Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: East Pasco Medical Center (EPMC) is a non-profit 85-bed acute care hospital facility located in the East Pasco subdistrict of HRS District V. There are only two hospitals in the subdistrict -- EPMC in Zephyrhills and Humana in Dade City, which is approximately ten miles north. Humana is a 120- bed acute care hospital facility. Both facilities offer the same services and share the same medical staff. On or about September 17, 1987, EPMC submitted an application for a Certificate of Need to add 35 medical/surgical beds via a fourth floor addition to its existing facility. Its existing 85 beds are located in private rooms, and it is proposed that the additional 35 beds will also be placed in separate rooms. The application submitted to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) projected a total project cost of $4,531,000. This figure was revised at the hearing to a project cost of $2,302,900. With regard to acute care services, the State Health Plan seeks to assure geographic accessibility. All residents of East Pasco County currently have access to acute care hospital services within the travel times suggested by the State plan. The State Health Plan also seeks to promote the efficient utilization of acute care services by attaining an average annual occupancy rate of at least 80 percent. The District V Local Health Plan emphasizes that additions to inpatient acute care beds in a subdistrict should not be considered unless a numeric bed need is shown and certain occupancy thresholds have been met. The recommended occupancy thresholds for medical/surgical beds are 80% for the subdistrict and 90% for the facility seeking to add beds. Application of the bed need methodology contained in HRS's Rule 10- 5.011(1)(m), Florida Administrative Code, indicates a numeric need for 57 additional acute care medical/surgical beds in the East Pasco subdistrict for the planning horizon period of July, 1992. The rule provides that HRS will "not normally approve" additional beds unless average occupancy in the subdistrict is greater than 75 percent. However, the rule permits HRS to award additional beds when there is a calculated need, notwithstanding low occupancy in the subdistrict, if the applicant had a minimum of 75% average occupancy during the 12 months ending 14 months prior to the Letter of Intent. Rule 10- 5.011(1)(m)7.e., Florida Administrative Code. The rule also permits HRS to award additional beds where the calculated numeric need substantially exceeds the number of existing and approved beds in the subdistrict and there is an access problem related to travel time. For the relevant time period, the acute care occupancy rate for the East Pasco subdistrict was below 75% percent. Indeed, over the past few years, the average occupancy rate in that subdistrict has been 54 to 58 percent. Humana only operates at about a 55% occupancy. The East Pasco subdistrict does experience seasonal fluctuations in medical/surgical occupancy, with the season for high occupancy beginning in late October and ending in mid- to late April. In addition to tourists, it is expected that the revival of the citrus industry in East Pasco County will bring more migrant pickers to the area during the peak season months. The seasonal increase in occupancy directly corresponds with a large increase in seasonal population, particularly in the Zephyrhills area. The Zephyrhills area population is much older than the Dade City population and is also much older than the State average. The HRS acute care bed need rule includes considerations of seasonal peak demands. When considering both hospitals in the subdistrict, there has been a decline in peak seasonal occupancy rates over the past few years. While the population of the East Pasco subdistrict has grown, and is expected to increase by approximately 7,200 in 1992, there is a trend of declining utilization in the subdistrict. This decline is due to increased used of outpatient services and shorter lengths of hospital stay attributable to the current reimbursement system. The medical/surgical use rate fell from 454 patient days per 1,000 population in 1986 to 414 patient days per 1,000 population in 1988. There was a similar decline in the acute care use rate. Assuming a constant medical/surgical use rate, the projected demand for 1992 would be 2,980 additional medical/surgical patient days in the subdistrict according to population projections, and about 4,267 incremental patient days according to local health council projections. EPMC's Letter of Intent to add 35 additional beds was filed in mid- July, 1987. Its acute care occupancy rate for the period of April, 1986 through March, 1987 was 75.3 percent. Occupancy at EPMC from May, 1986 to April, 1987 was 73.6%; occupancy from June, 1986 through May, 1987 was 73%; and occupancy from July, 1986 to June, 1987 was 72.2 percent. EPMC does experience periods of high occupancy during the peak season months. High occupancy levels have a greater impact upon smaller hospitals due to their lesser degree of flexibility. On occasion, during the winter months, EPNC is required to refuse admittance to patients due to crowded conditions within its facility. Patients are sometimes transferred or referred to other facilities, including Humana, although the necessity for such transfers or referrals is occasionally due to a lack of intensive or critical care beds as opposed to a lack of medical/surgical beds. During the periods of time when EPMC had high occupancy levels, beds were available at Humana. EPMC's current payor mix includes a high level of Medicare (over 60%), and it is committed, through both its Christian mission and an agreement with the County, to treat indigent and Medicaid patients. The actual amount of indigent or charity care provided by EPNC was not established. In any event, EPMC desires to increase its bed size in order to help maintain a proper payor mix at the hospital so as to ensure the financial survival of the hospital. It is felt that a greater number of beds, given the rise in population, and particularly elderly population, would allow EPNC to serve a greater number of private and/or third party insurance paying patients. While the evidence demonstrates that EPMC may operate with a less favorable payor mix than Humana, the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that EPMC will suffer financial ruin without additional beds. Likewise, it was not established that the patients which EPNC must turn away in the winter months are consistently paying patients. Increasing the number of beds at EPNC to 120 beds does not necessarily mean that its profitability would be improved. Volume and payor mix are the most critical factors in determining whether a hospital will be profitable. There is currently a nursing shortage throughout the nation. Rural areas, such as the eastern portion of Pasco County, experience even greater difficulty in attracting nursing personnel to the area. Due to the shortage of nurses, as well as the seasonal demand, EPMC is required to use contract care nurses throughout the year. While it would prefer to employ its own nursing staff, EPMC will use contract staff due to the seasonal variations in its nursing requirements. The use of contract or registry nurses costs 50% to 60% more on a daily basis; however, lower occupancy during the off-peak months does not justify year- round employment for as large an in-house nursing staff. For its proposed 35 beds, EPMC projects nurse manpower requirements as follows: 1 nurse manager, 4.2 R.N. charge nurses, 15.1 R.N. staff and 14.1 L.P.N. staff, for a total of 34.4 full time equivalent nursing positions. The recruiting efforts of EPNC to fill these positions will include advertising, visiting nursing schools and colleges, utilizing student nurses at the hospital and use of the Adventist Health System international network. Humana currently has 15 vacancies, or 12 to 13% of its nursing staff. Humana's nursing salaries have increased 20% over the past eighteen months. As noted above, EPNC and Humana compete for the same nursing personnel. Humana's personnel director believes that if EPNC increases its nursing staff by 34 FTEs, Humana's nursing staff will be approached to fill those positions. As a consequence, Humana will experience additional nursing shortages and will be required to further increase salaries. It is proposed that the project cost of adding 35 beds to EPMC will be financed with 100% debt financing through a bond issue. The financing will be part of a much larger bond issuance intended to finance several other projects within the Adventist hospital system. No evidence was adduced that such a bond issuance had been prepared or approved, and there was no evidence concerning the other projects which would be financed in conjunction with this project. In 1987, EPNC was carrying about five million dollars of negative equity. The hospital is currently greater than 100% financed. As noted above, the original Certificate of Need application filed with HRS listed the total project cost to be $4,531,000. In its response to omissions, EPMC stated that the construction cost would be $175 per square foot. In the updates submitted at the hearing, EPNC proposed a project cost of $2,302,900, which included a construction cost of $85 per square foot. A more reasonable cost for the addition of a floor to an existing facility would be $125 per square foot, plus an inflation factor of 6% and architectural and engineering fees of 6 to 7%. The proposed equipment list submitted by EPNC fails to include major equipment items such as an overhead paging system, a nurse call system, examination room equipment, medication distribution equipment, bed curtains, shower curtains, patient and staff support lounge items, and IV pumps. EPNC's updated equipment cost budget fails to include tax, freight, contingency and installation costs. The projected equipment costs should be tripled to adequately and reasonably equip a 35-bed nursing unit. The projected utilization and pro formas submitted by EPMC are not reasonable and were not supported by competent substantial evidence. EPMC's projected utilization for the proposed 35-bed unit is 8,950 patient days in the first year of operation and 9,580 in the second year of operation. Applying the current use rate to the population projections submitted by EPMC's expert in demographics and population projections produces only about 2,980 additional patient days in the year 1992. Given the fact that EPMC's current market share is approximately 54%, there is no reason to believe that Humana would not absorb at least some of those projected additional patient days. There are many months of the year in which additional patient days could be filled within the existing complement of 85 beds at EPNC. Depending upon the ultimate cost of the project, the break even point for financial feasibility purposes would be approximately 3,500 to 4,000 patient days. The concept behind a pro forma is to develop a financial picture of what operations will be in the first two years of operation. EPMC stated its revenues and expenses in terms of 1988 dollars and used its current revenue- to-expense ratios for projecting operations four years into the future. This is improper because gross revenues are going up, reimbursement is not increasing as rapidly and expenses, particularly salaries and insurance, are increasing. In addition, EPMC's projected 1992 salaries in several categories were less than they are currently paying for such positions. EPMC currently provides good quality of care to its patients. The only future concern in this realm is the fact that in the winter months, its intensive and critical care unit beds are often full and there is no room for additional patients. Additional medical/surgical volume from the proposed 35- bed unit would lead to additional intensive and critical care bed demand.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of East Pasco Medical Center for a Certificate of Need to add 35 acute care beds to its existing facility be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30 day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 30th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. (Case No. 88-1227) The proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties have been carefully considered and are accepted, incorporated and/or summarized in this Recommended Order, with the following exceptions: Petitioner: Third sentence rejected as not established by competent, substantial evidence. Accepted, but not included as irrelevant to the ultimate resolution of the issues. Rejected. The Personnel Director of Humana presented testimony in this proceeding. Accepted as an accurate restatement of testimony, but rejected as an erroneous conclusion of law. 16. Second sentence rejected as an erroneous conclusion of law. A18. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 20. First sentence rejected as an erroneous conclusion of law. First sentence rejected as an erroneous conclusion of law. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. 27 and 30. Accepted as an accurate restatement of testimony, but rejected as an erroneous conclusion of law. Rejected as immaterial to the issue of need in the year 1992. First sentence rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. First and third sentences rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. 37 and 38. Rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. 44. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Accepted only if the factors of volume and payor mix are also considered. Partially rejected as speculative and not supported by competent substantial evidence. All but first two sentences rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence and an erroneous conclusion of law. Rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence and an erroneous conclusion of law. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Second sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 58. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 60. Rejected as not established by competent substantial evidence. 62 - 67. The actual figures regarding total costs, projected utilization and those figures utilized in the pro formas were not established by competent substantial evidence and, therefore, the findings regarding the financial feasibility of the project are rejected. 71. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. 74. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. 77. Rejected as an improper factual finding and contrary to the evidence. 78 and 79. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence rejected as unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Respondent: 2 and 6. Partially accepted with the additional considerations of the applicant's occupancy levels and geographic accessibility. 9. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 19(a) Interpretation of rule not sufficiently explicated at hearing. 56 - 58. Actual figures are not established by competent evidence due to the failure to establish with reliability the total costs of the project. Intervenor: Second sentence accepted with the additional considerations of the applicant's occupancy levels and geographic accessibility. Third sentence rejected. Interpretation of rule not sufficiently explicated at hearing. First sentence rejected, but this does not preclude a consideration of such a period. Third sentence rejected as not established by the greater weight of the evidence. 31. Second sentence rejected as speculative. 40 and 41. Accepted as factually correct, but not included due to the showing of unused capacity within the East Pasco subdistrict. 55 and 56. Actual figures are not established by competent evidence due to the failure to establish with reliability the total costs of the project. 63 and 72. Same as above with regard to second sentence. 92. Rejected as an overbroad statement or conclusion. 97. Second sentence rejected as overbroad and not supported by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: E.G. Boone and Jeffrey Boone 1001 Avenida del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Stephen M. Presnell Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 323a2 James C. Hauser Messer, Vickers, Caparello, French & Madsen, P.A. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Hialeah Hospital, Inc. may be licensed for a 21-bed psychiatric unit, without first obtaining a certificate of need, on the basis that it provided psychiatric services before a certificate of need was statutorily required.
Findings Of Fact Background of the Controversy The Parties The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (the Department) is responsible for determining whether health care projects are subject to review under the Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 381.701- 381.715, Florida Statutes. It also licenses hospitals under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. The Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities renders decisions about requests for grandfather status which would exempt a psychiatric service offered at hospital from certificate of need review. The Department's Office of Licensure and Certification issues licenses but does not grant grandfather exemptions. A hospital will not receive separate licensure for psychiatric beds unless a certificate of need has been obtained for those beds, or the beds are in a psychiatric unit which had been organized before certificate of need review was required. See Section 381.704(2), Florida Statutes (1987). A hospital can provide inpatient psychiatric services to a patient in one of three ways: a) as a patient housed among the general hospital population, b) as a patient housed in a special unit organized within the hospital and staffed by doctors, nurses and other personnel especially to serve patients with psychiatric diagnoses, or c) in a hospital organized as a psychiatric specialty hospital. Serving patients through methods b and c requires special certificate of need approval and licensure. Most community hospitals place psychiatric patients among the general patient population; few hospitals create a distinct psychiatric unit; fewer hospitals still specialize as psychiatric hospitals. Hialeah Hospital, Inc. is a 411-bed general hospital in Hialeah, Florida. It does not currently hold a certificate of need for licensure of a distinct psychiatric unit. As a result, its reimbursement for psychiatric services from the Federal government for Medicare patients is limited. The Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) generally reimburses hospitals for services based upon flat rates which are paid according to categories known as diagnostic related groups. Hialeah Hospital now receives reimbursement for services it renders to psychiatric patients on this basis. If it is entitled to a grandfather exemption from certificate of need review, and its distinct psychiatric unit is separately licensed by the Department, Hialeah Hospital will receive cost-based reimbursement for services to psychiatric patients, which will result in higher income to the hospital. Approval of the grandfathering request will not result in a) any capital expenditure by the hospital, b) the addition of staff, or c) a change in the type of services currently offered at the hospital. Just before July 1, 1983, the hospital had an average daily census of 16-17 psychiatric patients. If the psychiatric services the hospital has offered do not qualify for grandfathering, Hialeah Hospital may apply for a certificate of need for a distinct psychiatric unit. Even without a psychiatric certificate of need, Hialeah is still entitled to continue to serve patients with psychiatric diagnoses among its general population, and to receive the lower diagnostic related group reimbursement for those services from HCFA. Palmetto General Hospital is a licensed general hospital with 312 acute care beds and 48 separately licensed psychiatric short-term beds operated as a distinct psychiatric unit. It is located near Hialeah Hospital, and both hospitals serve the same geographic area. The primary markets of both hospitals overlap. They compete for patients, including psychiatric patients. Agency Action Under Review From 1973 to 1979 the license issued to Hialeah Hospital by the Department bore a designation for 21 psychiatric beds, based on information submitted in the hospital's licensure application. The hospital then dropped the psychiatric bed count from its licensure applications. This change probably was caused by a problem generated by an announcement from the Northwest Dade Community Health Center, Inc., the receiving facility for psychiatric emergencies in northwestern Dade County, which includes Hialeah. That center had written to the Hialeah Police Department, informing the police that when the center was not open, it had a crisis worker at the Hialeah Hospital emergency room, and that persons needing involuntary psychiatric hospitalization should be taken to the Hialeah Hospital emergency room. The only other hospital in Hialeah treating psychiatric patients was Palmetto General Hospital, which did not accept, as a general rule, patients who could not pay for care. The Hialeah Police Department thereafter began dropping psychiatric patients at Hialeah Hospital, much to the distress of the Hialeah Hospital emergency room staff. The Hospital thereafter dropped the designation of any of its beds as psychiatric beds on its annual licensure applications. It still received psychiatric patients from Jackson Memorial Hospital when that hospital reached its capacity for psychiatric patients. On its 1980 licensure application Hialeah Hospital collapsed all of its medical, surgical and psychiatric beds into a single figure. This was consistent with its practice of serving medical, surgical and psychiatric patients throughout the hospital. Hialeah Hospital filed similar licensure applications in 1981, 1982, 1983. In 1984 there was a dispute over the total number of beds to be licensed, which was resolved in early 1985. In 1985, after a change in the licensing statute which is discussed below, the Department informed Hialeah Hospital that its application for licensure was incomplete and could not be processed until Hialeah explained its basis for seeking separate licensure for 20 short-term psychiatric beds. In its response, Hialeah's Vice President stated: [W]e felt it was appropriate to indicate that Hialeah Hospital did accept psychiatric admissions. These patients have been randomly placed in the institution, many times based on other primary or secondary diagnoses. The application indicates bed usage, not that it is currently a discrete unit. Hialeah Hospital does currently have a Letter of Intent [on file] for establishment of a discrete med/psych unit. Hialeah Ex. 24a On August 1, 1985, the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification informed Hialeah Hospital by certified mail that