto Memorial applications will use resources largely only to extent necessary. Capital investment is relatively minimal, and nurses and other personnel providing home health services to patients can be hired on an hourly basis as needed. To the extent not needed, those resources would be available for the provision of other health services that might be needed. The DeSoto Memorial proposal for a hospital-based home health agency would be particularly capable of using such resources for alternative uses. The Medicare-certified home health services proposed by both Medical Personnel Pool and DeSoto Memorial will be accessible to all residents of the service district within approximately 50 miles of the proposed agencies. As previously mentioned, there is a geographic limit to the economic delivery of home health services from any one agency. However, except for Lee County, all residents of District VIII will have access to Medicare-certified home health services without either of the proposals. There is a demonstrated lack of access to Medicaid reimbursable home health services and to home health services for the indigent. However, those services are not the subject of this proceeding. See Conclusions Of Law 1. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(c)9. (The immediate and long- term financial feasibility of the proposal.) The parties have stipulated to the immediate and long- term financial feasibility of both the Medical Personnel Pool and the DeSoto Memorial proposal. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(c)12. (The probable impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing health services proposed by the applicant, upon consideration of factors including, but not limited to, the effects of competition on the supply of health services being proposed and the improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of health services, which foster competition and service to promote quality assurance and cost-effectiveness.) As previously mentioned, additional competition in Medicare-certified home health services probably would tend to improve the quality of the services provided, give providers incentive to meet the needs and desires of the patients in the service area and foster innovations in the home health area. As to price competition, there was no evidence that competition in Medicare-certified home health services will have any positive effect on the cost of home health services in the service district. Actually, the evidence was that additional home health agencies would be likely to increase slightly the charges for home health services. These increases would be subject to the Medicare cap which most agencies' charges already are approaching. I. Balanced Consideration of the Criteria. Balancing all the criteria that have been considered as applicable in light of the parties' stipulations, it is found that there is need and sufficient justification to grant the Medical Personnel Pool application, but only as to Lee County. There is no need for or sufficient justification to authorize Medical Personnel Pool to operate in Charlotte or Collier Counties or to grant the DeSoto Memorial application. (If need for Medicare-certified home health agencies could be based upon the needs of Medicaid and indigent patients, the evidence would support the need for both proposals as applied for.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, enter a final order: (a) granting the application of Petitioner, Personnel Pool of Southwest Florida, Inc., for a certificate of need for Medicare home health services but only for Lee County and only on the conditions (1) that Personnel Pool provide 2% of its total visits to Medicaid patients and one hour of uncompensated visits to indigent patients for every 20 hours of visits to Medicare patients for which it is reimbursed and (2) that it will operate all of its home health services out of the same corporate entity out of which it operates Medicare-certified home health services: (b) denying the Personnel Pool application as to Collier and Charlotte counties; and (c) denying the application of Petitioner, DeSoto Memorial Hospital. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of May, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1986.
Findings Of Fact On March 12, 1979, Personnel Pool of Pensacola, Inc., d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool, filed its application for certificate of Need with the Florida Panhandle Health Systems Agency, Inc. This application was deemed complete on April 2, 1979. The application as originally filed sought to receive a certificate of need which would entitle the Petitioner to offer home health care on an intermittent basis in Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties, Florida. This application was subsequently amended by dropping the request for certificate related to Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and Walton Counties, leaving at issue only Escambia County, Florida. The Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as "Personnel Pool", is a solely owned corporation of Thomas S. Siler, 1800 North Palafox Street, Pensacola, Florida 32501. His corporation was established as a franchise issued by Personnel Pool of America, Inc., a subsidiary of H & R Block Company. The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is an agency of the State of Florida, charged with the duty to evaluate the applications for certificate of need and to issue such certificates as would be appropriate under the terms of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10-5, Florida Administrative Cede. This application for certificate of need and that of the companion case of Upjohn Healthcare Home Health Agency, hereinafter referred to as "Upjohn", are also considered in accordance with the Health Systems Plan of the Florida Panhandle, effective December 15, 1978. A copy of that document may be found as the Joint Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. After receiving the application for certificate of need, that application was reviewed by the staff of the Florida Panhandle Health Systems Agency, Inc. That staff recommended disapproval of the certificate of need in a report issued on April 23, 1979. This report was supplemented by a further report of May 15, 1979, and this additional report of the staff continued to recommend disapproval of the application: On May 2, 1979, the project review committee of the Northwest Florida Sub-district recommended to the Northwest Florida Sub-district Advisory Council that the certificate of need be granted. A public hearing on the issue was held on May 8, 1979. The Northwest Florida Sub-district recommended disapproval of the project by action of May 17, 1979. When the application was presented to the Regional Council, Florida Panhandle Health Systems Agency, Inc., on May 31, 1977, that organization recommended the approval of the certificate of need to serve Escambia County, Florida, only. On June 29, 1979, after review by the Respondent, Art Forehand, the Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities, wrote the Petitioner in the person of Mr. Siler and advised Mr. Siler that the application for certificate of need had been denied. On August 2, 1979, Mr. Siler appealed the decision of denial and the case was assigned to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration which resulted in the hearing which is the subject of this Recommended Order. (The details of the various items discussed in developing the chronology of this application may be found in the Joint Composite Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence.) In presenting its case, the Petitioner principally attempted to refute the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services', hereinafter referred to as "Department", letter of June 29, 1979, which gave three reasons for denying the certificate of need. Those reasons were: The proposal is not consistent with standards and criteria established in Chapter 10-5.11(14), Rules of the Department of Health and Rehabili- tative Services. Extenuating and mitigating circumstances which may be considered in approving a Certificate of Need for a new home health agency have not been demonstrated. There are other available and adequate home health care service providers in the proposed service area which could serve as an alterative to the proposed project and prevent unnecessary duplication of resources. The first in the series of stated reasons for denying the certificate of need deals with Rule 10-5.11(14), Florida Administrative Code. The language of that provision being: (14)(a) A Certificate of Need for a proposed new home health agency or subunit shall not be issued until the daily census of each of the existing home health agencies or subunits pro viding services within the health service area of the proposed new home health agency or subunit has reached an average of 300 patients for the immediate preceding calendar quarter unless the need for the proposed new hose health agency or subunit can be demonstrated by application of the mitigating and extenuating circumstances in rule 10-5.11(14)(b) herein. (b) Mitigating and extenuating circumstances which must be met for the department to issue a certificate of need for a proposed new home health agency or subunit even though the previously des cribed need determination procedure does not clearly indicate need are: Documentation that the population of of the proposed service area is being denied access to home health care services in that exist ing home health agencies or subunits within the proposed service area are unable to provide ser vice to all persons in need of home health care, or Documentation that approval of such proposed new home health agency or subunit would foster cost containment for all providers in the health service area. What the Petitioner tried to do in the hearing was to attack the efficacy of the above-cited rule by claiming that the required 300 average daily patient census was not reasonable. In aid of this argument, it offered its Exhibit No. 3 and Composite Exhibit No. 4, both documents being authored by Herb Traxler. Petitioner also offered its Exhibit No. 7 prepared by Mr. Traxler, which is a draft proposal establishing the methodology for estimating the need for home health care in the State of Arkansas. In addition, the Petitioner offered into evidence a letter of May 30, 1979, from Arthur H. Long, the Executive Director of the Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc., one of the current agencies holding a certificate of need to deliver similar services to those for which this Petitioner has made its request. Mr. Long's corporation holds a certificate for Escambia County, Florida. That letter, which is the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, sets out statistical data related to census for Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc., and the Escambia County, Florida, Health Department, operating through-the Visiting Nurses Association, Inc. These latter organizations are also involved in the delivery of health care of the type for which the Petitioner seeks a certificate of need to administer. The true census for Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc., in its last complete 1979 reporting quarter, shows that for Escambia County the patient census for April was 71; for Nay, 77; and for June, 73, totaling 221 patients with an average census of 74. This testimony was presented by Mr. Long. This organization serves only Medicare patients who are enrolled with the service group. Ms. Marian Humphrey, a public health nursing supervisor for the Escambia County Health Department, established the census in Escambia County for that Health Department as serviced by the Visiting Nurses Association, Inc. Beginning in January, 1979, the census was 101 Medicare patients; 14 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients; 9 private patients and 71 free patients, the latter category being patients who did not pay for services. In February, 1979, there were 164 Medicare patients; 16 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients; 7 private patients and 72 free patients. In March, 1979, there were 128 Medicare patients; 0 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients and 11 private patients. In April, 1979, there were 147 Medicare patients; 13 Medicaid patients, 2 CHAMPUS patients and 9 private patients. In May, 1979, there were 165 Medicare patients; 12 Medicaid patients; 3 CHAMPUS patients; 7 private patients and 88 free patients. In June, 1979, there were 148 Medicare patients; 10 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients; 10 private patients and 61 free patients. In July, 1979, there wore 150 Medicare patients; 10 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients; 10 private patients and 77 free patients. In August, 1979, there were 134 Medicare patients; 11 Medicaid patients; 2 CHAMPUS patients; 14 private patients and 96 free patients. These statistics indicate that the two current servicing agencies in the preceding full quarter of 1979 which would have been April, May and June, considered separately, did not exceed the average of 300 patients for that calendar quarter, nor did the statistics show an excess of 300 in other reported quarters. The second reason for denying the certificate of need, as stated in the June 29, 1979, correspondence of Mr. Forehand, dealt with the possible extenuating and mitigating circumstances which would allow for issuance of a certificate of need even where the census for the existing service organizations had not exceeded 300 for the prior calendar quarter. Again, that provision of Rule 10-5.11(14)(b) states: (b) Mitigating and extenuating circumstances which must be met for the department to issue a certificate of need for a proposed new home health agency or subunit even though the previously described need determination procedure does not clearly indicate need are: Documentation that the population of the proposed service area is being denied access to home health care services in that existing home health agencies or subunits within the proposed service area are unable to provide service to all persons in need of home health care, or Documentation that approval of such pro posed new home health agency or subunit would foster cost containment for all providers in the health service area. The first of the provisions under that sub-subsection of the rule deals with inability of the existing home health agency to provide service to persons in need of the home health care. Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc., requires that their patients be registered with the organization and their office is open Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. After 4:00 p.m. on weekdays and on the entire weekend, a registered nurse is on call through the utilization of a "beeper" system. Again, this applies only to Medicare patients enrolled with the organization. To be enrolled, it is necessary for the enrollment to have been achieved through a request by a physician. The Escambia County Health Department is open from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and serves all classes of patients. There are on- call nurses who work on weekends. The nurses are called by utilization of the Nurses Directory for Escambia County. The exception to this statement is that two days a year the services of the Escambia County Health Department are not available due to holidays. At night during the week those persons who are patients of the Escambia County Health Department are instructed to arrange for emergency treatment in the Emergency Room or ambulatory care at West Florida Hospital, assuming those patients cannot wait until the following morning for attention. Neither the Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc., nor the Escambia County Health Department's representatives indicated any inability to provide service for those in need of health care, noting that Northwest Florida Home Health Agency, Inc., only serves Medicare patients. The Petitioner has asserted that the services spoken of in the preceding paragraph are not sufficient and examples of the lack of available services, according to the Petitioner, are as shown on pages 65 through 68 of the transcript of this hearing. Therein are cited several examples of persons unable to receive necessary care of the type which the Petitioner desires to deliver. These examples are taken from the presentation of Upjohn in their case, D.O.A.H. No. 79-1747, and are hearsay accounts made by the representative of Upjohn, Ms. Krumel, from information purportedly given to her on the subject of lack of service. This Petitioner made no further presentation on the question of lack of service. The Petitioner then attempted to establish that the granting of a certificate of need, to it and to Upjohn would foster cost containment for all providers in the health service area within the meaning of the above-cited rule. For this proposition, it offered its Exhibits 5 and 9. After analyzing this testimony and the documents, at best it could be said that there is no increase or decrease in the cost of the delivery of services by the expansion of the number of certificate holders, and the Petitioner's presentation is not convincing in that attempt. The only real evidence offered on the cost estimates are as found in the Joint Exhibit No. 1 which outlines the cost charges of the various existing home health agencies and the current applicants, i.e., this Petitioner and Upjohn. These statistics were available for review and they did not indicate that the granting of one or more new certificates of need would foster cost containment for all providers in the subject health service area. Personnel Pool and Upjohn were afforded an opportunity to offer their testimony to establish in what respects they might be superior to the other applicant for a certificate of need, assuming that only one certificate of need was to be granted. The two Petitioners did not wish to make any direct attack on the special qualifications of the collateral Petitioner. Both parties proceeded on the basis of offering their remarks to be available for comparison if the contingency were realized which required that only one certificate of need be issued. It is not necessary to detail the special qualifications of these Petitioners, because no certificate of need will be recommended for issuance in Escambia County, Florida, the location in which Personnel Pool and Upjohn are potential competitors for a sole certificate of need. Nonetheless, the facts offered in support of the special qualifications of Personnel Pool be found in the transcript of the hearing on pages 228 and 251 through 256. The testimony on Upjohn's special qualifications may be found in the transcript of record, pages 187 through 190.
Recommendation This Recommendation is being entered in view of the Facts and Conclusions of Law in this case and those Facts and Conclusions of Law in the companion case, D.O.A.H. No. 79-1747, Upjohn Healthcare Home Health Agency v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Upon consideration of the Facts herein and the Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Personnel Pool of Pensacola, Inc. d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool, be denied its request for a certificate of need to serve Escambia County, Florida. It is further recommended that the agency in entering its final order do so by a process of simultaneous review of this Recommended Order and the Recommended Order entered in D.O.A.H. Case No. 79-1747, Upjohn Healthcare Home Health Agency v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and that final orders be entered on the same date with copies to be served on the representatives of each applicant in this case and in the companion case mentioned above. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Vivian Krumel, R.N. Mr. Art Forehand, Administrator Service Director, Office of Community Medical Healthcare Facilities Department of Health and 15 West Strong Street Rehabilitative Services Old Townhouse Square 1323 Winewood Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32501 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John Owens Mr. Joe Dowlesss Zone Manager, West Florida Office of Licensure and Upjohn Health Care Services Certification 3118 Gulf to Bay Blvd., Department of Health and Suite 300 Rehabilitative Services Clearwater, Florida 33519 Post Office Box 210 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Charles T. Collette, Esquire Department of Health and Mr. Herbert E. Straughn Rehabilitative Services Office of Community Medical 1324 Winewood Blvd. Facilities Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Sherrell E. Pheps 1323 Winewood Boulevard Governmental Affairs Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Representative Personnel Pool of America, Inc. Mr. Thomas S. Siler 303 Southeast 17th Street Owner/Administrator Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Personnel Pool of Pensacola, Inc. 1800 North Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32501
The Issue Whether Nursing Quality Services, Inc. (Respondent), a Medicaid provider, was overpaid by the Florida Medicaid Program in the amount of $8,154.02, and, if so, whether Respondent must pay to the Agency for Health Care Administration (Petitioner) the amount of the alleged overpayment, a penalty in the amount of $1,630.80, costs in the amount of $43.94, and any applicable interest.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been a provider with the Florida Medicaid Program and has had a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement with Petitioner. Relevant to this proceeding, Respondent is a home health services provider, providing nursing services to residents of assisted living facilities (ALFs). Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of administering the Florida Medicaid Program. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was subject to all applicable federal and state laws, regulations, rules, and Medicaid Handbooks. Respondent is required to comply with the Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook. Respondent is also required to comply with the Home Health Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook (Coverage Handbook). Home health services are billed in units of service. Each unit of service has a billing code that generates a specified Medicare payment to the provider. The two billing codes at issue in this proceeding are T1030 and T1031. A billable unit of service is generated under these codes when either a registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse goes to an ALF and provides a qualified service to a resident of the ALF. Tab 6 in Petitioner's exhibit book contains relevant excerpts of the Coverage Handbook, which was last revised in July 2008. Relevant to this proceeding, the Coverage Handbook reflects the following reimbursement information under the bulletin heading "Home Health Visits for Multiple Recipients at One Location" with emphasis added by the undersigned: Home health visit services provided to two or more recipients with individual residences at a single location are reimbursed as one visit for each individual receiving a home health service at that location (for example, visits at an assisted living facility). Home health visit services provided to two or more recipients sharing a residence at a single location (for example, visits at a group home) are reimbursed as follows: For the first recipient, Medicaid reimburses the service at the established Medicaid visit rate; For the second recipient, Medicaid reimburses the service at 50 percent of the established Medicaid visit rate; and For any additional recipients, Medicaid reimburses the services at 50 percent of the established Medicaid visit rate. The Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI) has generated a memorandum that reflects its understanding of the coverage and limitations set forth in the Coverage Handbook. Key to this proceeding, the memorandum states the following as to services provided to a resident of an ALF with emphasis added by the undersigned: MPI further understands that residence in an assisted living facility would not justify an automatic authorization for a 100 percent reimbursement of the established Medicaid reimbursement rated for home health services. Providers will be given the opportunity to submit documentation demonstrating individual residence at a single location for MPI review and subsequent decision-making as to applicable reimbursement policy. Should the documentation substantiate an individual residence at a single location for the recipient(s) in question, the reimbursement for home health services would be allowed at 100 percent of the established Medicaid reimbursement rate appropriate for the date of service. As part of a larger audit of Medicaid providers, Petitioner audited Respondent based on billings submitted by Respondent and paid by Petitioner. Taking information reflected by Respondent's billings, Petitioner prepared a PAR, which was dated January 23, 2012, and signed by Ms. Fante. The PAR cited the Coverage Handbook, statues, and rules Petitioner relied upon and attached a detailed audit report reflecting that Respondent was overpaid $8,154.02. All of the services at issue in this proceeding were billed and paid at 100 percent of the established Medicaid visit rate for identical units of service (either T1030 or T1031) generated at the same facility location on the same date whether or not it was the first recipient (the so-called anchor recipient), a second recipient, or an additional recipient. Respondent's billings provided the respective address for each of the three ALFs at which these recipients resided, but the billings do not document that each recipient maintained an individual residence in that ALF. Consequently, after payment for the anchor recipient at 100 percent of the Medicaid reimbursement rate, Respondent should have been paid at 50 percent of the reimbursement rate for identical units of service to the other recipients at the same address on the same day. The payments at 100 percent of the billing rate for units of service that should have been reduced to 50 percent of the billing rate constituted overpayments. Petitioner established that the amount of the overpayment totaled $8,154.02. The PAR was not final agency action. Respondent was advised of the following options: Pay the identified overpayment in this notice within 15 days of the receipt of this letter. Under this option, amnesty will be granted, sanctions will not be applied and costs will not be assessed. If you wish to submit further documentation in support of the claims identified as overpayments, you must do so within 15 days of receipt of this letter. Any additional documentation received will be taken under consideration and you will be notified of the results of the audit in a final audit report. Under this option, a final audit report will be issued and will include application of sanctions, the assessment of costs, and hearing rights. If you chose not to respond, wait for the issuance of the final audit report. Under this option, a final audit report will include the application of sanctions, the assessment of costs, and inform you of any hearing rights that you may wish to exercise. The PAR was sent to Respondent via Federal Express using the following address: 8300 SW 8 Street, Suite 107, Miami, FL 33144. Ms. Creel testified, credibly, that the foregoing was the address of record for Respondent at the time the PAR was sent to Respondent. The Federal Express receipt reflects that the PAR was delivered on January 25, 2012 at 9:41 a.m., and signed for by someone named "M. Mejia." The receipt reflects that the PAR had been delivered to "Receptionist/Front Desk." Mr. Fernandez testified, credibly, that he never received the PAR because Respondent had moved its offices from Suite 107 to Suite 103 in the same building. While that evidence is accepted, Ms. Creel established that Respondent's office of record with Petitioner had not been updated at the time the PAR was sent to Respondent. Respondent did not respond to the PAR. Petitioner prepared a "Final Audit Report" (FAR), which was dated March 2, 2012, and signed by Ms. Fante. The FAR asserted that Respondent owed $8,154.02 as the overpayment, a fine in the amount of $1,630.80, and costs in the amount of $43.94, for a total of $9,828.76, plus applicable interest. The FAR was sent to Respondent by Federal Express at the same addressed that had been used for the PAR. The Federal Express receipt reflects that the FAR was delivered on March 8 at 9:28 a.m. and signed for by "M. Mejia." The receipt reflects that the PAR had been delivered to "Receptionist/Front Desk." The FAR advised as follows: Pursuant to section 409.913(25)(d), F.S., the Agency may collect money owed by all means allowable by law, including, but not limited to, exercising the option to collect money from Medicare that is payable to the provider. Pursuant to section 409.913(27), F.S., if within 30 days following this notice you have not either repaid the alleged overpayment amount or entered into a satisfactory repayment agreement with the Agency, your Medicaid reimbursements will be withheld; they will continue to be withheld, even during the pendency of an administrative hearing, until such time as the overpayment amount is satisfied. Pursuant to section 409.913(30), F.S., the Agency shall terminate your participation in the Medicaid program if you fail to repay an overpayment or enter into a satisfactory repayment agreement with the Agency, within 35 days after the date of a final order which is no longer subject to further appeal. Pursuant to sections 409.913(15)(q) and 409.913(25)(c), F.S., a provider that does not adhere to the terms of a repayment agreement is subject to termination from the Medicaid program. Finally, failure to comply with all sanctions applied or due dates may result in additional sanctions being imposed. The FAR provided Respondent an explanation of its right to request an administrative hearing pursuant to the provisions of chapter 120. Mr. Fernandez received the FAR. Promptly thereafter, Mr. Fernandez called Ms. Creel to discuss the assessed overpayment, fine, and costs. Mr. Fernandez told her that he had not receive the PAR, and asserted that there was no overpayment because each recipient of the payments at issue lived in an ALF. Ms. Creel answered his questions as to the type documentation Respondent could submit to document there was no overpayment, but she explained to him that she had no authority to extend any of the deadlines set forth in the FAR. Respondent thereafter requested a formal administrative hearing, the matter was referred to DOAH, and this proceeding followed. As noted above in the Preliminary Section, Respondent offered no exhibits at the formal hearing. While Mr. Fernandez had visited each of the three ALFs at issue in this proceeding, he knew nothing about the living quarters of any of the recipients. The term "individual residence" is not defined in the Coverage Handbook, by rule, or by statute. Consequently, the plain meaning of the phrase is used in finding that there was no evidence that any of the recipients maintained an individual residence at the location of his or her ALF.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding that Nursing Quality Services, Inc., was overpaid by the Florida Medicaid Program in the principal amount of $8,154.02. It is further recommended that the final order require Nursing Quality Services, Inc., to repay the Florida Medicaid the amount of $8,154.02, together with applicable interest and cost in the amount of $43.94. It is further recommended that no administrative fine be imposed. S DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of September, 2012.
The Issue Whether any or all of the applications for certificates of need to establish medicare-certified home health agencies in Broward County (AHCA District 10) by Petitioners Allstar Care, Inc.; Medicorp Home Health Care Services; and Medshares of Florida, Inc., should be approved by the Agency for Health Care Administration.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Allstar Allstar Care, Inc., with its offices in Miami, is a Florida corporation that operates a licensed Medicare-certified home health care agency in Dade County. It serves, principally, patients aged 65 and over who are Medicare- and Medicaid-eligible by providing them at home: skilled nursing; physical therapy; occupational therapy; speech therapy; and the services of home health aides, when provided physician's order to do so. It also serves at-home indigents with like services when provided appropriate physician's orders. In 1996, Allstar provided a total of 122,000 visits. Fifty percent of them were by home health aides providing assistance with the patients' daily living needs, such as bathing, oral care, dressing, and assistance with meals. Forty- five percent of the visits were by skilled nurses. In addition, licensed social workers employed by Allstar provided social and emotional support for the patient and the patient's family. From 1994 to date, Allstar has provided Medicare- certified home health services in Dade County. It is reasonable to expect that Allstar will provide the same range of services that are described in its application for Broward County that Allstar currently provides in Dade. Medicorp A sister home health agency to Medcorp Home Health Services, Medicorp Home Health Services is a home health agency that serves patients in Wilton Manors and Oakland Park in Broward County, Florida. Although not Medicare-certified, it is Medicaid-certified. Medicorp was founded primarily to bring services to unserved and underserved areas, particularly "the projects," (Tr. 13,) in Broward County, that is areas of low-income housing the building of which was financed by the federal government's Department of Housing and Urban Development. Commencing operations in 1991 with an initial investment of $8,000 and as its only employee, current owner and administrator Beverly Cardozo, LPN and certified respiratory therapist, Medicorp has experienced rapid growth. Last year it grossed $1.8 million. Medshares Medshares of Florida, Inc., is a member of the family of Medshares companies commonly referred to as "Medshares." Medshares provides various home health services, such as Medicare-certified home health