the application for licensure of 20 short-term psychiatric beds was denied for failure to have obtained a certificate of need for them or to have obtained an exemption from review [both could only come from the Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities]. The hospital was provided a clear point of entry to challenge this determination through a proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, but Hialeah filed no petition for review of that decision. Instead, Hialeah pursued the certificate of need application which it had filed in April, 1985 for separately licensed psychiatric beds. There was no reason to challenge the August 1, 1985, denial because the factual bases alleged by the Department were true--the hospital had no certificate of need for psychiatric beds and had not yet asked the Department's Office of Community Health Facilities to decide whether Hialeah qualified for grandfathered beds. On October 21 and 23, 1986, Hialeah Hospital wrote to the Office of Community Health Facilities seeking a determination that it was entitled to have 21 pyschiatric beds grandfathered on its license. In certificate of need application 4025 Hialeah Hospital sought the establishment of a distinct 69 bed psychiatric unit at Hialeah, with separately licensed beds. The application went to hearing and was denied on its merits on February 17, 1987, in DOAH Case 85-3998. In his recommended order, the Hearing Officer discussed the issue of whether Hialeah Hospital was exempt from certificate of need review because it already had a psychiatric unit. He found that the issue was not appropriately raised in the proceeding before him, which was Hialeah Hospital's own application for a certificate of need to establish a psychiatric unit. He therefore found he lacked jurisdiction to consider the grandfathering issue. Hialeah Hospital v. HRS, 9 FALR 2363, 2397, paragraph 5 (HRS 1987). The Department adopted that ruling in its May 1, 1987, final order. Id. at 2365. A letter dated December 5, 1986, from the Office of Community Medical Facilities denied Hialeah's request to grandfather 21 short-term psychiatric beds on its license and thereby exempt them from certificate of need review, as requested in Hialeah's letters of October 21 and 23, 1986. The Department denied the grandfathering request for four reasons: When the Department conducted a physical plant survey on June 1, 1980, there were no psychiatric beds in operation at the hospital; The hospital bed count verification form returned to the Department on January 31, 1984 by the Director of Planning for Hialeah, Gene Samnuels, indicated that the hospital had no psychiatric beds; An inventory of psychiatric beds had been published by the Department in the Florida Administrative Weekly on February 17, 1984 which showed that Hialeah Hospital had no psychiatric beds, and Hialeah never contested that inventory; The Department had not received evidence demonstrating that psychiatric services were provided "in a separately set up and staffed unit between 1980 and 1985." This letter again gave Hialeah a point of entry to challenge the Department's decision to deny licensure of psychiatric beds and it was the genesis of Hialeah's petition initiating this case. It is significant that the Department's Office of Community Health Facilities gave Hialeah a clear point of entry to challenge the December 5, 1986, grandfathering denial with full knowledge that the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification had denied a request from Hialeah Hospital on August 1, 1985, to endorse psychiatric beds on Hialeah's 1985 license. The Departmental personnel knew that those two denials involved different issues. Once the Office of Licensure and Certification told the hospital it had to produce either a certificate of need or a grandfathering approval to have psychiatric beds endorsed on its license, the hospital had to turn to the Office of Community Health Facilities to get a ruling on its grandfathering claim. The letter of December 5, 1986, was the first ruling on the merits of Hialeah Hospital's claim that it was entitled to have 21 beds grandfathered. History of the Department's Specialty Bed Recognition Psychiatric Beds in Florida Hospitals Before July 1, 1983 Before April 1, 1983 no state statute or Department rule required that psychiatric beds in a hospital be located in physically distinct units. Psychiatric patients could be located throughout a hospital. They were not required to be placed in rooms having distinguishing characteristics, or to use group therapy rooms, dining rooms, or other rooms exclusively dedicated to use by psychiatric patients. There were, of course, hospitals that had distinct psychiatric units, and some entire hospitals which were specifically licensed as psychiatric hospitals. After 1983, a hospital had to obtain a certificate of need to organize what had previously been diffuse psychiatric services into a distinct unit dedicated to serving patients with psychiatric diagnoses. Today no special certificate of need is required to serve psychiatric patients in the general hospital population, but without separate licensure the hospital receives Medicare reimbursement from the federal government for psychiatric patients at the level established by the diagnostic related groups, not cost based reimbursement. Before July 1, 1983 annual hospital licensure application forms asked hospitals to identify their number of psychiatric beds as an item of information. The hospital licenses issued, however, were based on the hospital's total number of general medical-surgical beds, a category which included psychiatric beds. The 1983 Amendments to the Florida Statutes and the Department's Rules on Specialty Beds In April of 1983, the Department adopted a rule which established a separate need methodology for short-term psychiatric beds, Rule 10-5.11(1)(o), Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, the Legislature amended the statutes governing the hospital licensing, Section 395.003, Florida Statutes (1983) by adding a new subsection (4) which read: The Department shall issue a license which specifies the number of hospital beds on the face of the license. The number of beds for the rehabilitation or psychiatric service category for which the Department has adopted by rule a specialty bed need methodology under s. 381.494 shall be specified on the face of the hospital license. All beds which are not covered by any specialty bed need methodology shall be specified as general beds. Section 4, Chapter 83-244, Laws of Florida (underlined language was added). In the same Act, the Legislature amended the planning law to require hospitals to apply for certificates of need to change their number of psychiatric and rehabilitation beds. Section 2, Chapter 83-244, Laws of Florida, codified as Section 381.494(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1983). The Department's rules defined short-term psychiatric services as: [A] category of services which provide a 24- hour a day therapeutic milieu for persons suffering from mental health problems which are so severe and acute that they need intensive, full-time care. Acute psychiatric inpatient care is defined as a service not exceeding three months and averaging a length of stay of 30 days or less for adults and a stay of 60 days or less for children and adolescents under 18 years. Rule 10- 5.11(25)(a), Florida Administrative Code (1983), effective April 7, 1983. A minimum size for any new psychiatric unit was prescribed in Rule 10- 5.11(25)(d)7., which states: In order to assure specialized staff and services at a reasonable cost, short-term inpatient psychiatric hospital based services should have at least 15 designated beds. Applicants proposing to build a new but separate psychiatric acute care facility and intending to apply for a specialty hospital license should have a minimum of 50 beds. After the effective date of the rule, April 7, 1983, no hospital could organize its psychiatric services into a distinct psychiatric unit using specialized staff unless the unit would have at least 15 beds. This did not mean that a hospital which already had organized a distinct psychiatric unit using specialized staff had to have at least 15 beds in its unit to continue operation. Whatever the number of beds, whether fewer or greater than 15, that number had to appear on the face of the hospital's license. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes (1983). To change that number, the hospital had to go through the certificate of need process. Section 381.494(1)(g) Florida Statutes (1983). Those hospitals whose pre-existing units were endorsed on their licenses can be said to have had those units "grandfathered". There is no specific statutory exemption from certificate of need review for pre-existing units, but such treatment is implicit in the regulatory scheme. The Department's Grandfather Review Process To know which hospitals were entitled to continue to operate discrete psychiatric units without obtaining a certificate of need, the Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities had to identify hospitals which had separate psychiatric units before the July 1, 1983, effective date of Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes (1983). An inventory of beds in the existing psychiatric units also was necessary to process new certificate of need applications. The Department's rule methodology authorized additional beds in psychiatric units based upon a projected need of 15 beds per 10,000 population. Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)1., Florida Administrative Code (1983). The Legislature approved the psychiatric service categories which the Department had already adopted by rule when it enacted Section 4 of Chapter 83- 244, Laws of Florida. The Legislature thereby validated a process the Department had initiated in 1976 with its Task Force on Institutional Needs. That group had developed methodologies to be used throughout the state to determine the need for different types of medical services, because local health systems agencies were reviewing CON applications based upon idiosyncratic methodologies. To develop review criteria for psychiatric services, the Task Force had to both define psychiatric services and determine how it should measure them. In doing so, the Department looked for assistance to publications of entities such as the American Hospital Association and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. According to the American Hospital Association, psychiatric services are services delivered in beds set up and staffed in units specifically designated for psychiatric services. In the Task Force report, a psychiatric bed was defined as: A bed in a clinical care unit located in a short-term, acute care hospital or psychiatric hospital which is not used to provide long-term institutional care and which is suitably equipped and staffed to provide evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of persons with emotional disturbances. An inpatient care unit or clinical care unit is a group of inpatient beds and related facilities and assigned personnel in which care is provided to a defined and limited class of patients according to their particular care needs. HRS Exhibit 14 at 92 and 1-5. The definition of a psychiatric bed in the Report of the Department Task Force on Institutional Needs is compatible with the requirements of the Florida Hospital Cost Containment Board in its Florida Hospital Uniform Reporting Manual. Reports made by hospitals to the Hospital Cost Containment Board include information about services provided in separately organized, staffed and equipped hospital units. The information provided to the Board assisted the Department in determining which Florida hospitals already were providing psychiatric services in separately organized, staffed and equipped hospital units before separate licensure became necessary. The Department surveyed hospitals to determine the number of existing beds in distinct psychiatric units. It also looked to old certificates of need which referenced psychiatric services at hospitals, reports hospitals had made to the Florida Hospital Cost Containment Board, to past licensure applications the Department had received from hospitals, and to the Department's 1980 physical plant survey. These sources of information were, however, imperfect, for the reasons which follow: 1. Certificates of Need Issued 22. Before July 1, 1983, certificates of need were required for the initiation of new services which involved capital expenditures above a certain threshold dollar amount. Hospitals which had a long-standing psychiatric units would have had no occasion to request a certificate of need for psychiatric services. Review of certificates issued would not turn up a hospital with a mature psychiatric service. 2. Hospital Cost Containment Board Information 23. The reports from hospitals during the early years of the Hospital Cost Containment Board are not entirely reliable, because the hospitals did not yet have uniform accounting systems in place, despite the Board's attempt to establish uniform accounting methods through its reporting system manual. Hospitals commonly made errors in their reports. If the reports were prepared correctly, they would identify hospitals with discrete psychiatric units. Hialeah's HCCB Reports for 1981, 1982 and 1983 indicated that the hospital had no active psychiatric staff, no psychiatric beds and no psychiatric services. 3. Departmental Survey Letters 24. In Spring, 1983, the Department tried to verify the existing inventory of beds for specialty services such as psychiatric services, comprehensive medical rehabilitation services and substance abuse services. There is no record, however, that this survey letter was sent to Hialeah Hospital. In late 1983 or early 1984, the Department again attempted to establish inventories for psychiatric beds and rehabilitation beds. It distributed a cover letter and a form entitled "Hospital Bed Count Verification", which asked hospitals to confirm the Department's preliminary count of the hospital's "number of licensed beds". Hialeah's planner returned the form verifying that Hialeah Hospital was licensed for 411 "acute general" beds and that it had no short or long term psychiatric beds. The answer was correct, for that is the figure which appeared on Hialeah's license at that time. The Department did not ask the hospitals for an average daily census of short-term psychiatric patients. The cover letter for the survey form told hospital administrators that the Department was seeking to verify its preliminary bed count for services for which a special bed need methodology had been established, viz., long and short term psychiatric beds, substance abuse beds and comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds. The cover letter drew attention to the Department's intention to use the data collected from the responses to the form as a beginning inventory for short-term psychiatric beds. The cover letter also cautioned hospitals that when completing the form, they should "keep in mind the service definitions". Copies of the definitions were attached to the form. The appropriate inference to be drawn from the answer given by Hialeah Hospital to the survey form was that in January, 1984, the hospital had no beds organized into a short term psychiatric unit. This is consistent with the later letter from the hospital's vice president quoted in Finding of Fact 6, above. The Department published on February 17, 1984, its base inventory of psychiatric and rehabilitation beds in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The publication stated that "any hospital wishing to change the number of beds dedicated to one of the specific bed types listed will first be required to obtain a certificate of need." 10 Florida Administrative Weekly at 493. Hialeah was shown as having no psychiatric beds. Id. at 498. The notice did not specifically inform the hospitals of the right to petition for a formal hearing to challenge the inventory figures published. 4. Licensure Files 25. Although, the Department's licensure application form listed "psychiatric" as a possible hospital bed utilization category before 1983, these categories were set up for informational purposes only. No definitions were given to hospitals describing how beds should be allocated among the categories available on the form, making those figures unreliable. Before 1980 Hialeah Hospital had listed psychiatric beds on its licensure applications, see Finding of Fact 5, above. Since 1980 it listed no psychiatric beds. 5. Physical Plant Survey The Department performed a physical plant survey in 1980 to determine the total number of beds in service at each hospital. That survey did not attempt to make distinctions between different types of services listed on the survey form. The Department's architect who performed the survey did not attempt to evaluate the quality or intensity of the psychiatric services provided at any hospital. Each of the types of information the Department examined to determine the existing inventory of short-term psychiatric beds in 1983 had weaknesses, and no single source is dispositive. It is difficult to credit the assertion that Hialeah Hospital had a distinct psychiatric unit before July, 1983 which was not reflected in any of these sources of information. The use of multiple sources of information served as a cross-check on information from each source. It is understandable that Hialeah would not have applied for a certificate of need to operate a separate psychiatric unit. Before 1983, no such application was needed if the establishment of the unit entailed an expenditure of money below a threshold amount. All of its reports to the Hospital Cost Containment Board, however, indicate that there was no separate psychiatric service at the hospital and that the hospital had no active psychiatric staff. With respect to the Department's survey letters, while the 1984 survey form itself did not specifically inform hospital administrators that their responses would be used to establish a base inventory of psychiatric beds, the cover letter did make that clear. This should have put the hospital's planner, who filled out the form, on notice that if Hialeah had a discrete, short-term psychiatric service the number of beds in that unit should be listed. What is perhaps the most significant point is that the hospital reported no psychiatric beds on its licensure application at all from 1980 to 1985. Medical doctors in general practice can and do treat psychiatric patients, in addition to doctors who specialize in psychiatry. No doubt patients commonly were admitted to the hospital who had primary diagnoses of psychiatric illnesses. The hospital's licensure filings, however, since 1979 fail to record any psychiatric beds. This is important evidence that the hospital did not regard itself as having any distinct unit organized to provide psychiatric care. The Hospital's 1985 correspondence from the Hospital's vice president to the Department, quoted in Finding of Fact 6 confirms this. The failure to list any psychiatric beds at Hialeah on the Department's 1980 physical plant survey is not significant, since determining the number of psychiatric beds was not the focus of that survey. It is true that the Department never conducted site visits at all hospitals to determine whether they had a) distinct psychiatric units, b) psychiatric medical directors, c) written psychiatric admission and treatment policies, or d) psychiatric policy and procedures manuals. The efforts the Department did make to establish the beginning inventory of psychiatric beds were reasonable, however Hialeah Hospital's Licensure History and Efforts to Obtain Grandfather Status The entries on Hialeah's applications for annual licensure from the Department are cataloged above, and need not be repeated. During the years 1980-84, after it ceased listing psychiatric beds on its licensure application, psychiatric services were still being provided to patients throughout the hospital. In 1984, the hospital engaged in correspondence with the Department over the appropriate number of licensed beds for the hospital as a whole. Ultimately the hospital and the Department agreed that 411 beds should be licensed. In its 1985 licensure application, Hialeah then requested that 20 short-term psychiatric beds be listed on the license. The Office of Licensure and Certification questioned this. Ultimately, the Office of Licensure and Certification refused to endorse those 20 psychiatric beds on the license because there was no certificate of need on file for them, nor any statement from the Office of Community Medical Facilities granting the hospital an exemption from that licensure requirement. Hialeah Hospital did not challenge that decision in a proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The discussions between the hospital and the Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities continued, and by late October, 1986, Hialeah requested the Department to approve 21 short-term psychiatric beds at the facility, and sent the Department backup material which it believed justified a grandfather determination. After review, the Department denied the grandfather request by letter dated December 5, 1986. The Department's Action Regarding Other Grandfathering Requests Hialeah's is not the first request the Department received for grandfathering beds. After June of 1983, when the Legislature required CON approval for hospitals to change their number of psychiatric or rehabilitation beds, a number of institutions made similar requests. 