services; private nursing services; management services for home health agencies; infusion services; and consulting services. Medshares began in Tennessee in 1985 and since that time has expanded to operation in nine states with 52 locations. In 1996, Medshares provided approximately one million visits through its Medicare-certified home health agencies and approximately 1.7 million visits through its non-Medicare-certified and managed home health agencies. Medshares' long-range plan includes development of Medicare-certified agencies through the southeast. Development of such an agency is a logical step for Medshares, since Medshares currently operates in several other southeastern states. Medshares experiences a low-employee turnover rate of approximately 50 percent, which is less than half of the national average for home health operations. Medshares attribute this low turnover rate to its participatory management style as well as its employee benefits packages. For example, Medshares offers educational packages to any of its employees who wish to further his or her education. For its nurses, Medshares funds the cost of nursing certification by the American Nurses Association. AHCA The Agency for Health Care Administration is the "single state agency [designated by statute] to issue, revoke or deny certificates of need . . . in accordance with the district plans, the statewide health plan, and present and future federal and state statutes." Section 408.034(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioners: Non-competitors The Petitioners each claimed in the hearing that there is sufficient need in the District to support the granting of all three applications. They do not, therefore, view each other as competitors in this proceeding. Filing of the Applications and Preliminary Action by AHCA All three petitioners, Allstar, Medicorp, and Medshares, submitted timely applications for certificates of need to establish Medicare-certified home health agencies in Broward County, AHCA District 10: CON 8448 (Allstar), CON 8418 (Medicorp), and CON 8419 (Medshares). The applications were deemed complete by AHCA. Following preliminary review, however, the agency denied the applications. The State Agency Action Report ("SAAR") sets forth AHCA's findings of fact and determinations upon which the decisions were based. Allstar, Medicorp, and Medshares each filed a timely petition for hearing. The District AHCA District 10 is composed of Broward County, alone and in its entirety. The service area for review of CON applications for Medicare-certified home health agencies is the district. In this case, therefore, the service area is Broward County. In Broward County, there are roughly 190 home health agencies. Of these, however, only 35 are licensed Medicare- certified home health agencies (34 providers hold the 35 licenses). Three are approved Medicare-certified home health agencies, and another three are exempt Medicare-certified home health agencies. Need for Additional Medicare-certified home health agencies in District 10 No AHCA Methodology AHCA did not publish a fixed need pool for Medicare certified home health agencies for the July 1997 planning horizon in Florida because, at the time the Letters of Intent were filed (and when the Formal Hearing was conducted, as well), AHCA did not have any methodology pursuant to rule for projecting need for additional Medicare-certified home health agencies. Reasonable Methodologies of the Petitioners In the absence of AHCA methodology, expert health planners for each of the three petitioners developed reasonable methodologies which, when applied to data relevant in time by demographics to the case, show a need for at least a number in excess of three. Changes in the Health Care Marketplace The methodologies developed by the petitioners recognize ongoing changes in the health care marketplace that began with the implementation of the Medicare prospective payment system. The changes have progressively encouraged the use of less intensive, less costly settings for the provision of health care services. The least intensive and least costly health care service is home health care service. The tremendous demand for non-Medicare and Medicare-certified home health services beyond what would be expected due to simple population growth is the result. Use rates, therefore, are escalating beyond escalation due to population growth alone. AHCA recognizes that there has been a significant trend toward increased use of home health services. Not surprisingly, therefore, AHCA did not criticize the use of compound rates of increase to compute use rates in the need methodologies developed by any of the three petitioners. Allstar's Methodology and Determination of Numeric Need Allstar's health planner determined a need for at least six additional Medicare-certified home health agencies in Broward County for the appropriate planning horizon. The methodology used by Allstar in its application was conceptually identical to that approved in the Recommended and Final Orders in Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. v. AHCA, DOAH Case No. 96-4075 (Recommended Order issued 3/20/97, Final Order 5/12/97). The source of the data used by Allstar to develop its need methodology was the Medicare cost reports that existing providers file with the Federal Health Care Financing Administration, ("HCFA"). Data from 1995 was not available in the spring of 1996 when Allstar's application was filed, so Allstar used a 1994 data base period. The 1994 base period used by Allstar is the last for which data on visits was available from AHCA before the deadline for filing applications in this case. Allstar selected 1997 as the planning horizon because it usually takes one year from the date the application is submitted to get a home health care service in place. The planning horizon selected by Allstar is reasonable. Allstar relied on population estimates published by AHCA in January 1996, the most currently available populations statistics when the application was filed. Allstar received February 1996 population data from AHCA after the application was filed, but before the omissions response was due. When Allstar's methodology is replicated using the February 1996 population data, it does not substantially alter the projected numeric need. Allstar calculated a 1994 District 10 use rate by dividing the total patient visits in 1994 by the 1994 District 10 population 65 years of age and older. Use of the 65-and-older cohort is reasonable since Medicare eligibility begins at age 65 and, historically, 98 percent of all Medicare-certified home health care visits are delivered to that age group. The calculation yields a historic use rate of 6.83 visits per capita. Most use rates developed by health care planners for acute care services are constant. They assume conditions that are found in the base period will remain unchanged. Constant use rates are inappropriate in the instance of Medicare-certified home health care agencies. District 10 historical data from Medicare cost reports for the period 1989 through 1994 show use rates, ranging from 2.82 per capita in 1989 to 6.83 per capita in 1994. This dramatic increase is consistent with the increase in use rates in other AHCA districts. The combination of managed care and Medicare's prospective pay system is producing care for patients in less costly non-institutional settings like the home of the patient. Hence, home health care use rates have increased. The historical use rate trend line developed by Allstar, when extrapolated to 1997, yields 10.47 visits per capita in 1997. Consistent with conservative planning, and in an attempt to avoid either overstating or understating the horizon year use rate, Allstar averaged the trended and constant use rates for 1997, yielding a use rate of 8.65. Since a use rate of 8.65 represents the result of averaging two numbers, the 1997 projected rate is both a median and a mean. It is also both conservative and reasonable. When AHCA's population projection for 1997 is multiplied by the 8.65 use rate, the result is a projection of 2,365,443 Medicare-certified visits in July 1997. The mean agency size in 1994, measured by number of visits, was 54,101. The median number of visits in 1994 was 54,803. Dividing the average agency size of 54,101 visits into the number of projected visits in 1997 yields a gross need for 44 Medicare-certified home health care agencies in 1997. Allstar then subtracted the number 35 (representing the licensed Medicare-certified home health agencies) and another 3 (representing the approved agencies) from 44, yielding the need for 6 new Medicare-certified home health agencies. AHCA criticized Allstar's methodology on two bases. First, Allstar used population estimates published in January 1996, instead of more recent population estimates for February 1996, estimates available to Allstar at the time it filed its omissions response. Second, Allstar calculated its average or mean number of visits by using the total number of licensed Medicare-certified home health agencies in District 10, as opposed to only those licensed agencies which actually reported visits. As to the first criticism, Allstar's health planner explained on rebuttal that the January 1996 population estimates were all that were available when it prepared the application. It is true that the February 1996 population estimates became available prior to the filing of the omissions response and although "there was no . . . formal notification," (Tr. 650), Allstar became aware of their availability before it filed the response. Allstar's health planning expert examined the February 1996 data and concluded that "while different, [the data] . . . weren't significantly different." (Tr. 651). In light of the lack of any significant difference, Allstar's expert summed up the company's analysis of the problem and its approach at that moment in time this way: We had already invested a lot of energy in running the need [with the January 1996 data] and simply made the decision not to go back and redo all of that work based on the February document. (Tr. 650-651.) Since there was no "significant difference," between the January and February data, it does not seem appropriate to require the effort needed to project need based on a calculation employing the more up-to-date data, an effort that would not alter the result of Allstar's projected numeric need. In point of fact, after filing the omissions response, Allstar's expert did the analysis with the more current data and determined that the February population estimates, "had no affect on the conclusion of how many net agencies were needed." (Tr. 652.) As for the second criticism, Allstar's health planner appreciated that there was a choice to be made in its methodology between visits as to total number of licensed Medicare-certified home health agencies in District 10 and the subset of that group consisting of only like agencies which reported visits. Allstar rejected the use of only those who reported visits. By doing so, it assumed that non-reporters did not provide any visits. To do otherwise, that is, to exclude non- reporters, results in the assumption, when using an average number of visits as a component in the methodology, that the non- reporting agencies, on average, had just as many visits as the reporting agencies. Such an assumption is much more likely to be incorrect than the assumption that Allstar made. The law requires Medicare-certified home health agencies to report. In all likelihood, therefore, the non-reporting agencies did not report precisely because, being new agencies, they had no visits to report. Allstar's approach is thus the more valid approach. In short, AHCA's criticism of Allstar's methodology in this regard does nothing to alter the conclusion that Allstar's methodology is reasonable. Medshares' Methodology and Determination Although Medshares used a somewhat different methodology to determine projected need, its methodology was also reasonable. Medshares’ methodology, too, yielded projected need in 1997 for Medicare-certified home health agencies in AHCA District 10 in a number greater than three, the number of applicants involved in this proceeding. Medicorp's Methodology Medicorp's application did not contain a need methodology. At hearing, over AHCA's objection, Medicorp's expert in health planning testified as to the reasonableness of its methodology which also yielded a numeric need in excess of three. The objection of AHCA was treated as a Motion to Strike, and the testimony was allowed. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the objection is now moot since AHCA did not provide a methodology of its own when it presented its case in chief, and since reasonable methodologies yielding numeric need in excess of the number of petitioners were proven by both Allstar and Medshares. Aside from numeric need, in the case of Medicorp, there is a special need. Special Need for Medicorp Medicorp presented evidence in its application showing the need for an agency, like Medicorp, located among and willing to focus on serving the needs of the District's underserved and, in some cases, unserved, minority and low-income residents. Medicorp's primary service area includes zip code 33311, a federally-designated area of restricted health care. As one might expect from this designation, residents of this zip code have the lowest income per capita, the highest rate of unemployment, and highest rate of Medicaid eligibility in Broward County. A large proportion of the residents of zip code 33311 live in HUD housing. And, the zip code has the highest concentration of HIV/AIDS sufferers in the county. Medicorp's Administrator, Beverly Cardozo, testified that her existing, non-certified agency, Medicorp Home Health Services, currently is providing substantially free care to up to 400 Medicare-eligible patients living in government-subsidized housing within Medicorp's primary service area. Ms. Cardozo and Medicorp have been providing this care since approximately 1994, when Medicorp instituted its "Slice of Life" program consisting of the establishment of health fairs at these housing projects. Since 1994, Ms. Cardozo has been attempting to make arrangements with a Medicare-certified agency to provide the necessary care to Medicare-eligible residents in the projects to provide care, in some cases, desperately necessary. Only one agency agreed to go into the projects. Eventually, it ceased conducting business, leaving Medicorp to provide free health care. In addition to providing this care, Ms. Cardozo has recruited other local providers and business people to donate time and goods for the care of these Medicare-eligible patients. She also has arranged for the provision of care by a wound specialist. Ms. Cardozo's testimony, together with Medicorp's Exhibits 3 and 4, show that a significant portion of the District 10 Medicare-eligible population is underserved. In particular, many of the low-income residents of Wilton Manor and Oakland Park, areas targeted for care by Medicorp's application, are not receiving much-needed care. This care would be made available on a continuous basis by Medicorp's trained and dedicated staff. Notwithstanding numeric need, therefore, there is a special need in District 10 for the Medicorp proposal. Local Health Plan "The District 10, August 1994 CON Allocation Factors Report [used by AHCA in the SAAR for these three applicants] provides [six] . . . preferences in the review of applications pertaining to Medicare certified home health agencies." AHCA No. 5, p. 5. The First Preference AHCA maintains that "Medicorp-[sic] and Medshares do not meet preference one of the [local plan] due to their lack of demonstration that there are identifiable subgroups who are Medicare-eligible and are currently being denied access to Medicare-certified home health agency services." AHCA PRO, p. 5. There is, however, no requirement expressed in the preference that denial of access be shown in order to meet the preference. With regard to Allstar, AHCA makes the same argument related to access denial in relationship to the Hispanic population identified by Allstar as an identifiable subgroup of the District's population to which it will provide service. Again, the preference does not expressly require a showing of denial of access. Allstar demonstrated that Broward County is 8.26 percent Hispanic; that Allstar has bilingual, indeed, multilingual capabilities in Dade County available for use in Broward should the CON be granted; and that it will locate its offices close to south central Broward near the largest Hispanic population. Allstar meets the express requirements of the preference. As explained above, Medicorp proposes to provide care concentrated in the most severely depressed area of District 10, geographically centered in zip codes 33311 and 33312. The proposed agency will provide care to the subgroup of predominantly black residents of the inner city HUD housing projects. It is true that this area may have "the highest concentration and number of Medicaid eligibles as well as the highest percentage of HIV and AIDS cases in the District . . .," and that "this population [is] . . . predominantly 'Medicaid eligibles,' and finally, that these patients could be served through a non-Medicare certified home health agency," AHCA No. 5, p. 6, (e.s.). But these factors do nothing to defeat Medicorp's satisfaction of the preference. Medicorp has demonstrated that it will provide service to an identifiable subgroup of District 10 Medicare-eligible patients based on "ethnicity" and "geographic location." It clearly meets the preference. Medshares meets the priority as well. Based upon geographic analyses contained in its application, Medshares identified lower-income Hispanics and African-Americans, including lower-income females, and persons afflicted with HIV/AIDS as groups in District 10 that it would serve. Medshares’ patient material will be provided in both English and Spanish. It plans to provide a full range of home health care services to these groups with special emphasis on low-income females who typically receive little or no prenatal care, and low-income families in need of pediatric services. And, it will locate in Fort Lauderdale, the urban area in Broward County with the highest number of AIDS cases. Medshares meets the preference. Preference Two All three of the applicants have committed to serve Medicaid and indigents, promoted by Preference Two, as follows: Allstar: 1 percent Medicaid, 0.5 percent indigent; Medicorp 10 percent Medicaid, 2 percent indigent; and Medshares 1.4 percent Medicaid, 2 percent indigent. Preference Three All three of the applicants state they will provide for the provision of maintenance services, as called for by Preference Three of the Local Plan, to Medicaid and indigent patients. Preference Four AHCA agrees that Medicorp and Medshares meet preference four which gives priority to those applications that show reasonable expectations for reaching a patient load of at least 21,000 visits by the end of the first year of operation. As to Allstar, it reasonably projected only 13,265 visits in its first operational year. Allstar's projection, however, includes a rate of 2,000 visits per month by the end of the first year, a monthly rate that leads to 21,000 per year when annualized. None of the Medicare-certified home health agencies opening in Broward County since 1992 have met the 21,000 "priority" threshold. In light of this reality and the reasonableness, in Allstar's view, of interpreting the preference as requiring only a demonstration of capacity to reach 21,000 visits rather than a projection that it actually reach 21,000, Allstar argues that it meets Preference Four of the Local Plan. There may be some room in the wording of the preference to interpret it as allowing a demonstration of capacity by the end of the first year to have achieved 21,000 visits rather than actually reaching the 21,000 visits, but there was no evidence that AHCA has ever made such an interpretation. For its part, AHCA flatly asserts, "Allstar does not meet this preference." AHCA PRO, p. 6. In the absence of an authoritative interpretation in Allstar's favor, Allstar must be considered as not meeting the preference. Preference Five There is no question that all three applicants meet Preference Five. The application of each demonstrates the development of patient transfer and referral services with other health provider agencies as a means of ensuring continuity of care. Preference Six The applications of Medicorp and Medshares demonstrate that they will participate in the data collection activities of the local health council. Allstar has agreed to report data to the regional health planning council but not to the local health council. Medicorp and Medshares meet preference six; Allstar does not. State Health Plan Preference Just as the District 10 Health Plan, the Florida State Health Plan establishes certain preferences for applicants for Medicare-certified home health services certificates of need. The State Health Plan, too, contains six preferences. Preference One Among the three applicants, only Medicorp demonstrated a willingness to commit a specific percentage of total annual visits to AIDS/HIV patients. The State Health Plan in its first allocation factor, however, does not contain a "percentage" requirement in order for preference to be given. All that is required is that the applicant "propos[e] to serve AIDS patients." AHCA Exhibit 10. Consistent with this requirement, all three applicants propose to serve AIDS patients; Medshares proposes to condition its application on such service and Medicorp, additionally, has in place policies and procedures for quality assurance and safety precautions in caring for the HIV/AIDS patient. All three applicants, therefore, meet the preference. Preference Two Although there does not appear to be a universally accepted definition of what "high technology services" means in the home health arena, and although AHCA does not define them, all three applicants have reasonably identified them in their application and have proved sufficient intent to provide them. For example, Medshares proposes to provide a full range of nursing and therapy services, including cardiac care; continuous IV therapy; diabetes care; oncology services; pediatrics; rehabilitation; pain therapy; total parenteral nutrition; speech therapy; physical therapy; occupational therapy; enterostomal therapy; respiratory therapy; audiology therapy; and infusion therapy. Several of these services are unquestionably "high tech." AHCA answers that none of the three showed that the full range of services, including those that are "high tech," were not sufficiently available and accessible in the same service area. Neither, of course, did AHCA. In the context of a litigated case, the wording of the preference is awkward for achievement of the result AHCA seeks: Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing to provide a full range of ser- vices, including