1. Comprehensive Medical Rehabilitation Beds The rule on comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds was developed by the Department at the same time as the rule on psychiatric beds. The Department used a similar process to determine the existing inventory of both types of beds. The Department determined that preexisting comprehensive medical rehabilitation units at Parkway General Hospital, Naples Community Hospital, Orlando Regional Medical Center, Holy Cross Hospital, and University Community Hospital entitled those facilities to grandfathering of their comprehensive medical rehabilitation services. The Department has also determined that a preexisting distinct psychiatric unit at Palmetto General Hospital entitled that institution to grandfather status for its psychiatric beds. Parkway General Parkway General Hospital did not specify rehabilitation beds on its licensure applications for the years 1980 through 1984. The Department denied Parkway's request for endorsement of 12 comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds on its 1985 license because Parkway had not obtained a certificate of need for them or an exemption from review. The Department thereafter determined that Parkway had been providing comprehensive medical rehabilitation services before June, 1983 in a physically distinct and separately staffed unit consisting of 12 beds. It then endorsed 12 beds on Parkway's license, even though the rule which became effective in July, 1983 would require a minimum unit size of 20 beds for any hospital organizing a new comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit. See Rule 10-5.011(24), Florida Administrative Code. Naples Community Hospital The Department granted Naples Community Hospital a grandfather exemption for its rehabilitation beds in February, 1987. In had not listed the rehabilitation beds on its license application for the years 1983-1985, had not returned the Department's bed count verification form, nor did it challenge the bed count which the Department published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The hospital had applied for and received a certificate of need in January of 1981 to establish a 22-bed rehabilitation unit and that unit began operation in late 1982. The Department ultimately determined that the hospital had provided rehabilitation services in a physically distinct unit and the services were organized and delivered in a manner consistent with applicable regulatory standards. It granted a grandfather request in February, 1987. Orlando Regional Medical Center A grandfather exemption for 16 rehabilitation beds was granted to Orlando Medical Center in 1986. The 16-bed brain injury unit had been authorized by the Department through certificate of need number 2114 before the Department had adopted its rule governing comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds in 1983. The services were provided in a physically distinct unit. The Department determined the 20-bed minimum size for a new unit did not apply to a unit which qualified for grandfathering. Holy Cross Hospital The Department granted a grandfather exemption for comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds to Holy Cross Hospital after a proceeding was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings to require the Department to recognize the existence of a 20-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation center. The Department determined by a site visit that Holy Cross had established a separate unit, probably in 1974, long before the Department's comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit rule became effective in July, 1983. The unit had its own policy manual, quality assurance reports, patient screening criteria, and minutes of multidisciplinary team staff conferences. The hospital had neglected to report the unit in its filings with the Hospital Cost Containment Board but the hospital contended that it never treated the unit as a separate unit for accounting purposes, and had not understood the need to report the unit as a distinct one under Hospital Cost Containment Board reporting guidelines. The hospital corrected its reporting oversight. The grandfathering is consistent with the hospital's actual establishment of the unit long before the Department's rules went into effect. University Community Hospital A dispute over whether to grandfather a comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit which went through a Chapter 120 administrative hearing and entry of a final order involved University Community Hospital (UCH). The Department initially determined that the nine comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds at UCH had been in existence before July, 1983 and were exempt from certificate of need review. That decision was challenged in a formal administrative proceeding by a competing hospital, Tampa General. The competitor was successful, for both the Hearing Officer in the recommended order and the Department in the final order determined that University Community Hospital's 9 bed rehabilitation unit was not entitled to be grandfathered. University Community Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 11 FALR 1150 (HRS Feb. 14, 1989). In determining that grandfathering was inappropriate, the Department found that the hospital had not prepared separate policies and procedures for its rehabilitation unit before the rule on comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds became effective, and that the unit did not have a physical therapy room on the same floor as the patients. The beds supposedly dedicated to rehabilitative care were mixed with non- rehabilitative beds, so that a semiprivate room might have one bed used for rehabilitative care and another for an unrelated type of care. This conflicted with the requirement that the rehabilitation unit be physically distinct, with all patients and support services located on the same area or floor, rather than scattered throughout the hospital. The Department also determined that many hospitals offer physical therapy, occupational therapy, or speech therapy, but that to qualify as a comprehensive medical rehabilitation center, these services had to be coordinated in a multidisciplinary approach to the patient's needs, which had not been the case at University Community Hospital. The common strand running through the grandfathering decisions on comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds is that grandfathering is appropriate when a hospital demonstrates that before the comprehensive medical rehabilitation rule became effective in July, 1983, it had a separate unit which met the standards and criteria for a comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit (other than the minimum size for new units). Psychiatric Beds Tampa General Hospital Only two cases involve a decision on whether psychiatric services at a hospital qualify for grandfathering. Tampa General Hospital, which was owned by the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority, operated 93 psychiatric beds in 1981, 71 at Hillsborough County Hospital and 22 at Tampa General Hospital. A certificate of need granted in 1981 authorized the expenditure of $127,310,000 for the consolidation of both hospitals and an overall reduction of 14 psychiatric beds after the hospitals were integrated. When the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority obtained its certificate of need, it was not necessary to differentiate between general acute care beds and psychiatric beds for licensure purposes. Increased demand for acute care beds led Tampa General to close its psychiatric unit and make those 22 beds available for ordinary acute care. After the 1983 statutory and rule changes regarding the separate licensure of psychiatric beds, the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority told the Department that Tampa General had no psychiatric beds in operation. On its 1985 licensure application, the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority applied for licensure for 22 psychiatric beds at Tampa General and 77 at Hillsborough Hospital. The Department denied the request for the psychiatric beds at Tampa General. The Final Order entered in Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. HRS, 8 FALR 1409 (Feb. 16, 1986), determined that there had been a discontinuation in the use of psychiatric beds at Tampa General, and that to allow Tampa General to add psychiatric beds after the statutory and rule changes in 1983 would frustrate the certificate of need process and would be detrimental to good health care planning. Palmetto General Hospital Palmetto General Hospital participated in an administrative hearing in 1975 regarding the disapproval of its proposed expansion, which included the dedication of one floor and 48 beds as a psychiatric unit. The Hearing Officer found that there was a need for psychiatric beds in the community and recommended that the Secretary of the Department issue a certificate of need "for that portion of the applicant's proposed capital expenditures relating to the addition of a 48 bed psychiatric unit". Palmetto General Exhibit 32, at 12, paragraph 2. The order of the Hearing Officer was affirmed by the District Court of Appeal in Palmetto General Hospital, Inc. v. Department of HRS, 333 So.2d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The approval of the 48 psychiatric beds is clear only from a review of the Hearing Officer's order. Certificate of Need 292X was issued for the 48 psychiatric beds. Palmetto General exhibit 45. Palmetto received Medicare certification for its psychiatric inpatient unit, and listed 48 short-term psychiatric beds on its licensure applications each year from 1979 to 1983. It failed to show its psychiatric beds on the bed count verification survey form sent by the Department. Palmetto General's chief financial officer told the Department on June 10, 1983 that Palmetto General did not have psychiatric beds in a separately organized and staffed unit. This resulted in the issuance of a license which showed no psychiatric beds. The Department itself wrote to the administrator of Palmetto to learn why the 48 short-term psychiatric beds had not been listed on Palmetto's application for licensure in 1985. Palmetto wrote back and acknowledged that it did have 48 short-term psychiatric beds. A license showing those 48 beds was then issued. Thereafter, staff from the HRS Office of Comprehensive Health Planning took the position that the 48 short-term psychiatric beds should not have been listed on the license, and the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification requested that the 1985 license containing the endorsement for those 48 psychiatric beds be returned to the Department for cancellation. Palmetto then sought an administrative hearing on the attempted cancellation of the license. Palmetto and the Department entered into a Final Order dated March 9, 1986 which agreed that Palmetto met all the requirements for the designation of 48 short-term psychiatric beds on its license. Palmetto, had, in fact, operated a 48 bed psychiatric unit on its third floor since 1981, but moved that unit to the sixth floor in 1985. It was dedicated exclusively to psychiatric patients and there were specific policy and procedure manuals developed and used in dealing with psychiatric patients since 1981. The history of Palmetto's licensure is certainly one replete with contradictions. It is inexplicable that the chief financial officer of the hospital would have told the Department in 1983 that it had no separately organized and staffed psychiatric unit when, in fact, it had such a unit. It was also unclear why it would have shown no psychiatric beds on the bed count verification form returned in late December or early January, 1984, or why its April, 1983, and its 1985/1986 license application forms listed no psychiatric beds. Nonetheless, it had obtained a certificate of need for a psychiatric unit after administrative litigation and an appeal to the District Court of Appeal. The unit was opened and remained continuously in existence. It had appropriate policies and procedures in place for a distinct psychiatric unit as the 1983 statutory and rule amendments required for separate licensure of psychiatric beds. History of Psychiatric Bed Services at Hialeah Hospital Since at least 1958, Hialeah Hospital has had psychiatrists on its medical staff, and the number of psychiatric physicians on staff has increased. Thirteen psychiatrists had admitting privileges at the hospital by 1983; there are now 23 psychiatrists with privileges. As is true with most community hospitals, physicians specializing in psychiatry would admit patients to the general population at Hialeah Hospital if they needed intensive psychotherapy or medication which needed to be monitored by nurses. Patients who were homicidal, suicidal or intensely psychotic were not admitted to Hialeah Hospital. Those patients need a more intensive psychiatric environment, either in a locked psychiatric unit or in a psychiatric specialty hospital. The persons physicians placed at Hialeah through 1983 did not need the intensive services of a discrete psychiatric unit. Hialeah Hospital indicated on its licensure application to the Department that it had 21 psychiatric beds throughout the 1970's, but ceased this listing in the 1980's as set forth in Finding of Fact 5 above. The nature of the services available at the hospital had remained constant. Under the psychiatric diagnosis coding system published in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual III, (which is commonly used by psychiatrists) Hialeah Hospital had an average daily census of 25 patients with primary or secondary psychiatric diagnoses in 1980, and 18 in 1981. Only about 25 percent of those patients had a primary psychiatric discharge diagnosis. The additional patients had secondary psychiatric diagnoses. Hialeah must rely on these secondary diagnoses to argue that its average daily census for psychiatric patients approached 21 beds. It was not until 1985 that Hialeah consolidated its psychiatric services to a medical/psychiatric unit. That unit serves patients with medical and psychiatric diagnosis as well as patients with solely psychiatric diagnoses. Before 1983, there was no medical director of psychiatry at Hialeah Hospital, and no separate policies and procedures for the admission of patients to a psychiatric unit, nor any staff dedicated to the care of psychiatric patients. To be sure, the hospital was in a position to provide quality psychiatric care to patients whose needs were psychotherapy, monitored medication, or individual counseling by psychiatric physicians and nurses. This reflects the reality that not all patients who need to be placed in the hospital for psychiatric care require the services of a separate medical/psychiatric unit. Patients with more acute psychiatric illness do need interdisciplinary approaches to their care. These interdisciplinary approaches are more expensive than serving psychiatric patients in the general hospital population. This is why the Federal government provides higher, cost-based reimbursement to the hospitals with specialty psychiatric licenses. Hialeah has not proven that the psychiatric services it was providing before 1983 were significantly different from those provided in typical community hospitals which did not have distinct psychiatric units. Hialeah's long-standing relationship with the Northwest Community Mental Health Center is not especially significant. Certainly, the Center was aware that Hialeah was a potential source of psychiatric care. Baker Act patients who needed hospitalization were taken there between 1980 and 1983. There was a flow of patients back and forth between the Center and the hospital's inpatient population, and discharge plans by Hialeah's social workers included referrals back to the Mental Health Center for follow-up and outpatient care. Similarly, the Dade-Monroe Mental Health Board knew that Hialeah was a potential provider of inpatient psychiatric services. The predecessor to the current local health council, the health systems agency of South Florida, recorded that there were psychiatric admissions at Hialeah Hospital in the early 1980's, and the health systems agency recommended a conversion of existing beds to psychiatric services because of a need for additional psychiatric services in the area. None of this, however, means that Hialeah had operated a distinct psychiatric unit before 1983 which entitles it to grandfather status.
Recommendation It is recommended that the application of Hialeah Hospital for grandfather status for 21 short-term psychiatric beds, and the inclusion of those short-term psychiatric beds on its license and on the Department's bed inventory be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY 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 6th day of October, 1989.
Findings Of Fact MCH was constructed circa 1973 as an acute care hospital and before 1980 had 126 medical-surgical beds authorized including eight intensive care beds. MCH is a for-profit hospital owned by Hospital Corporation of America. It is financially able to fund the proposed addition. In 1980 it received a certificate of need (CON) to add 64 medical-surgical beds for a total bed capacity of 190 medical-surgical beds. These beds came on line in January 1982. MCH here proposes to add a 54-bed unit for oncology patients; to add six operating rooms to use primarily for eye, ear, nose and throat surgical procedures on an outpatient basis; and a new eight-bed surgical intensive care unit located on the first floor adjacent to the existing surgery department. Currently, the hospital has two oncologists on staff who use a 16-bed unit dedicated to the treatment of cancer. Space exists for the additional operating room so the net result is an application for an additional 62 beds. The application also included expansion of general stores and maintenance and the addition of a parking structure, which were granted, leaving only the issue of need for the 62 additional beds requested at a cost of $7 million. When constructed MCH had an eight-bed ICU primarily for coronary care patients located on the second floor of the hospital in the opposite wing from the surgery department on the first floor. It has added a four-bed ICU on the fourth floor by converting two semiprivate medical-surgical rooms. The ratio of ICU beds to total beds in 1973 was 8:126 which is nearly identical to the current ratio of 12:190. The evidence was unrebutted that the ICU at MCH is usually full, that on occasion patients have to wait in the emergency room until a less ill patient can be moved from a bed in ICU, and that the more ICU beds are available the more they will be used. This use was attributed to the doctors desiring their patients to be in an ICU and to testimony that current surgical procedures are more sophisticated than formerly and a greater need exists today for a surgery patient to go to an ICU than existed 15 years ago. In its application for a CON (Exhibit 18) MCH's estimated charge for a medical-surgical bed is $100-150 per day and its estimated charge for ICU beds and SICU beds is $350 per day. The primary service area for MCH is Marion County. Petitioner submitted evidence that nearly 20 percent of the cancer patients diagnosed in Marion County in 1981 came from the surrounding counties of Citrus, Lake, Sumter, and Levy. Accordingly, MCH contends that its primary service area for oncology patients should include these counties. Evidence was also submitted that MCH has been certified by medical associations as an approved cancer treatment hospital; that oncology service is a service generally provided in regional hospitals which provide Level III medical treatment; and, therefore, MCH should be considered on a different scale than Level II services. No evidence was presented that any health systems plan ever considered MCH as a regional cancer hospital or established any bed need for cancer patients at MCH. The evidence was also unrebutted that cancer patients at MCH are primarily treated by chemotherapy; that the drugs used in the treatment are extremely toxic, some have a short life span after being mixed and must be used almost immediately; that having a mini-pharmacy in the cancer ward is highly desirable; that special training of nurses is required to safely administer these drugs to patients; that patients develop nausea, ulcers in the mouth and throat, and present special feeding problems, and because of these special feeding problems it is advantageous to have some facilities in the cancer ward to prepare food at odd hours for patients; that cancer is a "personal" disease, patients desire more privacy, and should have private rooms; that an area away from the patient's room where the patient can visit with his or her family and the family can consult with the doctor in some privacy is desirable; that some newer drugs require hospitalization of the patient for treatment with these drugs, but the hospital stay is shorter and the drugs may be used over longer periods of time; and that the patient needs the security that comes from developing a feeling of trust by the patient of the nurses and doctors who are administering to his needs. MCH has no radiation treatment facilities in the hospital. However, the hospital staff has access to a Linear Accelerator which is located in a private physician's office on MCH's campus. Several witnesses testified to the need for additional beds for cancer patients at MCH; that patients have had to wait several days for a vacant bed; some oncology patients have had to be placed in other wards at MCH; and that special treatment and special training for nurses are required for oncology patients. Marion Regional Medical Center (MRMC) is a nonprofit hospital owned by the Marion County Hospital District, a public body established by statutes with taxing powers in Marion County. MRMC is currently expanding its facilities by 80 beds to the authorized 314-bed hospital pursuant to a CON approved in 1981. The $23 million for that project was financed by revenue bonds issued by Marion County Hospital District. Preliminary bids indicate the original project will be under the estimated cost resulting in a $2-3 million savings. If the additional beds here requested are approved and the construction associated therewith can be accomplished concurrently with the present construction, a saving of nearly $1 million can be obtained. MRMC is the only full service hospital in Marion County and provides medical, surgical, obstetrical, pediatric, psychiatric, intensive care, coronary care, and neurological/neurosurgical services. It has the third most active Emergency Room in the state and receives approximately 45 percent of its admissions through this service. MRMC's proposed project calls for the construction of a sixth floor on the hospital, construction of 66 inpatient beds, and the conversion of a 20-bed pediatric unit for use as a labor and delivery suite, a net gain of 46 beds. As initially proposed, this would provide for eight additional pediatric beds, four pediatric intensive care beds, and 34 medical-surgical beds to be used as a pulmonary medicine unit. Before the hearing the request for additional pediatric beds was withdrawn, leaving a request for 34 additional hospital beds and four pediatric intensive care beds, a total of 38 medical-surgical beds, at a cost of $2.8 million. It was stipulated that both MCH and MRMC provide an acceptable quality of care and operate efficiently. The application satisfied the criteria in Section 381.494(6)(c) with the possible exception of need, and need is the only issue in dispute in these proceedings. Both applicants submitted evidence that they accept all patients regardless of their ability to pay; however, MCH is a private for-profit hospital whose bad debt and charity care amounts to two percent of its gross revenues. MRMC's patient load is four percent indigent and bad debts, and charity care amounts to 12 percent of its gross revenues. Exhibit 18 shows MCH patient utilization to be 61 percent Medicare and one percent Medicaid, and MRMC patient utilization to be 51 percent Medicare and five percent Medicaid, in 1981. There is currently "applicable district plan" or "annual implementation" as provided for in Section 