high technology services, unless these services are sufficiently avail- able and accessible in the same service area. AHCA No. 5, p., 10. All three applicants receive preference under this part of the State Health Plan. Preference Three There is no definition of "disproportionate share" of Medicaid and indigent patients in AHCA. Nor was there any evidence of such a definition provided in this proceeding by AHCA by way of testimony or in any other way. The term, as used in acute services, contemplates and necessitates the use of Medicaid utilization data of the type that AHCA has never collected for Medicare-certified home health agencies. Nonetheless, both Medicorp and Medshares are entitled to the benefit of this preference. Medicorp's principals have demonstrated a commitment to serving what would constitute a disproportionate share of Medicaid and indigent patients by any common understanding of the term "disproportionate share." Medicorp, as a new entity, is entitled to the benefit that flows from the history of service of its principals and predecessors. Medshares, too, has a history of providing home health services to Medicaid eligible persons and indigents, and Medshares plans to serve all patients in need regardless of ability to pay. Allstar is excused from complying with this preference given the absence of a meaningful definition. Preference Four The preference is not applicable in this case, since it can only apply to multi-county districts. It is worth noting, however, that home health care has been cited as an area of critical need in Broward County by the Broward Regional Health Planning Council. It is also worth re-iterating that several zip code areas within Medicorp's primary service area have been designated by the Federal government as currently and historically medically underserved. Medicorp can fill the needs of the underserved in the Broward County HUD housing projects as a Medicare-certified home health agency should its application be granted. Preference Five Medshares has made an unqualified commitment to provide consumer survey data measuring patient satisfaction to AHCA. Without doubt, it fully meets the preference. Allstar currently collects patient satisfaction data, as well as family and physician satisfaction data. Allstar further stated in its application that, "though there is currently no systematic effort by the department to collect such data, [Allstar] will make this data available to the department, or its designated representative, upon development and implementation of an appropriate data collection and reporting system." AHCA No. 5, p. 13. Likewise, Medicorp indicated willingness to participate in an HRS consumer satisfaction data collection effort "upon the State's development and implementation of an appropriate system." Id., at 12, (e.s.) Medicorp, moreover, is willing to make survey results available to the AHCA, HCFA, the District 10 local planning council, and the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning. Allstar and Medicorp, at least, are entitled to partial credit under this preference. Preference Six Each of the three applicants is entitled to this preference; each proposes a quality-assurance program and JCAHO accreditation. Increase in Availability and Access; Improvement in Quality of Care, Efficiency, Appropriateness, and Adequacy of the Service Assuming existing providers are available, efficient, appropriate, accessible, giving quality care, and are adequately utilized, adding three new Medicare-certified home health agencies is still justified when cost-effective agency size is taken into consideration. The cost-effective size of an agency can be determined using Medicare cost reports. In Florida, the cost-effective size of an Medicare-certified home health agency ranges from 30,000 visits to 95,000 visits annually. Allstar's regression analysis of a cost-effective Medicare-certified home health agency size, measured in terms of visits, took into consideration the type of visits performed, AHCA's geographic price index, and the affects of population density on costs. Adding new Medicare-certified home health agencies is appropriate when the mix of services is taken into account, and when as in this case, adding three such agencies into the marketplace will not reduce the cost-effective size of existing agencies below 30,000 annual visits. Medicorp, moreover, has proven the restricted access to services experienced by Medicare patients residing in inner city HUD housing projects in North Broward County and has established that all payer groups in these areas, including Medicare and Medicaid, are underserved. It was established by Medicorp that the predominantly minority residents of Fort Lauderdale's public housing and surrounding areas of Wilton Manors and Oakland Park are woefully underserved. The already-established role of Medicorp as the accepted and known provider in these areas demonstrates how access to these home health services will improve by Medicorp entering areas that other providers will not serve. Financial Feasibility Short Term It was stipulated that Medshares’ application is financially feasible in the short term, that is, able to obtain the capital for start-up (including any construction costs, if necessary) as well as sufficient working capital to sustain a business until it becomes self-sufficient. While Medicorp's financial feasibility remained an issue going into hearing, it appears from AHCA's proposed recommended order that it continues to challenge only Allstar's short-term financial feasibility. See AHCA PRO, p. 8. In any event, Medicorp proved that adequate funding is available from outside sources to fund the start-up costs and early operations. Its project is therefore financially feasible in the short term. The total project costs for Allstar's proposed project is $102,903, based on reasonable historical data typical of the start-up equipment and expenses for similar Medicare-certified home health agencies in the same geographic area. Allstar's projected start-up costs of $24,956 are reasonable. To fund the proposed project, Allstar has established and maintains an escrow account with Republic Bank in the amount of $150,000 (almost $50,000 more that the projected total project cost). Allstar has adequately demonstrated its ability to fund the project; the project is financially feasible in the short term. b. Long term AHCA maintains that none of the applicants demonstrated long-term financial feasibility for one reason alone: lack of need for the proposals. Contrary to this assertion, there will remain need in Broward County for Medicare-certified home health agencies even if these three applicants receive the applied-for CONs. The projects of all three applicants are financially feasible in the long term. Allstar's and Medicorp's Reliance Solely on Independent Contractors AHCA contends the HCFA interpretation of the federal condition of participation found in 42 CFR s.484.14(a) requires full-time salaried employees to staff at least one qualifying service. Even if the interpretation is correct, it is no impediment to either the Allstar or the Medicorp application. Medical social work is a qualifying service under the federal regulation. Allstar presently staffs its medical social worker in its Dade County office exclusively with a full-time salaried employee for whom an Internal Revenue Service W-2 form must be maintained. Allstar intends to staff its Broward County office in the same manner. (Even if the social medical worker position were staffed with a part-time employee, Allstar would comply with the federal regulation so long as the part-time employee were salaried and received a W-2 form.) Up until hearing, AHCA legitimately maintained that Medicorp violates the federal regulation because of Assumption 11 to the pro forma in its application which stated that, "[i]t is assumed that all caregiving nurses are independent contractors." At hearing, however, Medicorp witnesses testified that nursing staff and CNA staff will be employed. Ms. Cardozo testified that she currently employs these staff and, if awarded a CON, would continue to do so. Similarly, the application repeatedly refers to Medicorp's staff consisting of the same employees working for Medicorp's sister agency, Medcorp. Any inconsistency between the testimony elicited by Medicorp at hearing and the assumption in its pro forma is of no moment in this case. With regard to financial feasibility, the assumption, even if incorrect in part, is not necessarily fatal to the application. (AHCA's finding of financial infeasibility, in the case of Medicorp was not based on the incorrectness of Assumption 11. Moreover, while one would usually expect full- time employees to cost more than less-than full-time independent contractors as to total cost, the direct hourly rate cost of independent contractors is usually higher than the direct hourly rate cost of employees.) Probable Impact on the Cost of Services Only Medshares demonstrated that it would foster competition which would promote quality assurance and cost effectiveness. In the case of Medicorp, eliminating the subcontract arrangements through which it, Medicorp, now provides services to Medicare patients will eliminate an unnecessary level of administrative costs. Other benefits flow from eliminating the need for Medicorp to subcontract with an authorized entity. For example, AHCA discourages such arrangements because removal of direct control of patient care from the authorized entity raises not just quality assurance issues but also the potential for fraud. In any event, granting all three applications should not reduce the cost effectiveness of any providers of Medicare- certified home health care services in Broward County in the future. Past and Proposed Provision of Services to Medicaid and Indigent Patients As detailed above, Allstar is committed to provide home health care services to Medicaid eligible and indigent patients. This commitment, in the absence of any data to the contrary, is an adequate one. That Allstar will make good on this commitment is supported by indicia aside from the express commitment contained in the application. Allstar has a relationship with Jackson Memorial to increase the number of indigent patients Allstar serves. Its brochures and business cards state that it accepts Medicaid patients. This acceptance is confirmed by Allstar at its public presentations and in conversations with referring physicians. Finally, the majority of Allstar's staff is bilingual, and it has nurses who speak as many as five languages. It has the capacity and intent to make a multilingual staff available in Broward County. Medicorp clearly has a history of providing health services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. This commitment has been demonstrated through operation of Medicorp's sister agency by Medicorp's principals. If anything, as discussed above, Medicorp's principals have shown a singular dedication to the medically indigent population through operation of health fairs and other charities. Consistent with this dedication, Medicorp has conditioned its application on provision of at least 10 percent of its total visits to Medicaid patients and at least 2 percent of its visits to the medically indigent. Medshares, too, has a history of providing services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. In 1995, it provided over $650,000 in uncompensated care. It participates in Medicaid waiver programs in two states which have them. Its application describes its indigent care plan. The pro forma projections of revenue and expense in the application describe the levels of indigent and Medicaid eligible persons that Medshares expects to serve. Medshares offers a CON condition that 1.4 percent of total patients will be Medicaid patients and 2 percent of total patients will be indigent patients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order granting CON Nos. 8418, 8419, and 8448 to Medicorp Home Health Care Services, Medshares of Florida, Inc., and Allstar Care, Inc., respectively. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Newell, Jr., Esquire Newell & Stahl, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Michael Manthei, Esquire Broad & Cassell Broward Financial Centre, Suite 1130 500 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Alfred J. Clark, Esquire Suite 201 117 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard Patterson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact Background At all times material to this proceeding, Redi-Care was a corporation doing business as a home health care agency in Florida and was duly licensed in that capacity by the Department. Prior to May 4, 1989, Redi-Care was not certified to receive payment for services provided to Medicaid recipients under the Florida Medicaid Program. At times, however, Redi-Care did provide services to Medicaid recipients under a waiver program involving "Home and Community Based Services." This program receives funding from a separate appropriation than the one administered by the Department for the Florida Medicaid Program. Since the sale of some of the corporate assets on July 31, 1990, Ms. Ingeborg G. Mausch, Ph.D., has been authorized by the corporation to proceed with the collection of the accounts receivable that remained with the corporation. This proceeding involves Redi-Care's request for payment from the Department for medical services provided to two Medicaid eligible recipients, Richard Mow and Claire Jester. The Florida Medicaid Program is jointly funded by the federal and state governments. The Department is the state agency responsible for the administration of Medicaid funds from both funding sources. To the extent monies are appropriated, the Department is authorized to provide payment for medical services given to Medicaid eligible recipients through certified home health care agencies. Consultec was awarded the contract to replace EDS as the provider of fiscal agent services and the Medicaid agent for the Florida Medicaid Program in 1988. Pursuant to the agreement, Consultec was to become responsible for the enrollment of new providers and the processing of claims on December 15, 1988. Prior to the assumption of the fiscal agent duties, Consultec was responsible for the re-enrollment of all existing Florida Medicaid Providers into the Florida Medicaid Management System as it had been redesigned by Consultec. Current enrollees were given new provider numbers to be used on all submissions made on or after the December 15, 1988 date. Any claims submitted prior to December 15, 1988 would be processed by Electronic Data Systems Corporation (EDS) under the provider numbers previously issued by that entity. As part of the re-enrollment program, Consultec also created vendor numbers for those home health care agencies involved in the waiver program. These vendor numbers are used within the Department's Developmental Services and Aging Adult Services operations. In the past, home health care providers have not had access to these numbers. Consultec sent Vendor Information Sheets to all providers within the HRS Developmental Services and Aging Adult Services Waiver Program for "Home and Community Based Services" on October 7, 1988. Redi-Care was listed as a provider with the waiver program at the time the vendor re-enrollment occurred. Upon receipt of the Vendor Information Sheet, Redi-Care certified that the information on the sheet prepared by Consultec was correct. The document was returned to Consultec, as requested on the form, on October 19, 1988. Unbeknownst to those providers who completed the form, Consultec was planning on issuing them vendor numbers. Although each of the providers had such vendor numbers in the past, these numbers were never specifically issued to them because the Department undertook the responsibility to complete that portion of the waiver program's documentation. Application Process Originally, Redi-Care applied for enrollment as a "Medicaid Provider" in 1987. This original application was abandoned by Redi-Care when it learned that a provider had to be Medicare eligible as well. Instead, Redi-Care became a provider of "Medicaid Home and Community Based Services" in the waiver program. In July of 1988, "Medicaid Providers" were no longer required to be Medicare eligible. Based upon this policy change, Redi-Care reapplied to the Department for enrollment as a "Medicaid Provider" who provides medical services to recipients of the Florida Medicaid Program. The enrollment application, known as a "Request for Certification," was completed by Redi-Care on September 7, 1988. Assurance of Compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was attached to the application. The Ownership and Control of Interest Statement was completed by Redi-Care, but the evidence presented reveals that it may not have been included in the application documents sent to the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification on September 7, 1988, or shortly thereafter. Pursuant to the agreement still in effect between the Department and EDS on the date of the submission of the application, EDS was the Medicaid Agent responsible for the review and processing of Redi-Care's application to become a Florida "Medicaid Provider" once it was received by EDS from the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification. Because Redi-Care was already licensed as a home health agency, the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification was not required to grant a license prior to the transfer of this enrollment application to EDS. All that was required was a certification survey from this branch of the Department and a copy of Redi-Care's active license. When the Office of Licensure and Certification went to complete the survey, the representative of the Department confused this Redi-Care entity with an entity next door known as Redi-Care, Inc. Consequently, the Redi-Care corporation seeking certification as a "Medicaid Provider" was not surveyed as it had requested via all of the proper channels. As the Office of Licensure and Certification was unaware of its mistake regarding the Redi-Care entities, this Redi-Care application package was sent on to EDS for review and processing of the application without the documentation required from the Department. After a few weeks, because Redi-Care was generally familiar with the application process from its prior experience, the Department was contacted and the follow-up package was requested. Redi-Care was sent a copy of the Medicaid Provider Agreement, which was signed and returned to the Office of Licensure and Certification on or about November 18, 1988. Within a day or two after Redi-Care mailed the Medicaid Provider Agreement, a letter was received from Consultec which referred to Redi-Care as a "Medicaid Provider." Redi-Care was thanked for re-enrolling in the program and was issued a Florida Medicaid Provider number for Home and Community Based Services. In actuality, the letter from Consultec was providing Redi-Care with the vendor number described previously in these Findings of Fact for use in the waiver program. Redi-Care was unaware that such a number was to be issued because it had not received such a number in the past, nor was it advised that one was forthcoming. When Ms. Mausch read the letter on behalf of Redi-Care, she assumed it related to the recent reapplication for Medicaid certification submitted in September 1988. The first sentence of the letter thanking Redi- Care for "re-enrollment" was interpreted as an acknowledgement of the first application for enrollment which had been abandoned, and an appreciation of the facility's current decision to assist in the provision of home health care to Medicaid recipients. Because the body of the letter appeared to be tailor made to Redi-Care's recent decision to participate as a "Medicaid Provider", Redi- Care believed its pending application for enrollment had been approved. When the letter was read and interpreted by Ms. Mausch, she failed to notice that the letter was issued four days prior to Redi-Care's submission of the Medicaid Provider Agreement, and specifically referred to "Home and Community Based Services." This mistake does not dissuade the Hearing Officer from finding Redi-Care's interpretation of the document was reasonable in light of all of the surrounding circumstances under which it was read. The references to Redi-Care as a "Medicaid Provider" in this letter issued by Consultec was ambiguous. The technical term "Medicaid Provider" was misused in a generic sense. Although the more casual use of the term might not have been misleading to most providers in the waiver program, it was very misleading to Redi-Care, who was awaiting the issuance of a "Medicaid Provider" number from the Medicaid Program. At the time the Consultec letter of November 14, 1988 was issued, EDS was the Department's Medicaid agent responsible for the review and processing of Florida's "Medicaid Provider" applications. On December 5, 1988, EDS acknowledged its receipt of Redi-Care's application to become a Florida "Medicaid Provider." The application packet was returned to Redi-Care, who was advised that additional items needed to be available with the application for processing to occur. Redi-Care was required to submit a copy of the Ownership and Control of Interest Statement. The Office of Licensure and Certification was required to complete its certification survey and submit this, along with a copy of Redi-Care's active license. The requests made by EDS were questioned by Redi-Care for the following reasons: Consultec's letter of November 11, 1988, appeared to have already approved the Medicaid enrollment, and the Office of Licensure and Certification had already been notified by Redi-Care two months earlier, and should have sent a copy of the license and survey to EDS. Instead of calling EDS, Ms. Mausch contacted Consultec, who had recently issued the "Medicaid Provider" number. During the conversation with "Deborah" of Consultec, who represented she was able to speak to Ms. Mausch's concerns, Redi-Care was advised that it need not complete the directions issued by EDS because a "Medicaid Provider" number had already been assigned by Consultec. It is unknown what exactly was said by Ms. Mausch to "Deborah" which resulted in this reply. However, the advice from "Deborah" was accepted and relied upon by Redi-Care because it was very compatible with what Redi-Care was willing to do under the known circumstances and what it reasonably believed the facts to be. Neither Redi-Care nor EDS were advised of the Department's failure to conduct the certification survey. It is also unknown whether the Department was aware of its confusion of the two Redi-Care entities at this point in time. Shortly after the re-application was returned to Redi-Care by EDS, this Department agent was relieved of its responsibility to review and process Florida "Medicaid Provider" applications. This responsibility was transferred to Consultec, the