381.494(6)(c)1, Florida Statutes (1982). The implementation of this statute has been stayed by rule challenges. The North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc. (NCFHPC), was the Health Systems Agency (HSA) for what was formerly known as Health Service Region II which included only Marion County as a district sub-area. Prior to the July 1, 1982, amendment of Florida's CON law, the HSA reviewed applications and made recommendations with written findings of fact to DHRS. The 1982 CON law eliminated HSA, accordingly the NCFHPC no longer exists. The former HSA recommended approval of the applications of both MCH and MRMC; however, the staff of the HSA recommended disapproval of both applications. For the determination of need in these proceedings, a planning horizon of five years is acceptable and was used by all parties. Thus, the need for the requested CON is assessed for the year 1988. At this time the population of Marion County is forecast to be 165,880. The percentage of persons 65 and older in Marion County is increasing in proportion to the remainder of Marion County's population, and this increase will continue through 1988. This "aging" of the population is occurring throughout the United States as people live longer and demographics change with differing birth rates at differing periods. No evidence was submitted that the percentage of people over 65 is greater in Marion County than in other parts of Florida. MCH has 190 authorized medical-surgical beds and MRMC has 244 authorized medical-surgical beds, for a total of 434 such beds authorized in Marion County in two hospitals across the street from each other in Ocala, Florida. With the 1982 amendment to the CON statute the HSA in Marion County ceased to exist and has been replaced by a local health council. Rule challenges have stayed the promulgation of a comprehensive state health plan and the only Health Systems Plan in being for Marion County is the revised 1983 Health Systems Plan (HSP). This plan was approved by the HSA for Marion County in June of 1982 and contains goals, objectives and standards for planning for the health services required in Marion County. Standard 1-1 provides the need for medical-surgical beds within each Level II planning area (Marion County) should be based on the actual 1980 medical-surgical bed need per 1,000 population in this area. Standard 2-1 provides no additional beds should be added to a community's total bed supply until the occupancy rate of medical- surgical beds in the community exceeds 85 percent if more than 200 such beds are available in the community. The generally accepted standard for occupancy rate above which more beds may be needed is 80 percent. However, where beds are concentrated in one area, which is the case in Marion County where 434 medical- surgical beds are authorized, 85 percent occupancy leaves a reasonable surplus of beds to cover most emergencies or unusual situations that would cause the bed availability to be exceeded. The need for medical-surgical beds per 1,000 population (use rate) in Marion County in 1980 was 2.41. The HSP has a goal of 3.5 beds per 1,000 population and an objective of 4.0 beds per 1,000 population by 1987 in Region II. Applying the 1980 use rate to the 1988 forecast population of Marion County results in a need for 400 medical-surgical beds. The Health Systems Plan update for Marion County defines medical- surgical beds as all hospital beds which are not reserved solely for the use of pediatric, obstetrics, or psychiatric patients. At the time the revised Health Systems Plan for Marion County was promulgated, the two hospitals, MRMC and MCH, had been authorized an additional 80 and 65 beds, respectively, and these beds were being placed in service. By prescribing a use rate for 1980 as the standard to be used in considering applications for additional medical-surgical beds in 1983 and for a year or two thereafter, it would be reasonable to conclude the HSA expected the use rate for the years 1981 and 1982 to be influenced by the addition of the recently authorized 144 beds and to not accurately reflect a reliable use rate for planning purposes. MRMC and MCH presented expert witnesses who, by using different modalities, containing different assumptions, arrived at a need for additional beds in Marion County in 1988 ranging from 97 to 200. Most of these modalities used an occupancy rate of 3.5 beds per 1,000 population and 80 percent utilization of beds. All assume increasing usage of medical-surgical beds by the increasing and aging population. In their application MRMC and MCH planned to finance these projects with rate increases of 11 percent per year (to keep even with inflation) and a continuing increase in the number of patients handled at these higher rates. While inflation may again be up to 11 percent or higher, it is generally accepted today that the current inflation rate is five percent or less. More than 50 percent of both MRMC and MCH patients are presently covered by Medicare, which pays 80 percent of the charges generated by these patients. To assume that this situation will not only continue in the face of current federal deficits, but grow to cover the increased use of these facilities predicted in the assumptions used to show increased bed need for 1988, is not necessarily a valid assumption. Evidence was presented that the number of doctors in Marion County has doubled in the last five years. The ratio of doctors to the population of Marion County for 1977-78 and 1982-83 was not presented nor was the percent increase in the number of doctors in the United States over the past five years. Without some basis for comparison, the fact that the number of doctors in a particular community doubled over a five-year period has no relevancy.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations 3/ and admissions of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence, and the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact: FIRST HOSPITAL's address is the World Trade Center, Suite 870, Norfolk, Virginia 23510. CHARTER GLADE HOSPITAL is a freestanding psychiatric hospital located in Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. CHARTER GLADE has (80) licensed psychiatric beds, and twenty-four (24) licensed substance-abuse beds. The service area served by CHARTER GLADE includes Collier, Lee, and Charlotte Counties. The address of HRS is 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. HRS is responsible for the administration of the "Health Facilities and Health Services Planning Act," Section 381.493, et seq., Florida Statutes (the Act), and has implemented its provisions through the adoption of rules set forth in Chapter 10, Florida Administrative Code. FIRST HOSPITAL applied to HRS for a certificate of need (CON) for the establishment of a freestanding specialty hospital in Naples, Florida. Pursuant to the Act, a CON is required before FIRST HOSPITAL can establish its specialty hospital. FIRST HOSPITAL's application was denied by HRS. FIRST HOSPITAL appealed the denial of its application to the Division of Administrative Hearings, DOAH Case No. 84-1835. CHARTER GLADE has intervened in DOAH Case No. 84-1835. In this proceeding, Petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 10- 5.11(25) and (26), Florida Administrative Code, asserting that the rule is arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, invalid. By virtue of the fact that CHARTER GLADE is an existing facility located in the same service area in which Petitioner proposes to construct and operate its facility, and further by virtue of its participation in DOAH Case No. 84-1835, at least in part, on the basis of the provisions of Rule 10 15.11(25) and (26), Florida Administrative Code, CHARTER GLADE is substantially affected by the issues presented for determination in this cause and should be allowed to participate as a party. The Act contemplates rule adoption by HRS of specialty bed-need methodologies for psychiatric services. See, e.g., Subsection 381.494(8)(g), Florida Statutes (1983). Toward this end, HRS has adopted Rules 10-5.11(25) and (26), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10-5.11(25), cited as the basis for denying FIRST HOSPITAL's CON application, addresses need for short-term psychiatric beds; Rule 10-5.11(26) purports to address need for long-term psychiatric beds. FIRST HOSPITAL's substantial interest in establishing its proposed specialty hospital has been determined by both of these rules. In particular, Rule 10-5.11(25), Florida Administrative Code, was applied by HRS in the denial of FIRST HOSPITAL's CON application. In addition, FIRST HOSPITAL alleges that Rules 10-5.11(25) and (26) combined fail to assess the need for intermediate inpatient specialty psychiatric services, one of the types of psychiatric services proposed by FIRST HOSPITAL. FIRST HOSPITAL's CON application proposes intermediate inpatient specialty psychiatric services. Rules 10-5.11(25) and (26), Florida Administrative Code, were adopted in early 1983. The adoption process began in the summer of 1982 when HRS assigned to one of its employees, Elfie Stamm, the task of developing a bed-need rule for psychiatric services. Ms. Stamm, at that time, was a planner in the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning of HRS. Ms. Stamm has been a planner with HRS for several years and had been responsible for the development of the State Health Plan and for the development of various rules used in the CON process. She had also been employed in the Mental Health Program Office of HRS, where her responsibilities included the development of a state plan with regard to alcoholism and mental health. She was also responsible for monitoring statewide mental health programs. Upon being assigned the task of developing the subject rules, Ms. Stamm made a thorough review of all information available to HRS with regard to the number of existing psychiatric beds and programs throughout Florida. She also evaluated all available local health plans and spoke with various individuals who had been involved in health planning, particularly those with interest in mental health planning. Ms. Stamm surveyed the available literature on health planning emphasizing mental health planning and bed-need methodologies for psychiatric beds. Ms. Stamm wrote the initial draft of Rule 10-5.11(25) based upon her collection and evaluation of data regarding existing and approved psychiatric beds in Florida and her review of literature, both Florida specific and national. A primary feature of the drafts, as well as of the adopted version, of Rule 10-5.11(25) is a fixed bed-to-population ratio of .35/1000, meaning that normally there should be no more than .35 short-term psychiatric beds for each 1,000 persons. Ms. Stamm was instructed to develop rules to assess the need for inpatient psychiatric services. As finally adopted, short-term care is defined in Rule 10-5.11(25) as care not exceeding three months and averaging a length of stay of 30 days or less for adults and 60 days or less for children and adolescents, and long-term care is defined in Rule 10-5.11(26) as care averaging a length of stay of 90 days. Neither rule defines the term "intermediate care." The documents contained in HRS Composite Exhibit IX and reviewed by Ms. Stamm are a representative sample of the literature available in the field and the level of knowledge among health planners as of the date of the promulgation of the subject rules. The documents are a reasonable cross-section of the literature available in the area of psychiatric bed-need assessment. In terms of the literature that was available at the time of the rule adoption in the area of psychiatric bed-need assessment, there is nothing missing from these documents which would have been important to a health planner in developing a psychiatric bed-need methodology. There is discussion in those documents of all the basic methodologies for determining psychiatric bed need. After reviewing all of the available materials, the HRS established a range of from .35 to .37 beds per 1,000 population and from that point made a policy decision to establish a figure of .35 to use in the bed-need formula. In promulgating the subject rules HRS invited and received comment from a broad cross-section of the public, with particular emphasis on those persons and organizations with special knowledge and interest in the provision of mental health services and the determination of psychiatric bed need. HRS conducted a workshop to which it invited a broad cross-section of individuals and organizations with particular knowledge about psychiatric bed need, including representatives of the Florida Hospital Association, Florida Psychiatric Association, Florida Council for Community Mental Health, Florida State Association of District Mental Health Boards, Florida League of Hospitals, Florida Association of Voluntary Hospitals, and the Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association. The comments and results of the workshop were considered by Ms. Stamm and HRS in the promulgation of the subject rules. In response to several requests, HRS conducted a public hearing in accordance with Section 120.54(3), Florida Statutes, to receive comments from interested persons on the subject rules. More than fifteen (15) people representing various hospitals and organizations concerned with psychiatric services entered appearances and made comments at the public hearing. In addition to the oral comment presented at the public hearing, various persons and organizations submitted numerous written comments expressing their opinion with regard to the proposed rules. The comments, both oral and written, were all considered by Ms. Stamm and HRS prior to the promulgation of the subject rules. The process engaged in by HRS, primarily through Ms. Stamm, in the development of the subject rules was extensive and reasonably calculated to invite substantive public comment and to procure the knowledge on the part of HRS necessary to write workable and rational rules concerning psychiatric bed need. The knowledge acquired by HRS through this process with regard to the assessment of psychiatric bed-need methodologies was reasonably sufficient to allow it to knowledgeably draft and promulgate the subject rules. Consideration of this substantive public comment led to several changes in the subject rules as originally drafted. As originally promulgated, Rules 10-5.11(25) and (26) were challenged pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, in various petitions filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. In settling these proposed rule challenges, HRS modified the rules to provide for even greater flexibility in their application. HRS Composite Exhibits I through XII constitute all written matters considered or produced by HRS in the rule adoption process with regard to the subject rules. All of those documents and papers have been maintained in the records of HRS since the promulgation of the subject rules. The statutory criteria for reviewing CON applications are set out in Sections 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes. Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the rule criteria against which CON applications are evaluated. Subsections (1) through (12) and (25) of Rule 10-5.11 are the rule criteria against which applications for CONs for short-term hospital inpatient psychiatric services are to be evaluated. Subsections (1) through and (26) of Rule 10-5.11 are rule criteria against which applications for CONs for long-term psychiatric services are to be evaluated. Rule 10-5.11(25) sets forth certain criteria specifically for the evaluation of CON applications for short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services. Short-term services are in part defined as services averaging a length of stay of thirty (30) days or less for adults and a stay of sixty (60) days or less for children and adolescents under eighteen (18) years. Rule 10- 5.11(25) in its adopted form provides in relevant part as follows: Short Term Hospital Inpatient Psychiatric Services. Short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services means a category of services which provides a 24-hour a day therapeutic milieu for persons suffering from mental health problems which are so severe and acute that they need intensive, full-time care. Acute psychiatric inpatient care is defined as a service not exceeding three months and averaging a length of stay of 30 days or less for adults and a stay of 60 days or less for children and adolescents under 18 years. Short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services may be provided in specifically designated beds in a hospital holding a general license, or in a facility holding a specialty hospital license. Applications for proposed short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services will be reviewed according to relevant statutory and rule criteria. A favorable need determination for proposed general acute care psychiatric inpatient services will not normally be given to an applicant unless a bed need exists according to paragraph (25)(d) of this rule. A favorable Certificate of Need determination may be made when the criteria, other than as specified in (25)(d), as provided for in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, and paragraph (25)(e) of this rule, demonstrate need. Bed allocations for acute care short term general psychiatric services shall be based on the following standards: A minimum of .15 beds per 1,000 population should be located in hospitals holding a general license to ensure access to needed services for persons with multiple health problems. These beds shall be designated as short term inpatient hospital psychiatric beds. .20 short term inpatient hospital beds per 1,000 population may be located in specialty hospitals, or hospitals holding a general license. The distribution of these beds shall be based on local need, cost effectiveness, and quality of care considerations. The short term inpatient psychiatric bed need for a Department service district five years into the future shall be calculated by subtracting the number of existing and approved beds from the number of beds calculated for year x based on a bed need ratio of .35 beds per 1,000 population projected for year and based on latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida. These beds are allocated in addition to the total number of general and acute care hospital beds allocated to each Department District established in Rule 10-5.11(23). Occupancy Standards. New facilities must be able to project an average 70 percent occupancy rate for adult psychiatric beds and 60 percent for children and adolescent beds in the second year of operation, and must be able to project an average 80 percent occupancy rate for adult beds and 70 percent for children and adolescent short term psychiatric inpatient hospital beds for the third year of operation. No additional short term inpatient hospital adult psychiatric beds shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing adult short term inpatient psychiatric beds in a service district is at or exceeds 75 percent for the preceding 12 month period. No additional beds for adolescents and children under 18 years of age shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing adolescent and children short term hospital inpatient psychiatric beds in the Department district is at or exceeds 70 percent for the preceding 12 2 month period. Hospitals seeking additional short term inpatient psychiatric beds must show evidence that the occupancy standard defined in paragraph six is met and that the number of designated short term psychiatric beds have had an occupancy rate of 75 percent or greater for the preceding year. Unit size. In order to assure specialized staff and services at a reasonable cost, short term inpatient psychiatric hospital based services should have at least 15 designated beds. Applicants proposing to build a new but separate psychiatric acute care facility and intending to apply for a specialty hospital license should have a minimum of 50 beds. Other standards and criteria to be considered in determining approval of a Certificate of Need application for short term hospital inpatient psychiatric beds are as follows: . . . . 7. Access standard. Short term inpatient hospital psychiatric services should be available within a maximum travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of the service area's population. There are three basic types of methodologies generally accepted in the field of health planning as valid for determining the need for psychiatric hospital beds. The first type is a need-based methodology which evaluates the need for services. The second is a demand or utilization-based method, which utilizes current or projected utilization statistics for a particular service. The third is a fixed-ratio method which involves the use of a ratio, or rate, of service to population to determine projected need for that service in the future. All three of these methodologies are generally accepted and utilized by health planners throughout the United States. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but all are valid. The fixed ratio methodology is that which HRS has employed in Rule 10 5.11(25). The ratio of .35 beds per thousand population is a reasonable ratio with a rational basis in fact. It is not arbitrary and capricious as a measure of short-term psychiatric bed need. The National Institute of Mental Health developed draft guidelines in the late 197Os suggesting a range of .15 beds to .40 beds per thousand population as an appropriate fixed-bed ratio program for psychiatric short-term acute-care programs. At least four other states presently or in the past have utilized a fixed bed-need ratio in planning for health care needs. They are Massachusetts, Indiana, Michigan and Georgia. Some of those states used fixed-bed ratios less than .35 per thousand. Ms. Stamm, in developing this rule methodology for HRS, considered and balanced the different approaches relating to the establishment of need. One of her concerns on behalf of HRS, in developing the methodology was to strike a proper balance between need and demand since not everyone who needs psychiatric care will choose to seek that care or can afford to seek that care. In 1982, during the time of the rule adoption process, the ratio of existing short-term psychiatric beds per thousand population in Florida was .29 per thousand. Ms. Stamm selected .35 per thousand, in part, to allow for growth in the number of psychiatric beds for reasons other than just population growth. The current rate of existing licensed short-term psychiatric beds in Florida in 1985 is .28 beds per thousand. However, the ratio for currently existing short-term psychiatric beds, plus CON approved beds not yet licensed in 1985, is .39 beds per thousand. The fact that the existing and approved inventory of psychiatric beds is greater than the .35 ratio specified in the rule demonstrates that HRS has applied Rule 10-5.11(25) in a flexible manner as envisioned by the "not normally" language in the rule. A theoretically ideal way to determine psychiatric bed need would be for HRS to go into each community and conduct epidemiological surveys to identify the people who actually need mental health care. While such a survey, properly conducted, might produce momentarily reliable date, it is not a realistic method for statewide planning purposes because of several problems attendant to such a methodology. Such a survey would be very expensive and very time-consuming and is not practical for use on a statewide basis in a state the size of Florida. Because of the time-consuming nature of such a methodology, if applied on a statewide basis, some of the data would be stale before all of the data was gathered. Further, the rapidly changing population in Florida would require that such a survey be continually updated. The allocation of short-term beds between general and specialty hospitals set forth in subsections (d)1 and 2 of Rule 10-5.11(25) has a rational basis in fact and is not arbitrary. There are many patients who simultaneously need medical as well as psychiatric care. To have those patients located in a specialty hospital, away from a general hospital, would be inappropriate. There are also patients who have acute episodes of psychiatric illness and who need to be treated very rapidly. Because there are many more general hospitals than there are freestanding psychiatric specialty hospitals, it is appropriate to ensure that psychiatric beds are available to general hospitals to fill the particular episodic acute needs. Further, there are many patients in Florida who can afford health care only through Medicaid. Because Medicaid does not provide funding of mental health inpatient services in psychiatric specialty hospitals, it is appropriate to include in the methodology an incentive for the location of some psychiatric beds in general hospitals where psychiatric services can be funded by Medicaid. The specific allocation of the .35 per thousand bed need ratio set forth in Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)(1) and (2) is that .15 beds per thousand "should" be associated with general hospitals and .20 beds per thousand "may" be associated with specialty hospitals. This allocation was designed to be flexible so that, in any given circumstance, an allocation other than the .15 and .20 guideline could be applied. The occupancy rate standards set forth in Rule 10 5.11(25) specify that normally, additional beds should not be approved unless the average occupancy of all existing beds in a service district exceeds 75 percent for adults and 70 percent for children and adolescents. The occupancy rate standards set forth in Rule 10- 5.11(25) were not arrived at in an arbitrary fashion and are reasonable in themselves. The occupancy rates are designed to ensure that a reasonable number of beds in each facility are filled. Hospitals with a substantial number of empty beds are not cost effective. Therefore, it is reasonable to project occupancy rates in the range of those projected in the subject rule. Indeed, the occupancy rates in the rule are liberal in terms of minimum occupancy levels, compared with those in the past and those recommended by others in the industry. With regard to the travel access standard in the rule, the Task Force for Institutional Care recommended a 60 minute travel standard for 90 percent of the population in the district. The 45 minute standard is reasonable. The rule does not exclude from within the travel standard area other facilities providing the same service. At the time of the final hearing, there were sixty five (65) existing hospital facilities in Florida which had psychiatric bed services. Of those sixty-five (65) facilities, sixty-one (61), or 93 percent, had more than fifteen (15) psychiatric beds, and fifty-five (55), or 84 percent, had more than twenty (20) psychiatric beds. In the exceptional event that the average occupancy rate for a particular district did not accurately reflect the availability of beds, the language of Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)5, which says that no additional beds shall "normally" be approved unless the occupancy rates are met is sufficiently flexible to account for the exceptionality. The methodology set forth in Rule 10-5.11(25) is designed to identify and express a need for short-term psychiatric inpatient beds for the overall population of Florida. The rule was intended to be sufficiently flexible that, when balanced with the other criteria set forth in Rule 10-5.11(1) through (12), it would allow substantive input from the district and community levels with regard to the need for beds by subpopulation groups such as child, adolescent, adult, and geriatric. The "national guidelines" referred to by Ms. Stamm were proposed hut never adopted. They recommended fixed bed ratios between .15/1000 and .40/1000. The guidelines were based on a 1978 survey by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), which indicated that .15/1000 was the 25th percentile and .40/1000 was the 75th percentile of 1978 existing short-term psychiatric beds nationwide. The NIMH report stated that selection of an appropriate ratio for a particular state depended on the development of the state's mental health system and recognized that special consideration was necessary for traditionally underserved groups such as children, adolescents, and geriatrics. In the context of inpatient psychiatric care, there has been a trend over the last twenty years, and more particularly over the last five years, toward the development of specialty treatment programs, separately planned for children, adolescents, adults, and geriatrics. In recent years in Florida there has also been a trend toward the provision of alternatives to inpatient psychiatric services in facilities such as residential care. In 1982, Ms. Stamm considered evidence that children, adolescents, and geriatrics were not being adequately served by Florida's mental health facilities. Nevertheless, she did not plan for these subgroups in the rule because in her judgment decisions about allocation of services to subpopulation groups were best made at the district level by the local health councils.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 10432 filed by East Florida-DMC, Inc. (DMC), to build an 80-bed acute care hospital in Miami-Dade County, Florida, AHCA District 11, or CON Application No. 10433 filed by The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County, Florida d/b/a Jackson Hospital West (JW), to build a 100-bed acute care hospital in Miami-Dade County, Florida, AHCA District 11, on balance, satisfy the applicable criteria; and, if so, whether either or both should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the parties’ stipulations, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, other evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County d/b/a Jackson Hospital West and Jackson Health System (JHS) JHS is a taxpayer-funded health system located in and owned by Miami-Dade County. It is governed by The Public Health Trust of Miami Dade-County, Florida (PHT), a seven-member board. JHS owns and operates three acute care hospitals in Miami-Dade County--Jackson Memorial Hospital (JMH); Jackson North Medical Center (JN); and Jackson South Medical Center (JS)--as well as three specialty hospitals: Holtz Children’s Hospital (Holtz); Jackson Rehabilitation Hospital; and Jackson Behavioral Health Hospital. JHS also owns and operates numerous other non- hospital healthcare facilities within Miami-Dade County. JHS’s applicant in this proceeding is JW which, if approved, will be another acute care hospital in JHS. JHS is an academic teaching institution, and the University of Miami (UM) is JHS’s affiliated medical school. Over 1,000 UM residents staff JMH pursuant to an operating agreement with JHS. JN and JS are not academic medical centers. JHS annually receives sales tax and ad valorem tax revenues from Miami-Dade County in order to help fund its operations. JS and JN are community hospitals operated as part of JHS. JS was acquired in 2001. JS is licensed for 226 beds and is also home to a verified Level II trauma center. The JN facility was acquired by JHS in 2006. The facility is licensed for 382 beds. East Florida (DMC) DMC is an affiliate of HCA Healthcare, Inc. (HCA), the largest provider of acute care hospital services in the world. DMC will operate within HCA’s East Florida Division (EFD), which is comprised of 15 hospitals, 12 surgery centers, two diagnostic imaging centers, four freestanding emergency departments, nine behavioral health facilities, and one regional laboratory, along with other related services. There are three HCA-affiliated hospitals in Miami-Dade County: KRMC; Aventura Hospital and Medical Center (Aventura); and Mercy Hospital, a campus of Plantation General Hospital (Mercy). Kendall Regional (KRMC) KRMC, which is located at the intersection of the Florida Turnpike and Southwest 40th Street in Miami-Dade County, is a 417-bed tertiary provider comprised of 380 acute care beds, 23 inpatient adult psychiatric beds, eight Level II neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) beds, and five Level III NICU beds. It is a Baker Act receiving facility. KRMC is a verified Level I trauma center. It also has a burn program. KRMC is also an academic teaching facility, receiving freestanding institutional accreditation from the Accrediting Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) in 2013. KRMC currently has six residency programs including, among others, surgery, internal medicine, podiatry, anesthesia, and surgical critical care. Its teaching programs are affiliated with the University of South Florida, Nova Southeastern University, and Florida International University. KRMC also participates in scholarly and clinical research. In 2017, KRMC had over 82,000 Emergency Department (ED) visits. It treated over 115,000 total inpatients and outpatients that year. There are 850 physicians on KRMC’s medical staff. It offers a full range of medical surgery services, interventional procedures, obstetrics (OB), pediatric, and neonatal care, among many other service lines. KRMC primarily serves southern and western portions of Miami-Dade County but also receives referrals from the Florida Keys up through Broward County, Palm Beach County, and the Treasure Coast. Its main competitors include, but are not limited to: Baptist Hospital; Baptist West; South Miami Hospital; PGH; Hialeah; CGH; JS, and Palm Springs General Hospital. The Tenet Hospitals PGH, Hialeah, and CGH are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Tenet South Florida. These are all for-profit hospitals. PGH is a 368-bed tertiary facility that opened in the early 1970s. It has 297 licensed acute care beds, 48 adult psychiatric beds, 52 ICU beds, and 15 Level II NICU beds. It is located at the Palmetto Expressway and Northwest 122nd Street in Hialeah, Florida. The hospital employs about 1,700 people and has over 600 physicians on its medical staff. PGH is a tertiary-level facility offering a variety of specialty services, including adult open heart surgery, a comprehensive stroke center, and robotic surgery. It has inpatient mental health beds and serves the community as a Baker Act receiving facility. It also offers OB and Level II NICU services with approximately 1,500 births a year. It has approximately 70,000 ED visits and between 17,000 and 18,000 inpatient admissions per year. In addition to its licensed inpatient beds, PGH operates 31 observation beds. PGH is ACGME accredited and serves a significant teaching function in the community. It has approximately 89 residents and fellows. The hospital provides fellowships in cardiology, critical care and interventional cardiology, and also has rotations in neurology and gastroenterology. Residents from Larkin General Hospital also rotate through PGH. PGH generally serves the communities of Opa Locka, Hialeah, Miami Lakes, Hialeah Gardens, Doral, and Miami Springs. In reality, all of the hospitals in the county are competitors, but more direct competition comes from Palm Springs Hospital, Memorial in Miramar, Mount Sinai, Kendall, and even its sister hospital, Hialeah. Hialeah first opened in 1951 and is a 378-bed acute care facility. It has 356 acute care beds, 12 adult psychiatric beds, and 10 Level II NICU beds. The ED has 25 beds and about 40,000 visits per year. It has approximately 14,000 inpatient admissions and 1,400 babies delivered annually. It offers services including cardiac, stroke, robotic surgery, colorectal surgery, and OB services. The hospital has a Level II NICU with 12 beds. CGH is located in the City of Coral Gables and is near the border between Coral Gables and the City of Miami on Douglas Road. It first opened in 1926. Portions of the original structure are still in use. CGH has 245 licensed beds, over 725 employees, 367 physicians, and over 100 additional allied providers on its medical staff. The hospital has a full-service ED. Its service lines include general surgery, geriatrics, urology, treatment of cardiovascular and pulmonary disease, and others. The hospital has eight operating rooms and offers robotic surgery. The ED has 28 beds divided into the main area and a geriatric emergency room. It had about 25,000 ED visits last year, which is lower than prior years, due in part to the presence of over a dozen nearby urgent care centers. CGH has over 8,500 inpatient admissions per year and is not at capacity. While patient days have grown slightly, the average occupancy is still just a little over 40%, meaning, on average, it has over 140 empty inpatient beds on any given day. The hospital is licensed for 245 beds, but typically there are only 180 beds immediately available for use. Agency for Healthcare Administration (AHCA) AHCA is the state health-planning agency charged with administration of the CON program as set forth in sections 408.31-408.0455, Florida Statutes. The Proposals Doral Medical Center (DMC) DMC proposes to build an 80-bed community hospital situated within the residential district of Doral. The hospital will be located in southwestern Doral in zip code 33126 and will serve the growing population of Doral, along with residential areas to the north and south of Doral. The hospital will be located in the City of Doral’s residential district on Northwest 41st Street between Northwest 109th Avenue to the east, and Northwest 112th Avenue to the west. Doral has seen significant growth in the past 15 years and has been consistently included on the list of the fastest growing cities in Florida. The new facility will have a bed complement of 80 licensed acute care beds, including 72 medical/surgical and eight OB beds. The proposed acute care hospital will be fully accredited by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Facilities and licensed by the State of Florida. No public funds will be utilized in construction of the hospital and it will contribute to the state, county, and municipal tax base as a proprietary corporation. DMC will offer a full range of non-tertiary services, including emergency services, imaging, surgery, intensive care, cardiac catheterization, and women's services, including an OB unit, and pediatric care. DMC will be a general medical facility that will include a general medical component and a surgery component. Although DMC will operate an OB unit, NICU services will not be offered at DMC. If DMC’s patients need more advanced services, including NICU, the EFD hopes they will receive them from KRMC. The open medical staff will be largely community-based, but University of Miami physicians would be welcome at DMC. Before the hospital is built, KRMC will construct and operate a freestanding emergency department (FSED) at the location that will eventually become the ED of DMC. Construction of the FSED is now underway, and Brandon Haushalter, chief executive officer (CEO) of KRMC, estimated that it will open in March or April of 2019. Jackson West JHS proposes to build a community hospital to be known as “Jackson West” near the eastern edge of Doral. The proposed 100-bed general acute care hospital would have medical surgical and obstetrical beds and offer basic acute care services. JHS is a public health system owned by Miami-Dade County. All of JHS’s assets, as well as its debts, belong to the county. JHS is a not-for-profit entity, and therefore does not pay taxes, though it receives hundreds of millions of dollars from property taxes and sales taxes in Miami-Dade County. JHS’s main campus is a large health campus located near the Midtown Miami area in between Allapattah (to the north) and Little Havana (to the south). In addition to JMH, the campus includes Holtz Children’s Hospital, a behavioral health hospital, an inpatient rehabilitation hospital, and several specialty clinics. Bascom-Palmer Eye Institute, a Veterans Administration hospital, and University of Miami Hospital are also located adjacent to Jackson West’s main campus. JMH is a 1,500-bed hospital with a wide array of programs and services, including tertiary and quaternary care, and a Level I trauma program, the Ryder Trauma Center. JMH receives patients from throughout Miami-Dade County, elsewhere in Florida, and internationally. JMH is a teaching hospital and has a large number of residents, as well as professors from the University of Miami, on staff. UM and JMH have had a relationship for many years, and in addition to research and teaching, UM provides physician staffing to JMH. JN is a 342-bed community hospital located in between Miami Gardens and North Miami Beach, just off of I-95 and the Turnpike. JS is a 252-bed community hospital located in the Palmetto Bay area just south of Kendall. It has stroke certification and interventional cardiology, and was recently approved for a trauma program, which began in May 2016. Both JN and JS were existing hospitals that were acquired by JHS. JHS has never built a hospital from the ground up. In 2014, JHS leadership directed its internal planning team to review the healthcare needs of county residents. JHS’s analysis identified a need for outpatient services in western Miami-Dade, the only remaining quadrant of the county in which JHS did not have a hospital or healthcare program at the time. As part of its due diligence, JHS then consulted healthcare firm Kurt Salmon & Associates (KSA) to independently evaluate the data. KSA’s investigation validated a need in the west county for adult and pediatric outpatient services, including need for an FSED. This prompted JHS to explore opportunities for expansion of outpatient services where needed: in the western corridor of Miami-Dade. This was also the genesis of JHS’s long-range plan to first build an FSED in the Doral area, to be followed ultimately by the addition of a general acute care hospital at the site. The JW site is a 27-acre parcel of land located just west of the Palmetto Expressway and north of 25th Street. The site is in an industrial area only a short distance from the western end of the runways at Miami International Airport. The site is located in zip code 33122, which is very sparsely populated. JW proposed a primary service area (PSA) consisting of zip codes 33126, 33144, 33166, 33172/33122, 33174, 33178, and 33182, and a secondary service area (SSA) of zip codes 33155, 33165, 33175, and 33184. JW intends to serve general, acute care non-tertiary patients and OB patients. Detailed below, trends in the JW service area do not demonstrate need for its proposed hospital. The location of the JW site will not contribute to the viability of the proposed hospital. According to 2010 census data, only 328 people live within a one-mile radius of the JW site. Since 2000, only 32 total people have moved into that same area around the JW site--an average of three per year. There are virtually no residences within a one-mile radius of the JW site. From 2000 to 2010, the population within a two- mile radius of the JW site decreased by a rate of 9.4%. The JW health planner projects JW’s home zip code of 33122 will have a total population of only eight (8) people in 2022. From 2012 to 2014, the use rate in the JW service area for non-tertiary patients decreased by 3.9%. That decline continued at a steeper pace of 4.2% from 2014 to 2017. This was largely due to the 65+ age cohort, the demographic of patients that utilize inpatient services the most. The 65+ age cohort is growing at a slower pace in the JW service area than in Miami- Dade or Florida as a whole. Non-tertiary discharges in the JW service area are declining at a greater pace than that of Miami- Dade County--negative 4.2% compared to negative 1.9%. The rate of projected population growth in the JW PSA is decreasing. The projected rate of growth for the JW service area is lower than that of Miami-Dade County and Florida as a whole. The OB patient base JW intends to rely on is projected to remain flat. The inpatient discharges for all ages in the JW service area have declined from 2014 to 2017. For ages 0-17, discharges in the JW service area declined 21.4% during that time period. The discharges for ages 18-44 declined by 4.8%, and the discharges for ages 45-64 declined by 8.9%. The discharges for the important 65+ age cohort declined by 0.1%. Specifically, the discharges for ages 65-74 declined by 6.5%, and the discharges for ages 75-84 declined by 3.3%. The discharges for ages 85+ are the only age cohort that has not declined from 2012 to 2017. Overall, the non-tertiary discharges per 1,000 population (i.e., use rate) for all ages in the JW service area declined from 2012 to 2014 by 6%, and from 2014 to 2017 by 7.8%. Despite these declines in discharges in the JW service area, the health planners who crafted the JW projections used a constant use rate for the 0-17, 18-44, and 45-64 age cohorts. The JW health planners used a declining use rate for the 65+ age cohort. These use rates were applied uniformly across all zip codes, despite wide variance in actual use rates in each zip code. Applying the zip code specific use rates in conjunction with the other assumptions used by the JW health planner demonstrates that the JW projections are unreasonable. For instance, JW’s reliance on a uniform use rate over-projects the number of discharges in JW PSA zip code 33178 by nearly 1,000 patients. This occurs because the population is only growing at a 2% rate in the zip code, but JW’s reliance on service area-wide projections cause the discharges to grow at an extraordinary rate of 8.9% per year. Applying actual use rates across all zip codes causes a drastic change in the JW PSA and SSA definition. Section 408.037(2) requires a CON applicant to identify its PSA and SSA by listing zip codes in which it will receive discharges in descending order, beginning with the zip code with the highest amount of discharges, then proceeding in diminishing order to the zip code with the lowest