new Medicaid agent. At the time of the transfer, Consultec interpreted the return of Redi-Care's application for further attachments as a rejection of the application by EDS. Therefore, no further action was taken by Consultec on the application because it was considered to be a resolved matter. It should be noted however, that Redi-Care had not been advised that its application had been rejected, nor was any completion deadline given before rejection would occur. Redi-Care heard nothing more about the application after the discussion with "Deborah", so it continued to rely upon the representation that the new Florida "Medicaid Provider" number had been properly issued by the new Medicaid agent, and that nothing more was currently required of Redi-Care prior to its acceptance of Medicaid eligible recipients. The Acceptance and Care of Medicaid Eligible Recipients Once Redi-Care began to hold itself out as a home health agency who could accept Medicaid eligible recipients under the Medicaid Program, Richard Mow and Claire Jester were referred by their physicians and accepted as clients. There is no dispute in these proceedings about the Medicaid eligibility of either Richard Mow or Claire Jester. Further, there is no dispute regarding the quality of medical care, the dates of services, the necessity for the services and the reasonableness of the amount of the bills submitted for claims review and processing under the Medicaid Program. Richard Mow and Claire Jester were accepted as clients and services were performed based upon Redi-Care's reliance upon the representation that Redi-Care had a valid "Medicaid Provider" number that would allow it to receive payment from Medicaid appropriations for the medical care of these two clients. The Department was aware of the acceptance of these two Medicaid eligible recipients as clients by Redi-Care. The Department was also aware that they were being provided medical services for which Redi-Care expected to be reimbursed by the Medicaid Program. The two clients also relied upon this method of payment for the medical services provided by Redi-Care as third-party beneficiaries to the purported agreement between Redi-Care and the Medicaid Program. The amount of the claim submitted for services provided to Richard Mow from February 8, 1989 through April 16, 1989 was $7,411.45. The amount of the claim submitted for services provided to Claire Jester from February 12, 1989 through April 30, 1989 was $753.83. The Submission of Claims and Claims Denial Redi-Care first submitted billings and notes for the claims involving Richard Mow and Claire Jester to Consultec on March 29, 1989. On April 11, 1989, Redi-Care contacted Elizabeth Campbell, a Human Services Program Specialist with the HRS Medicaid Program Office in Fort Myers, Florida. At the time Ms. Campbell was contacted, her job duties included claims resolution for providers in the home health and nursing home areas. The purpose of the phone call from Redi-Care was to ask Ms. Campbell to find out why it had not received word on its claim submission to Consultec for Richard Mow and Claire Jester. After Ms. Campbell researched the issue, she discovered that Redi-Care was not listed as a "Medicaid Provider" on the rolls maintained by Consultec. Redi-Care was ineligible for payment through Medicaid. Payment could be received only as a provider of "Home and Community Based Services" under the waiver program. When Redi-Care was advised that it did not have a "Medicaid Provider" number on April 11, 1989, the Department was told about the information given to Ms. Mausch by Consultec's letter and her follow-up conversation with "Deborah". Ms. Campbell, as a representative of the Department, assured Redi-Care that the matter would be pursued further. In the meantime, through its employees, the Department allowed Redi-Care to continue to rely on the representation that it would be paid at the Medicaid rates for the continuing care provided to Richard Mow and Claire Jester. On April 12, 1989, Ms. Campbell recorded in her field notes that she did not make any assurances to Redi-Care that it would be paid for providing services for the two clients. However, there is no evidence to show that she affirmatively advised Redi-Care that they might not get paid for past or continuing services. Redi-Care was allowed to continue to care for the clients under the the assumption that Medicaid would provide payment. On April 18, 1989, it was clear to Department employees involved in this factual scenario that the Office of Licensure and Certification had confused this Redi-Care entity with Redi-Care, Inc. when the survey and certification was scheduled to occur in November 1988. This mistake had never been corrected. On April 26, 1989, Consultec completed its review of the claims submitted by Redi-Care and denied the claims because Redi-Care did not have a "Medicaid Provider" number. Attempts to Cure Certification Issue The Office of Licensure and Certification completed its survey on May 4, 1989. Redi-Care's enrollment application was complete, and contained all of the required information on this date. Although no deficiencies were noted during the survey, the Department did not send a copy of the letter stating Redi-Care met its requirements until June 27, 1989. On that date, the letter was sent to Redi-Care, who was required to forward it to Consultec, along with the application Redi-Care had previously submitted with the attachments requested in December 1988 by EDS. Once Redi-Care received the letter in early July 1989, the information was immediately forwarded to Consultec. Consultec reviewed the application and issued Redi-Care a "Medicaid Provider" number on August 6, 1989. When Redi-Care received its "Medicaid Provider" number, it was advised by Consultec that it could use this number to submit billings to the Medicaid Program for eligible services provided since September 1988. Apparently, Consultect relied on the date EDS acknowledged receipt of the application and related the eligibility date to the 90 day period prior to the application receipt. On September 19, 1989, the Department issued a letter through the Program Administrator, Medicaid Program Office, advising Redi-Care that the Medicaid billings for Richard Mow and Claire Jester would not be paid by the Medicaid Program, even though these services were provided after the effective date of eligibility given to Redi-Care by Consultec in its letter of August 6, 1989. The Department's letter advising Redi-Care of the Medicaid Program's decision to deny payment for the services provided to the two Medicaid eligible recipients also told Redi-Care that its "Medicaid Provider" number could be used only for services rendered on or after May 4, 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended: Redi-Care's application for enrollment as a "Medicaid Provider" be deemed complete on May 4, 1989. Redi-Care's eligibility period to submit claims as a "Medicaid Provider" should be listed as February 4, 1989, based upon the eligibility period set forth in the "Medicaid Provider Handbook, Home Health Care Services" in effect on the date the application was completed. The Department waive time limits for claims received beyond the usual 12 month period, as allowed in Rule 10C-7.030(6), Florida Administrative Code, based upon the unusual circumstances of this case because the circumstances pose an undue hardship on the provider or recipients. That the claims for services provided to Richard Mow and Claire Jester be re-submitted to Consultec for claims processing once the 12-month deadline is waived by the Department. That the amount of the reimbursement allowed to Redi-Care should be provided at the rates in effect at the time the services were rendered. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 11th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-6923 Redi-Care's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO number 4. Accepted. See HO number 5. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 40. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 42. Accepted. See HO number 14 - number 27. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 45. Accepted. See HO number 29. Accepted. See HO number 38. Accepted. See HO number 35. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 5 - number 7 and number 16. Rejected. Contrary to fact and Redi-Care Exh. number 9. Rejected. See HO number 35 - number 38. Accepted. See HO number 39. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Rejected. Improper conclusion of law. Accepted. See HO number 32. Accepted. See HO number 33. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 8. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 8. Accepted. See HO number 9. Reject due to use of technical term "Medicaid Provider." See HO number 18. Otherwise, accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 28. Accepted. See HO number 30 - number 31. Accepted. See HO number 34. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 5. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 2. Accepted. See HO number 2. The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO number 2. Accepted. See HO number 3. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 5. Accepted. See HO number 1. Accepted. See HO number 1. Accepted. See HO number 5, number 15 and number 16. Accepted. See HO number 6 and number 7. Accepted. See HO number 7. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 15 and number 16. Accepted. See HO number 45. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Conclusion of Law, not fact. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO number 5. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 9. Accepted. See HO number 40. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 43 - number 45. Rejected. Improper conclusion. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 20. Accepted. See HO number 22 - number 24. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 27. Rejected. Irrelevant to this proceeding. Consultec's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO number 1 - number 2. Accepted. See HO number 3. Accepted. See HO number 3. Generally accepted, except for the dates of enrollment and claims processing. See HO number 4 and number 5. Accepted. See HO number 5 - number 7. Rejected. Conclusionary and contrary to fact. See HO number 15 - number 17. Accepted. See HO number 15 - number 17. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 20. Accepted, except for the conclusion that this was a rejection letter. See HO number 20 and number 26. Reject the classification as rejection letter. Improper conclusion. See HO number 20. The rest of the paragraph is factually correct. See HO number 22 - number 24. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Improper definition of hearsay. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 45. Accepted. See HO number 40. Accepted. See HO number 40. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 16, number 17 and number 27. COPIES FURNISHED: Karel Baarslag, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building Six, Room 233 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Barry Roth, Esquire COHEN AND ROTH, P.A. 1375 Jackson Street, Number 201 Post Office Drawer 2650 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2650 Ken Syler CONSULTEC, INC. 2002 A1 Old St. Augustine Road Post Office Box 5497 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5497 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