amount of discharges. The zip codes, which comprise 75% of discharges, constitute the PSA; and the remaining zip codes, which consist of the remaining 25% of discharges, makes up the SSA. However, JW did not project its utilization in this manner. In its application, JW did not define its service area, PSA, and SSA zip codes in descending order by number or percentage of discharges. When this correct adjustment is made, its PSA consists of zip codes 33126, 33172, 33178, 33174, 33144, and 33165; and its SSA consists of zip codes 33175, 33166, 33155, 33182, and 33184. Zip codes 33166 and 33182 were in the original JW PSA, and zip code 33165 was in the original JW SSA. As such, JW’s home zip code should actually be in its SSA. JW health planners call this illogical, but it demonstrates that the JW site is located within a zip code that has almost no population of potential patients. JHS is developing an FSED and outpatient/ambulatory facilities on the JW site regardless of whether its CON application for a hospital is approved. Construction has begun on the JW site, and JHS is actually building a “shelled in” structure intended to house a future hospital, notwithstanding lack of CON approval for the hospital. There is no contingency plan for use of the shelled-in hospital space if CON approval is not obtained. JHS executives unequivocally stated that they intend to continue pursuing CON approval for the JW hospital, even if the proposed DMC hospital is approved. Indeed, JHS has filed third and fourth CON applications for its proposed JW hospital. The budget for the JW campus is $252 million. Sixty to $70 million is being funded from a bond issuance approved by voters in Miami-Dade County. Notably, the bond referendum approved by voters made no mention of a new hospital. The remaining $180 to $190 million is being funded by JHS, which has chosen to only keep 50 days cash-on-hand, and put any surplus toward capital projects. This is well below the number of days cash-on-hand ws advisable for a system like JHS. The specific programs and services to be offered at JW have not been finalized, but it is clear that JW will be a small community hospital that will not offer anything unique or different from any of the existing hospitals in the area, nor will it operate NICU beds. Patients presenting to JW in need of specialized or tertiary services will need to be transferred to another hospital with the capability of serving them, most likely JMH. The Applicants’ Arguments Doral Medical Center (DMC) DMC’s arguments in support of its proposed hospital may be summarized as follows: Geographic features surrounding Doral create transportation access barriers for the residents of the area; Doral is a densely-populated community that is growing quickly and lacks a readily accessible hospital; KRMC, which is the provider of choice for Doral residents, is a growing tertiary facility that cannot sufficiently expand to meet its future demands. DMC will serve much of the same patient population currently served by KRMC and help decompress KRMC’s acute care load so KRMC can focus on its tertiary service lines; From a geographic standpoint, the Doral community and its patients are isolated from much of Miami-Dade County to the north, west, and east, and the nearest hospitals. East Florida-DMC is a subsidiary of HCA and would be a part of the HCA EFD. Michael Joseph is the president of the EFD, which includes 15 hospitals and other facilities from Miami north through the Treasure Coast. Mr. Joseph authorized the filing of the DMC CON application, which proposes an 80-bed basic acute care hospital that includes 72 medical surgical and eight OB beds. As noted, there will be neither unique services at DMC nor any tertiary services, such as a NICU. HCA anticipates that DMC patients needing tertiary services would be referred and treated at KRMC. The proposed hospital would be built on 41st Street, between Northwest 109th Avenue and Northwest 112th Avenue. This site is located on the western edge of Doral, just east of the Everglades. When the consultants were retained to write the first DMC CON application, HCA had already made the decision to go forward with the project. Mr. Joseph described Miami-Dade County as one of the most competitive markets in the country for hospital services. There is robust competition in the Miami-Dade market from the standpoints of payors, physicians, and the many hospitals located in the county, including Jackson, HCA, Tenet, Baptist and others. HCA is not proposing this project because any of the existing hospitals in the area do not provide good quality care. HCA is currently building an FSED on the DMC site that will open regardless of whether the DMC hospital is approved. Mr. Joseph acknowledged that there is a trend toward outpatient rather than inpatient care. Inpatient occupancy of acute care hospitals in Miami-Dade County has been declining in recent years. Managed care has added further pressure on reducing inpatient admissions. Surgical advances have also resulted in fewer inpatient admissions. Surgeries that formerly required an inpatient stay are now often done on an outpatient basis. Mr. Joseph agreed that 30 minutes is a reasonable travel time to access an acute care hospital. The home zip code for the proposed DMC hospital is 33178. KRMC’s market share for that zip code is 20%. Individuals in that zip code are currently accessing a wide variety of hospitals. PGH is only 6.7 miles away and has the fourth highest market share in that zip code. HCA’s healthcare planning expert, Dan Sullivan, acknowledged that, if approved, DMC would likely have an adverse financial impact on KRMC and other area hospitals. Several witnesses testified that the travel time from the DMC site to KRMC is about 10 minutes, and that an ambulance could do it in as little as five minutes. As to the argument that the residents of Doral face geographic access barriers, the evidence did not indicate that there is anything unique about Doral from a traffic standpoint compared to other parts of Miami-Dade County. People come in and out of Doral on a daily basis in significant numbers for work and other reasons via various access points. Witnesses agreed that 25 to 30 minutes is a reasonable drive time for non-tertiary acute care services, and the evidence showed that residents of Doral, and the DMC service area, are well within 30 minutes of multiple hospitals providing more intensive services than are proposed by DMC. Indeed, many residents of DMC’s service area are closer to other hospitals than to the DMC site. None of the DMC witnesses were able to identify any patient in Doral who had been unable to access acute care services, or had suffered a bad outcome because of travel from Doral to an area hospital. The evidence did not establish that there currently exists either geographic or financial access barriers within the service area proposed to be served by DMC. Jackson West As in its Batch One application, JW advances six arguments as to why its proposed hospital should be approved. They are: It will serve a significant amount of indigent and Medicaid patients. JHS already serves residents of the proposed service area, which JW characterizes as “fragmented,” in that residents go to a number of different hospitals to receive services. Development of the freestanding ED and ambulatory center is under way. JW would provide an additional opportunity to partner with UM and FIU. There is physician and community support for the project. JW will add to the financial viability of JHS and its ability to continue its mission. JW presented very little analysis of the types of factors typically considered in evaluating need for a new hospital. JW did not discuss existing providers and their programs and services, the utilization of existing hospitals, and whether they have excess capacity, or other important considerations. Instead, JW advanced the six arguments noted above, for approval of its proposed hospital, none of which truly relate to the issue of need. First, JW states that its proposed hospital will serve a significant level of Medicaid and indigent patients. While it is true that JHS serves a significant amount of Medicaid and indigent patients, there are a number of reasons why this is not a basis to approve its proposed hospital. As an initial matter, JW treads a fine line in touting its service to Medicaid and indigent patients, while also targeting Doral for its better payer mix and financial benefit to JHS. JHS also receives an enormous amount of tax dollars to provide care to indigent and underserved patients. While other hospitals in Miami-Dade County provide care to such patients, they do not receive taxpayer dollars, as does JHS, although they pay taxes, unlike JHS. Also, Medicaid is a good payer for JHS. With its substantial supplement, JHS actually makes money from Medicaid patients, and it costs the system more for a Medicaid patient to be treated at a JHS hospital than elsewhere. More significantly, there is not a large Medicaid or indigent population in Doral, nor evidence of financial access issues in Doral. Second, JW argues that its CON application should be approved because JHS already serves patients from the Doral area, which JW characterizes as “fragmented” because area residents go to several different hospitals for care. This so- called “fragmentation” is not unique to Doral, and is not unusual in a densely-populated urban market with several existing hospitals. The same phenomenon occurs in other areas of Miami-Dade County, some of which actually have a hospital in the localized area. The fact that Doral residents are accessing several different hospitals demonstrates that there are a number of existing providers that are accessible to them. As discussed in greater detail below, residents of the Doral area have choices in every direction (other than to the west, which is the Everglades). JHS itself already serves patients from the Doral area. If anything, this tells us that patients from Doral currently have access to the JHS hospitals. Third, JW argues that its CON application should be approved because development of the JW campus is under way. This is irrelevant to the determination of need, and is simply a statement of JHS’s intent to build an FSED and outpatient facilities on a piece of land that was acquired for that purpose, regardless of CON approval. Fourth, JW argues for approval of its proposed hospital because it would provide an additional opportunity to partner with UM and Florida International University (FIU). However, the statutory criteria no longer addresses research and teaching concerns, and JHS’s relationship with UM or FIU has no bearing on whether there is a need for a new hospital in the Doral area. Moreover, JW did not present any evidence of how it would partner with UM or FIU at JW, and there does not seem to be any set plans in this regard. Fifth, JW claims that there is physician and community support for its proposed hospital, but it is very common for CON applicants to obtain letters in support for applications. Indeed, the DMC application was also accompanied by letters of support. Sixth and finally, JW argues that its proposed hospital will add to the financial viability of HSA and allow it to continue its mission. However, JW provided no analysis of the projected financial performance of its proposed hospital to substantiate this. The only financial analysis in the record is from KSA, a consulting firm that JHS hired to analyze the programs and services to be developed at JW. The KSA analysis posits that the JW FSED project will lose millions of dollars and not achieve break-even unless there is an inpatient hospital co-located there so that JW can take advantage of the more lucrative hospital-based billing and reimbursement. The sixth “need” argument relates to the issue of JHS’s historical financial struggles, which bear discussion. Only a handful of years ago, the entire JHS was in dire financial trouble, so much so that selling all or parts of it was considered. Days cash-on-hand was in the single digits, and JHS fell out of compliance with bond covenants. JHS’s financial difficulties prompted the appointment of an outside monitor to oversee JHS’s finances. Price Waterhouse served in that role, and made several recommendations for JHS to improve its revenue cycle, make accounting adjustments, and improve its staffing and efficiency. As a result of these recommendations, JHS went through a large reduction in force, and began to more closely screen the income and residency of its patients. As a result of these measures, overall financial performance has since improved. Despite its improved financial position, JHS still consistently loses money on operations, including a $362,000,915 loss as of June 30, 2018. JHS clearly depends upon the hundreds of millions of non-operating tax-based revenues it receives annually. JHS’s CEO expressed concerns over decreases in the system’s non-operating revenue sources, and claimed that JHS needs to find ways to increase its operating revenue to offset this. JW is being proposed as part of this strategy. However, JHS’s chief financial officer testified that “the non-operating revenues are a fairly stable source of income.” In fact, JHS’s tax revenues have gone up in the last few years. JHS sees the more affluent Doral area as a source of better paying patients that will enhance the profitability of its new hospital. Beyond this aspiration however, there is no meaningful analysis of the anticipated financial performance of its proposed hospital. This is a glaring omission given that a significant impetus for spending millions of public dollars on a new hospital is to improve JHS’s overall financial position. The KSA analysis referenced above determined that changes to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System rule would result in the JW campus losing hundreds of millions of dollars and never reaching “break even,” absent an inpatient hospital on the campus for “hospital based” billing and reimbursement. Though a financial benefit to the system, the increased reimbursement JHS would receive by having an inpatient hospital on the JW campus would be a financial burden on the healthcare delivery system since it would cost more for the same patient to receive the same outpatient services in a hospital- based facility. Reports by KSA also state that a strategic purpose of JW is to attract patients that would otherwise go to nearby facilities like PGH and Hialeah, and to capture tertiary or higher complexity cases which would then be sent to JMH. JW’s witnesses and healthcare planning experts fully expect this to happen. In 2015, and again in 2017, JHS conducted a “Community Health Needs Assessment,” which is required by law to be performed by public safety net hospitals. The assessments were conducted by gathering responses to various questions from a wide array of community leaders and stakeholders, including the CEOs of JHS’s hospitals, about the healthcare needs of the community. The final Community Health Needs Assessment documents are lengthy and cover a variety of health-related topics, but most notable for this case is that: (1) nowhere in either the 2015 or 2017 assessment is the development of a new hospital recommended; and (2) expansion into western Miami-Dade County scored by far the lowest on a list of priorities for JHS. In its application and at hearing, JW took the position that JW can enter the Doral area market without impacting existing providers to any meaningful extent. While JW acknowledges that its proposed hospital would impact the Tenet Hospitals, it argues that the impact is not significant. The evidence established that the financial impact to the Tenet Hospitals (calculated based upon lost contribution margin) would total roughly $3 million for lost inpatients, and $5.2 million including lost outpatients. While these losses will not put the Tenet Hospitals in financial peril, they are nonetheless significant and material. The Existing Healthcare Delivery System Miami-Dade County is home to 18 freestanding acute care hospitals, comprising a total of 7,585 licensed and approved acute care beds. With an average annual occupancy of 53.8% in calendar year 2017, there were, on average, approximately 3,500 unoccupied acute care beds in the county on any given day. While the countywide occupancy rate fluctuates from year to year, it has been on a downward trend in the past several years. As pointed out by several witnesses, the lack of a hospital in Doral is not itself an indication of need. In addition, population growth, and the demands of the population for inpatient hospital beds, cannot be considered in a vacuum. Sound healthcare planning requires an analysis of existing area hospitals, including the services they offer and their respective locations; how area residents travel to existing hospitals and any barriers to access; the utilization of existing hospitals and amount of capacity they have; and other factors which may be relevant in a given case. The population of Doral currently is only about 59,000 people. It is not as densely populated as many areas of Miami-Dade County, has a number of golf course communities, and is generally a more affluent area with a higher average household income than much of Miami-Dade County. As set forth in JW’s CON application, the better payer mix in Doral was a significant factor behind its decision to file its CON application. Although there is not a hospital within the Doral city limits, there are a number of healthcare providers in Doral and several hospitals nearby. PGH and Palm Springs Hospital are just north of Doral. KRMC is just south of Doral. Hialeah is northeast of Doral. CGH, Westchester General, and NCH are southeast of Doral. JMH and all of its facilities are east of Doral. And there are others within reasonable distance. KRMC is only six miles due south of the proposed DMC site, and PGH is just eight miles north of the DMC site. As to the JW site, PGH is 6.9 miles distant, CGH is 8.6 miles distant, and Hialeah is 7.4 miles distant. Residents of the Doral area have many choices in hospitals with a wide array of services, and they are accessing them. The parties to this case, as well as other existing hospitals, all have a share of the Doral area market. JW calls this “fragmentation” of the market and casts it in a negative light, but the evidence showed this to be a normal phenomenon in an urban area like Miami, with several hospitals in healthy competition with each other. Among the experts testifying at the hearing, it was undisputed that inpatient acute care hospital use rates are on the decline. There are different reasons for this, but it was uniformly recognized that decreasing use rates for inpatient services, and a shift toward outpatient services, are ongoing trends in the market. Recognizing the need for outpatient services in the Doral area, both JW and DMC (or, more accurately, their related entities) have proposed outpatient facilities and services to be located in Doral. Kendall Regional Medical Center KRMC is currently the dominant hospital provider in the Doral area. Regarding his motivation for filing the DMC application, Mr. Joseph readily admitted “it’s as much about protecting what I already currently provide, number one.” KRMC treats Medicaid and indigent patients. KRMC has never turned away a patient because it did not have a contract with a Medicaid-managed care company. The CEO agreed that there is no access problem for Medicaid or charity patients justifying a new hospital. It was argued that KRMC is crowded, and the DMC hospital would help “decompress” KRMC, but the evidence showed that KRMC has a number of licensed beds that are not being used for inpatients. In addition, its ED has never gone on diversion, and no patient has ever been turned away due to the lack of a bed. Moreover, the census at KRMC has been declining. It had 25,324 inpatient admissions in 2015, 24,649 admissions in 2016, and 23,301 in 2017. The most recent data available at the time of hearing reflected that KRMC has been running at a little less than 75% occupancy, before its planned bed additions. KRMC is between an eight to 10 minute drive from Doral, and currently has the largest market share within the applicants’ defined service areas. KRMC is readily available and accessible to the residents of Doral. KRMC currently has a $90 million dollar expansion project under way. It involves adding beds and two new floors to the West Tower--a new fifth floor which will add 24 ICU beds and 24 step-down beds, and a new sixth floor which will house the relocated pediatric unit and 12 new medical-surgical beds. KRMC is also adding a new nine-story, 765 parking space garage and other ancillary space. This expansion will reduce the occupancy rate of KRMC’s inpatient units, and in particular its ICUs. These bed additions, in conjunction with increasing emphasis on outpatient services and the resultant declining inpatient admissions, will alleviate any historical capacity constraints KRMC may have had. There are also a number of ways KRMC could be further expanded in the future if needed. The West Tower is designed so it could accommodate a seventh floor, and the East Tower is also designed so that an additional floor could also be added to it. In addition, KRMC recently completed construction of a new OR area that is built on pillars. The new construction includes a third floor of shelled-in space that could house an additional 12 acute care beds. Moreover, this new OR tower was designed to go up an additional two to three floors beyond the existing shelled-in third floor. It is clear that KRMC has implemented reasonable strategies for addressing any bed capacity issues it may have experienced in the past. Decompression of KRMC is not a reason to approve DMC. Palmetto General Hospital Evidence regarding PGH was provided by its CEO Ana Mederos. Ms. Mederos is a registered nurse and has lived in Miami-Dade County for many years. She has a master of business education from Nova University and has worked in several different hospitals in the county. Specifically, she was the chief operating officer (COO) at Cedars Medical Center, the CEO at North Shore Medical Center, the CEO at Hialeah Hospital, and has been the CEO at PGH since August of 2006. Ms. Mederos is one of the few witnesses that actually lives in Doral. She travels in and out of the area on a daily basis. Her average commute is only about 15 minutes, and she has multiple convenient options in and out of Doral. PGH is located just off the Palmetto Expressway at 68th Street. It opened in the early 1970s and has 368 licensed beds, including 52 ICU beds. The hospital employs about 1,800 people and has over 600 physicians on its medical staff. PGH’s occupancy has declined from 79.8% in 2015 to 64% in 2016, and even further to 56.7% in 2017. There are many reasons for this decline, including pressure from managed care organizations, the continued increase in the use of outpatient procedures, improvements in technology, and increased competition in the Miami-Dade County market. Ms. Mederos expects that inpatient demand will continue to decline into the foreseeable future. PGH recently activated 31 observation beds to help improve throughput and better accommodate the increasing number of observation patients. PGH offers high-quality care and uses various metrics and indicators to measure and monitor what is going on in the hospital. The hospital has also been recognized with numerous awards. Through its parent, Tenet, PGH has contracts with just about every insurance and managed care company that serves the community. The hospital treats Medicaid and indigent patients. PGH’s Medicaid rate of $3,580 per patient is significantly lower than the rate paid to JMH. PGH has an office dedicated to helping patients get qualified for Medicaid or other financial resources, which not only helps the hospital get paid for its services, it also assists patients and families to make sure that they have benefits on an ongoing basis. Roughly 9-10% of PGH’s patients annually are completely unfunded. PGH only transfers patients if there is a need for a service not provided at the hospital, or upon the patient’s request. PGH does not transfer patients just because they cannot pay. PGH pays physicians to take calls in the ED which also obligates those physicians to provide care to patients that are seen at the hospital. PGH is a for-profit hospital that pays income taxes and property taxes, and does not receive any taxpayer subsidies like those received by JHS. Ms. Mederos reviewed the applications of JW and DMC, and articulated a number of reasons why, in her opinion, neither application should be approved. She sees no delays in providing care to anyone in the area, as there are hospitals serving Doral in every direction. There are a multitude of FSEDs available and additional FSEDs are being built in Doral by both applicants. There is another FSED being built close to PGH by Mount Sinai Medical Center. NCH has also opened an FSED that has negatively affected the volume of pediatric patients seen at PGH. There are also multiple urgent care centers. It was Ms. Mederos’ firm belief that persons living in Doral have reasonable geographic access to both inpatient and outpatient medical services. Ms. Mederos’ testimony in this regard is credited. There are no programs or services being proposed by either applicant that are not already available in the area. Ms. Mederos also noted that there is currently no problem with access to OB services in the area. However, she has a particular concern in that both applicants propose to offer OB services, but neither is proposing to offer NICU services. The evidence showed that most all of the hospitals that provide OB services to the Doral area offer at least Level II and some Level III NICU services. Thus, in terms of OB care, both proposed hospitals would be a step below what has developed as the standard of care for OB patients in the county. Ms. Mederos acknowledged that PGH does not have a huge market share in the zip codes that the applicants are proposing to serve, but that does not mean that the impact from either would not be real and significant. If a hospital is built by either applicant, it will need physicians, with some specialists in short supply. There are tremendous shortages in certain medical fields, such as orthopedics and neurology. In addition, there will be additional competition for nurses and other staff, which will increase the cost of healthcare. The loss of $1.3 to $2 million in contribution margin, as projected by Tenet’s healthcare planner, is a negative impact on PGH as hospital margins become thinner, and those numbers do not include costs like those needed to recruit and retain staff. PGH is again experiencing a nursing shortage, and losing nurses, incurring the higher cost for contract labor, paying overtime, and essentially not having the staff to provide the required services is a serious potential adverse impact from either proposed new hospital. JHS also tends to provide more lucrative benefits than PGH, and a nearby JW hospital is a threat in that regard. As a final note, Ms. Mederos stated that her conviction that there is no need for either proposed hospital in Doral is even more resolute than when she testified in the Batch One Case. With continued declines in admissions, length of stay and patient days, the development of more services for the residents of Doral, the shortages of doctors and nurses, the ever increasing role of managed care that depresses the demand for inpatient hospital services and other factors, she persuasively explained why no new hospitals are needed in the Doral area. Coral Gables Hospital (CGH) Maria Cristina Jimenez testified on behalf of CGH, where she has worked in a variety of different capacities since 1985. She was promoted to CEO in March 2017. She has lived in Miami her entire life. Ms. Jimenez has been involved in initiatives to make her hospital more efficient. She is supportive of efforts to reduce inpatient hospitalizations and length of stay, as this is what is best for patients. Overall, the hospital length of stay is dropping, which adds to the decreasing demand for inpatient services. CGH is accredited by the Joint Commission, has received multiple awards, and provides high-quality care to its patients. It also has contracts with a broad array of managed care companies as do the other Tenet hospitals. CGH treats Medicaid patients, and its total Medicaid rate is less than $3,500 per inpatient. The hospital has a program similar to PGH to help patients get qualified for Medicaid and other resources. CGH also provides services to indigent patients, and self-pay/charity is about 6% of the hospital’s total admissions. The hospital does not transfer patients just because they are indigent. Physicians are compensated to provide care in the emergency room and are expected to continue with that care if the patients are admitted to the hospital, even if they do not have financial resources. CGH also pays income and property taxes, but does not receive any taxpayer support. CGH generally serves the Little Havana, Flagami, Miami, and Coral Gables communities, and its service area overlaps with those of the applicants. In order to better serve its patients and to help it compete in the highly competitive Miami-Dade County marketplace, CGH is developing a freestanding ED at the corner of Bird Road and Southwest 87th Avenue, which is scheduled to open in January 2020. This will provide another resource for patients in the proposed service areas. Ms. Jimenez had reviewed the CON applications at issue in this case. She does not believe that either hospital should be approved because it will drain resources from CGH, not only from a financial standpoint, but also physician and nurse staffing. CGH experiences physician shortages. Urologists are in short supply, as are gastrointestinal physicians that perform certain procedures. Hematology, oncology, and endocrinology are also specialty areas with shortages. The addition of another hospital will exacerbate those shortages at CGH. While CGH does not have a large market share in the proposed PSA of either applicant, anticipated impact from approval of either is real and substantial. A contribution margin loss of $1.2 to $2.2 million per year, as projected by Tenet’s healthcare planner, would be significant. The drain on resources, including staff and physicians, is also of significant concern. Hialeah Hospital Dr. Jorge Perez testified on behalf of Hialeah. Dr. Perez is a pathologist and medical director of laboratory at the hospital. More significantly, Dr. Perez has been on the hospital’s staff since 2001 and has served in multiple leadership roles, including chair of the Performance Improvement Council, chief of staff; and since 2015, chair of the Hialeah Hospital Governing Board. Hialeah offers obstetrics services and a Level II NICU with 12 beds. Approximately 1,400 babies a year are born there. Hialeah’s occupancy has been essentially flat for the past three years, at below 40%, and it clearly has ample excess capacity. On an average day, over 200 of Hialeah’s beds are unoccupied. Like other hospitals in the county, Hialeah has a number of competitors. The growth of managed care has affected the demand for inpatient beds and services at Hialeah. Hialeah treats Medicaid and indigent patients. Approximately 15% of Hialeah’s admissions are unfunded. As with its sister Tenet hospitals, Hialeah is a for- profit hospital that pays taxes and does not receive tax dollars for providing care to the indigent. Dr. Perez succinctly and persuasively identified a variety of reasons why no new hospital is needed in Doral. First and foremost, there is plenty of capacity at the existing hospitals in the area, including Hialeah. Second, both inpatient admissions and length of stay continue trending downward. Care continues to shift toward outpatient services, thereby reducing the demand for inpatient care. According to Dr. Perez, if a new hospital is approved in Doral it will bring with it adverse impacts on existing hospitals, including Hialeah. A new hospital in Doral will attract patients, some of which would have otherwise gone to Hialeah. Moreover, Doral has more insured patients, meaning the patients that would be lost would be good payors. There would also be a significant risk of loss of staff to a new hospital. Dr. Perez’s testimony in this regard is credible. Statutory and Rule Review Criteria In 2008, the Florida Legislature streamlined the review criteria applicable for evaluating new hospital applications. Mem’l Healthcare Grp. v. AHCA, Case No. 12- 0429CON, RO at 32 (Fla. DOAH Dec. 7, 2012). The criteria specifically eliminated included quality of care, availability of resources, financial feasibility, and the costs and methods of proposed construction. Lee Mem’l Health System v. AHCA, Case No. 13-2508CON, RO at 135 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 28, 2014). The remaining criteria applicable to new hospital projects are set forth at section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes. Section 408.035(1)(a): The need for the healthcare facilities and health services being proposed. Generally, CON applicants are responsible for demonstrating need for new acute care hospitals, typically in the context of a numeric need methodology adopted by AHCA. However, AHCA has not promulgated a numeric need methodology to calculate need for new hospital facilities. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e) provides that if no agency need methodology exists, the applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology, which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory and rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict, or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Both applicants propose to build small community hospitals providing basic acute care and OB services in the Doral area of western Miami-Dade County. Both applicants point to the increasing population and the lack of an acute care hospital in Doral as evidence of need for a hospital. The DMC application focuses largely on geographic access concerns, while the JW application is premised upon six arguments as to why JHS contends its proposed JW hospital should be approved. The lack of a hospital in Doral is not itself an indication of need.3/ In addition, population growth, and the demands of the population for inpatient hospital beds, cannot be considered in a vacuum. Sound healthcare planning requires an analysis of existing area hospitals, including the services they offer and their respective locations; how area residents travel to existing hospitals, and any barriers to access; the utilization of existing hospitals and amount of capacity they have; and other factors which may be relevant in a given case. Doral is in the west/northwest part of Miami-Dade County, in between the Miami International Airport (to the east) and the Everglades (to the west). It is surrounded by major roadways, with US Highway 27/Okeechobee Road running diagonally to the north, US Highway 836/Dolphin Expressway running along its southern edge, US Highway 826/Palmetto Expressway running north-south to the east, and the Florida Turnpike running north- south along the western edge of Doral. To the west of the Turnpike is the Everglades, where there is minimal population and very limited development possible in the future. The City of Doral itself has an area of about 15 square miles, and is only two or three times the size of the Miami International Airport, which sits just east of Doral. Much of Doral is commercial and industrial, with the largest concentration of residential areas being in the northwest part of the city. While there is unquestionably residential growth in Doral, the population of Doral is currently only about 59,000 people. Doral is not as densely populated as many areas of Miami-Dade County, has a number of golf course communities, and is generally a more affluent area with a higher average household income than much of Miami-Dade County. JW proposes to locate its hospital on the eastern side of Doral, just west of Miami International Airport, while the DMC site is on the western side of Doral, just east of the Everglades. JW’s site is located in an industrial area with few residents, while the DMC site is located in an area where future growth is likely to be limited. Both sites have downsides for development of a hospital, with both applicants spending considerable time at hearing pointing out the flaws of each other’s chosen location. Both applicants define their service areas to include the City of Doral, but also areas outside of Doral. Notably, the entire DMC service area is contained within KRMC’s existing service area, with the exception of one small area. While the population of Doral itself is only 59,000 people, there are more concentrated populations in areas outside of Doral (except to the west). However, the people in these areas are closer to existing hospitals like PGH, Hialeah, KRMC, and others. For the population inside Doral, there are several major roadways in and out of Doral, and area residents can access several existing hospitals with plenty of capacity within a 20-minute drive time, many closer than that. It was undisputed that inpatient acute care hospital use rates continue to decline. There are different reasons for this, but it was uniformly recognized that decreasing inpatient use rates, and a shift toward outpatient services, are ongoing trends in the market. These trends existed at the time of the Batch One Case. As observed by Tenet’s healthcare planner at hearing: “The occupancy is lower today than it was two years ago, the use rates are lower, and the actual utilization is lower.” Both applicants failed to establish a compelling case of need. While there is growth in the Doral area, it remains a relatively small population, and there was no evidence of community needs being unmet. Sound healthcare planning, and the statutory criteria, require consideration of existing hospitals, their availability, accessibility, and extent of utilization. These considerations weigh heavily against approval of either CON application, even more so than in the prior case. Section 408.035(1)(b): The availability, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing healthcare facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant; and Section 408.035(1)(e): The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to healthcare for residents of the service district. As stated above, there are several existing hospitals in close proximity to Doral. Thus, the question is whether they are accessible and have capacity to serve the needs of patients from the Doral area. The evidence overwhelmingly answers these questions in the affirmative. Geographic access was a focal point of the DMC application, which argued that there are various barriers to access in and around Doral, such as a canal that runs parallel to US Highway 27/Okeechobee Road, train tracks and a rail yard, industrial plants, and the airport. While the presence of these things is undeniable, as is the fact that there is traffic in Miami, based upon the evidence presented, they do not present the barriers that DMC alleges. Rather, the evidence was undisputed that numerous hospitals are accessible within 20 minutes of the proposed hospital sites, and some within 10 to 15 minutes. All of Doral is within 30 minutes of multiple hospitals. These are reasonable travel times and are not indicative of a geographic access problem, regardless of any alleged “barriers.” In addition, existing hospitals clearly have the capacity to serve the Doral community, and they are doing so. Without question, there is excess capacity in the Miami-Dade County market. With approximately 7,500 hospital beds in the county running at an average occupancy just over 50%, there are around 3,500 beds available at any given time. Focusing on the hospitals closest to Doral (those accessible within 20 minutes), there are hundreds of beds that are available and accessible from the proposed service areas of the applicants. KRMC is particularly noteworthy because of its proximity to, and market share in, the Doral area. The most recent utilization and occupancy data for KRMC indicate that it has, on average, 100 vacant beds. This is more than the entire 80-bed hospital proposed in the DMC application (for a service area that is already served and subsumed by KRMC). Moreover, KRMC is expanding, and will soon have even more capacity at its location less than a 10-minute drive from the DMC site. From a programmatic standpoint, neither applicant is proposing any programs or services that are not already available at numerous existing hospitals, and, in fact, both would offer fewer programs and services than other area hospitals. As such, patients in need of tertiary or specialized services will still have to travel to other hospitals like PGH, KRMC, or JMH. Alternatively, if they present to a small hospital in Doral in need of specialized services, they will then have to be transferred to an appropriate hospital that can treat them. The same would be true for babies born at either DMC or JW in need of a NICU. Similarly, there are bypass protocols for EMS to take cardiac, stroke, and trauma patients to the closest hospital equipped to treat them, even if it means bypassing other hospitals not so equipped, like JW and DMC. Less acute patients can be transported to the closest ED. And since both applicants are building FSEDs in Doral, there will be ample access to emergency services for residents of Doral. This criterion does not weigh in favor of approval of either hospital. To the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly established that existing hospitals are available and accessible to Doral area residents. Section 408.035(1)(e), (g) and (i): The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to healthcare, the extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness, and the applicant’s past and proposed provision of healthcare services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. It goes without saying that any new hospital is going to enhance access to the people closest to its location; but as explained above, there is no evidence of an access problem, or any pressing need for enhanced access to acute care hospital services. Rather, the evidence showed that Doral area residents are within very reasonable travel times to existing hospitals, most of which have far more extensive programs and services than either applicant is proposing to offer. Indeed, the proposed DMC service area is contained within KRMC’s existing service area, and KRMC is only 10 minutes from the DMC site. Neither applicant would enhance access to tertiary or specialized services, and patients in need of those services will still have to travel to other hospitals, or worse, be transferred after presenting to a Doral hospital with more limited programs and services. Although it was not shown to be an issue, access to emergency services is going to be enhanced by the FSEDs being built by both applicants. Thus, to the extent that a new hospital would enhance access, it would be only for non-emergent patients in need of basic, non-tertiary level care. Existing hospitals are available and easily accessible to these patients. In addition, healthy competition exists between several existing providers serving the Doral area market. That healthy competition would be substantially eroded by approval of the DMC application, as HCA would likely capture a dominant share of the market. While approval of the JW application might not create a dominant market share for one provider, it would certainly not promote cost-effectiveness given the fact that it costs the system more for the same patient to receive services at a JHS hospital than other facilities. Indeed, approval of JW’s application would mean that the JW campus will have the more expensive hospital-based billing rates. Florida Medicaid diagnosis related group (DRG) payment comparisons among hospitals are relevant because both DMC and JW propose that at least 22% of their patients will be Medicaid patients. Data from the 2017-18 DRG calculator provided by the Medicaid program office was used to compare JHS to the three Tenet hospitals, KRMC, and Aventura Hospital, another EFD hospital in Miami-Dade County. The data shows that JHS receives the highest Medicaid rate enhancement per discharge for the same Medicaid patients ($2,820.06) among these six hospitals in the county. KRMC receives a modest enhancement of $147.27. Comparison of Medicaid Managed Care Reimbursement over the period of fiscal years 2014-2016 show that JHS receives substantially more Medicaid reimbursement per adjusted patient day than any of the hospitals in this proceeding, with the other hospitals receiving between one-third and one-half of JHS reimbursement. In contrast, among all of these hospitals, KRMC had the lowest rate for each of the three years covered by the data, which means KRMC (and by extension DMC) would cost the Medicaid program substantially less money for care of Medicaid patients. Under the new prospective payment system instituted by the State of Florida for Medicaid reimbursement of acute care hospital providers, for service between July 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019, JHS is the beneficiary of an automatic rate enhancement of more than $8 million. In contrast, KRMC’s rate enhancement is only between $16,000 and $17,000. Thus, it will cost the Medicaid program substantially more to treat a patient using the same services at JW than at DMC. Furthermore, rather than enhance the financial viability of the JHS system, the evidence indicates that the JW proposal will be a financial drain on the JHS system. Finally, JHS’s past and proposed provision of care to Medicaid and indigent patients is noteworthy, but not a reason to approve its proposed hospital. JW is proposing this hospital to penetrate a more affluent market, not an indigent or underserved area, and it proposes to provide Medicaid and indigent care at a level that is consistent with the existing hospitals. JHS also receives the highest Low Income Pool (LIP) payments per charity care of any system in the state, and is one of only a handful of hospital systems that made money after receipt of the LIP payments. HCA-affiliated hospitals, by comparison, incur the second greatest cost in the state for charity care taking LIP payments into consideration. Analysis of standardized net revenues per adjusted admission (NRAA) among Miami-Dade County acute care hospitals, a group of 16 hospitals, shows JHS to be either the second or the third highest hospital in terms of NRAA. KRMC, in contrast, part of the EFD/HCA hospitals, is about 3% below the average of the 16 hospitals for NRAA. DMC’s analysis of standardized NRAA using data from 2014, 2015, and 2016, among acute care hospitals receiving local government tax revenues, shows JHS receives more net revenue than any of the other hospitals in this grouping. Using data from FY 2014 to FY 2016, DMC compared hospital costs among the four existing providers that are parties to this proceeding and JMH as a representative of JHS. Standardizing for case mix, fiscal year end, and location, an analysis of costs per adjusted admission shows that the hospitals other than JMH have an average cost of between a half and a third of JMH’s average cost. The same type of analysis of costs among a peer group of eight statutory teaching hospitals shows JHS’s costs to be the highest. It should also be noted that if JW were to fail or experience significant losses from operations, the taxpayers of Miami-Dade County will be at risk. In contrast, if DMC were to fail financially, EFD/HCA will shoulder the losses. When the two applications are evaluated in the context of the above criteria, the greater weight of the evidence does not mitigate in favor of approval of either. However, should AHCA decide to approve one of the applicants in its final order, preference should be given to DMC because of its lower costs per admission for all categories of payors, and in particular, the lower cost to the Florida Medicaid Program. In addition, the risk of financial failure would fall upon EFD/HCA, rather than the taxpayers of Miami-Dade County. Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e): Need considerations. Many of the considerations enumerated in rule 59C- 1.008(2)(e) overlap with the statutory criteria, but there are certain notable trends and market conditions that warrant mention. Specifically, while the population of Doral is growing, it remains relatively small, and does not itself justify a new hospital. And while there are some more densely populated areas outside of the city of Doral, they are much closer to existing hospitals having robust services and excess capacity. Doral is a more affluent area, and there was no evidence of any financial or cultural access issues supporting approval of either CON application. The availability, utilization, and quality of existing hospitals are clearly not issues, as there are several existing hospitals with plenty of capacity accessible to Doral area residents. In terms of medical treatment trends, it was undisputed that use rates for inpatient hospital services continue trending downward, and that trend is expected to continue. Concomitantly, there is a marked shift toward outpatient services in Miami-Dade County and elsewhere. Finally, both applicants are proposing to provide OB services without a NICU, which is below the standard in the market. While not required for the provision of obstetrics, NICU backup is clearly the most desirable and best practice. For the foregoing reasons, the considerations in rule 59C-1.008(2)(e) do not weigh in favor of approval of either hospital.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Healthcare Administration enter a final order denying East Florida-DMC, Inc.’s CON Application No. 10432 and denying The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County, Florida, d/b/a Jackson Hospital West’s CON Application No. 10433. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2019.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent’s denial of Petitioner’s Level II appeal should be upheld or whether the inpatient residential mental health services provided to R.H. by McLean Hospital’s 3 East Dialectical Behavior Therapy (“DBT”) program from September 9, 2015, through September 22, 2015, and again from October 15, 2015, through December 11, 2015, were “medically necessary” and therefore covered under the terms of the State Employees’ PPO Group Health Insurance Plan.
Findings Of Fact DSGI is the state agency responsible for administration of the state group insurance program, pursuant to section 110.123, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, A.H., is a State of Florida employee and was insured through the State Employees’ PPO Group Health Insurance Plan (the “Plan”). R.H., the child of A.H., was eligible for coverage under A.H.’s health insurance policy as of September 1, 2015. Pursuant to contract, Florida Blue acts as DSGI’s third-party medical claims administrator for employee health insurance benefits. New Directions is Florida Blue’s subcontractor and third-party administrator for mental health and substance abuse reviews and authorizations. “Utilization management” is the process of reviewing a service claim to determine whether the service is a covered benefit under the Plan and whether the service is “medically necessary” as that term is defined in the Plan. In cases involving mental health or substance abuse services, the service must also satisfy the more detailed and specific coverage guidelines, titled “Medical Necessity Criteria,” established by New Directions.1/ Consistent with general practice in the field, the “medical necessity” criteria of the New Directions document observe the following levels of care, in increasing order of intensity: psychiatric outpatient; psychiatric intensive outpatient; psychiatric partial hospitalization; psychiatric residential; and psychiatric acute residential. In the interests of conserving medical resources and preserving patient liberty, safety, and dignity, every effort is made to place patients in the least intensive level of care consistent with effective treatment of their presenting condition. R.H., a female who was 15 years old during the period relevant to this proceeding, has been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and has a history of eating disorders. Her treating psychologist in Florida, Nicolle Arbelaez Lopez, noted that R.H. was also being treated for generalized anxiety disorder. R.H. had an inpatient admission to the Renfrew Center in Florida for eating disorder treatment in May 2015. R.H. transitioned to partial hospitalization over the summer, followed by a step down to the Renfrew Center's intensive outpatient program, then by a step up back to partial hospitalization when her eating disorder behaviors worsened. Though less intensive than a full residential admission, intensive outpatient treatment and partial hospitalization allow patients to receive comparatively intensive treatment while remaining in their home environment.2/ R.H.’s final discharge from the Renfrew Center was on August 21, 2015. At the time she was admitted to McLean Hospital’s 3 East DBT program, R.H. had a recent history of engaging in superficial cutting of her arm. On August 30, 2015, R.H. intentionally hit herself in the hand with a hammer. R.H.’s mother took her to the emergency room for treatment and told the treating personnel that R.H. had fallen down some stairs. The hammer blow caused swelling and bruising but no broken bones. R.H. was also continuing to purge and restrict her food intake. R.H.’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Thania V. Quesdada, and her psychologist, Ms. Lopez, both urged that she be admitted to one of three nationally-recognized immersion DBT programs. Her family chose the program at McLean Hospital. DBT is a cognitive behavioral treatment that was originally developed to treat chronically suicidal individuals diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, though it is now employed for treatment of other conditions, including eating disorders. DBT teaches behavioral coping skills such as mindfulness, distress tolerance, interpersonal effectiveness, and emotional regulation. At the hearing, DSGI did not dispute the general efficacy of DBT treatment. However, DSGI did dispute whether R.H.’s presentation merited “immersion” DBT, i.e., a residential inpatient admission. McLean Hospital’s 3 East DBT program is self-pay and requires a minimum stay of 28 days. The program does not accept insurance and does not assist patients with insurance reimbursement efforts. Because of its stance on insurance, the 3 East DBT program is obviously not an in-network provider under the Plan. Prior to admission, Petitioner was aware that the 3 East DBT program did not accept insurance. R.H. was in residential treatment at McLean Hospital from September 9, 2015, through September 22, 2015. While at McLean Hospital, R.H. engaged in restricting and purging behaviors that led to medical instability. She was discharged to Cambridge Eating Disorder Center on September 23, 2015. She remained at the Cambridge Center until October 15, 2015. R.H.’s stay at the Cambridge Center was pre-certified by New Directions and is not at issue in this proceeding. On October 15, 2015, R.H. returned to McLean Hospital, again as a residential inpatient admission. She remained at McLean Hospital until her discharge on December 11, 2015. The total billed amount for R.H.’s two stays at McLean Hospital was $96,950, which was paid by the family out-of- pocket. Section 3-5 of the Plan sets forth the following under the heading “Mental Health and Substance Dependency Services”: “Physician office visits, Intensive Outpatient Treatment, Inpatient and Partial Hospitalization and Residential Treatment Services are covered based on medical necessity.” The general definition of “Medically Necessary” is set forth at section 15-4 of the Plan: [s]ervices required to identify or treat the Illness, injury, Condition, or Mental and Nervous Disorder a Doctor has diagnosed or reasonably suspects. The service must be: consistent with the symptom, diagnosis and treatment of the patient’s Condition; in accordance with standards of good medical practice; required for reasons other than convenience of the patient or the Doctor; approved by the appropriate medical body or board for the illness or injury in question; and at the most appropriate level of medical supply, service, or care that can be safely provided. The fact that a service, prescription drug, or supply is prescribed by a Doctor does not necessarily mean that the service is Medically Necessary. Florida Blue, CVS/Caremark, and DSGI determine whether a service, prescription drug, or supply is Medically Necessary. New Directions’ Medical Necessity Criteria guidelines provided the following admission criteria for psychiatric residential admissions: Must meet all of the following: A DSM diagnosis is the primary focus of active, daily treatment. There is a reasonable expectation of reduction in behaviors/symptoms with treatment at this level of care. The treatment is not primarily social, custodial, interpersonal, or respite care. The member has documented symptoms and/or behaviors that are a significant deterioration from baseline functioning and create a significant functional impairment in at least three (3) of the following areas: primary support social/interpersonal occupational/educational health/medical compliance ability to maintain safety for either self or others Must have one of the following: The member’s family members and/or support system demonstrate behaviors that are likely to undermine goals of treatment, such that treatment at a lower level of care is unlikely to be successful. This lack must be situational in nature and amenable to change as a result of the treatment process and resources identified during a residential confinement. The member has a documented history of an inability to be managed at an intensive lower level of care. There is a recent (in the last six months) history of multiple brief acute inpatient stays without a successful transition to a lower level of care, and at risk of admission to inpatient acute care. New Directions’ Medical Necessity Criteria guidelines provided the following admission criteria for eating disorder residential admissions: Must meet 1-4 and either 5, 6, or 7 A DSM diagnosis found in the Feeding and Eating Disorder section is the primary focus of active, daily treatment. There is a reasonable expectation of reduction in behaviors/symptoms with treatment at this level of care. The treatment is not primarily social, custodial, interpersonal, or respite care. The member has documented symptoms and/or behaviors that are a significant deterioration from baseline functioning and create a significant functional impairment in at least three (3) of the following areas: primary support social/interpersonal occupational/educational health/medical compliance ability to maintain safety for either self or others Must have one of the following: The member’s family members and/or support system demonstrate behaviors that are likely to undermine goals of treatment, such that treatment at a lower level of care is unlikely to be successful. This lack must be situational in nature and amenable to change as a result of the treatment process and resources identified during a residential confinement. The member has a documented history of an inability to be managed at an intensive lower level of care. There is a recent (in the last six months) history of multiple brief acute inpatient stays without a successful transition to a lower level of care, and at risk of admission to inpatient acute care. There are active biomedical complications that require 24-hour care, including, but not limited to: Adults Children/Adolescents Pulse <40 <50 Blood Pressure <90/60 <80/50 Orthostatic changes in BP Systolic: >20 point drop Systolic: > 20 point drop (Supine to standing) Diastolic: > 10 point drop Diastolic: > 10 point drop Potassium < 3 meq/l Hypokalemia Body temperature < 97 F Abnormal core temperature Electrolytes/ serum chemistry Significant deviation from normal Significant deviation from normal Must have either a. or b.: A low body weight that can reasonably lead to instability in the absence of intervention as evidenced by one of the following: Less than 85% of IBW or a BMI less than 16.5. Greater than 10% decrease in body weight within the last 30 days. In children and adolescents, greater than 10% decrease in body weight during a rapid growth cycle. Persistence or worsening of eating disorder behavior despite recent (with [sic] the last three months), appropriate therapeutic intervention in a structured eating disorder treatment setting. If PHP or IOP is contraindicated, documentation of the rationale supporting the contraindication is required. One of the following must be present: Compensatory behaviors (binging, purging, laxative abuse, excessive exercise, etc.) have caused significant physiological complications. Compensatory behaviors occur multiple times daily and have failed to respond to treatment at a lower level of care and acute physiologic imbalance can reasonably be expected. New Directions’ contact notes for this case indicate that it was called by someone named “Rachelle” on behalf of A.H.’s family on September 3, 2015. This person asked about the authorization process for McLean Hospital. No witness was presented who had direct knowledge of the contents of this conversation. The note indicates that “Rachelle” was advised that any authorization process must be initiated with New Directions by McLean Hospital. On September 9, 2015, the day R.H. was admitted to McLean Hospital, Florida Blue received what its notes reference as a “critical inquiry” message regarding this admission. A Florida Blue employee phoned the number attached to the message but discovered it was not for A.H. but for “someone at AllState Insurance who is out of the office.” (This person turned out to be Pearl Harrison, R.H.’s grandmother and qualified representative in this proceeding, who had not yet obtained a release to receive confidential medical information concerning R.H.). No number for A.H. could be found. Florida Blue contacted New Directions, which confirmed that no request for pre-authorization3/ had been received from McLean Hospital or the member. R.H.’s stays at McLean Hospital were not emergency admissions. The term “medical emergency” was not specifically defined in the 2015 Plan, but expert testimony at the hearing established that it is a term of common meaning and usage in the medical community. An emergency situation is one in which there is an immediate risk of death, serious bodily harm, or creation of an irreversible condition. If care is not administered immediately, the person will harm herself or someone else. Michael Shaw, the utilization management team leader for New Directions, explained that emergency care is not provided at the residential level of care, but in an inpatient setting under lock and key. The medical records indicated that R.H.’s last incident of self-harming behavior occurred about a week prior to her admission to McLean Hospital. Her injuries were superficial and she was in no immediate danger or risk of irreversible damage. Section 7-1 of the Plan provides for hospital admissions, including the following pertinent language as to non-emergency admissions to non-network hospitals and pre- certification for stays at non-network hospitals: Non-Network Hospital: Non-emergency Admission Every non-emergency admission to a non- network Hospital must be pre-certified. This means that before services are provided Florida Blue must certify the Hospital admission and provide the number of days for which certification is given. Precertification of non-network Hospital stays is your responsibility, even if the Doctor admitting you or your dependent to the Hospital is a Network Provider. Failure to obtain pre-certification will result in penalties (higher out-of-pocket costs). For more information on penalties, see “If You Do Not Pre-Certify Your Stay” within this section below. To pre-certify your stay in a non-network Hospital, ask your Doctor to call Florida Blue at (800) 955-5692 before your Hospital admission and provide the reason for hospitalization, the proposed treatment or surgery, testing, and the number of Hospital days anticipated. Florida Blue will review your Doctor’s request for admission certification and immediately notify your Doctor or the Hospital if your admission has been certified and the number of days for which certification has been given. If the admission is not certified, your Doctor may submit additional information for a second review. If your Hospital stay is certified and you need to stay longer than the number of days for which certification was given, your Doctor must call Florida Blue to request certification for the additional days. Your Doctor should make this call as soon as possible. * * * If You Do Not Pre-Certify Your Stay: Non- Network Hospital Benefits for covered services will be reduced by 25 percent of the covered charges, not to exceed a maximum benefit reduction of $500 IF you are admitted to a participating Hospital (Payment for Hospital Services or PHS Provider)[4/] that is not part of the Preferred Patient Care (PPC) Network and admission certification has not been requested on your behalf or the request is denied. This Plan will not pay room and board benefits for your first two days of hospitalization IF your non-network Hospital admission is denied, but you are admitted to a non-network Hospital anyway. This Plan will not pay room and board benefits for your entire Hospital stay IF you are admitted to a non-network Hospital without having your Doctor call prior to the admission. This Plan will not pay room and board benefits for the additional days that were not certified IF your non-network Hospital admission is certified but your stay is longer than the number of days for which the admission was certified. The Plan’s pre-certification requirement was not met. Neither A.H. nor McLean Hospital requested pre-certification. Mr. Shaw testified that he spoke to three different people at McLean Hospital, all of whom stated that the 3 East DBT program does not accept or work with insurance. Mr. Shaw was unable to generate the paperwork needed to begin the pre-certification process because McLean Hospital declined to share with him the necessary clinical information about R.H.5/ Although pre-certification was not obtained for R.H.’s stays at McLean Hospital, Florida Blue conducted a post-service review to determine whether the claim was eligible for reimbursement. Petitioner submitted a request for a Level I appeal pursuant to Section 12 of the Plan, under which a person denied benefits or payment of a claim for medical services may obtain a review by Florida Blue. Petitioner submitted a package of R.H.’s medical records for review. Prest & Associates, Inc., a URAC-approved independent review organization,6/ was retained to conduct an independent review of Petitioner’s claim. Dr. Barbara Center, a staff psychiatrist with Prest & Associates, performed a review designed to determine the medical necessity of R.H.’s stays at McLean Hospital. Dr. Center is board-certified in General Psychiatry, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and Addiction Medicine. Dr. Center reviewed the claim in terms of the New Directions criteria for psychiatric residential admissions and for eating disorder residential admissions. She performed two reviews, one for the admission starting on September 9, 2015, and another for the admission starting on October 15, 2015. Dr. Center stated that the McLean Hospital medical records provided by Petitioner gave a detailed description of R.H.’s history of present illness, past psychiatric history, and other elements of her history that were adequate for making a medical necessity determination. As to the September 9 admission, Dr. Center concluded that medical necessity criteria were not met for either a psychiatric residential or an eating disorder residential admission. As to the psychiatric residential criteria, Dr. Center concluded that R.H.’s admission failed to satisfy criteria 3, 4, and 5. Dr. Center testified that criterion 4 looks at symptoms and behaviors that represent a significant deterioration from the patient’s baseline functioning in several areas. R.H.’s primary support structures were stable. Her mother was clearly involved in her care and had the support of other family members. Dr. Center stated that the medical records showed no sign of substantial social or interpersonal deterioration, aside from some typical difficulty in starting high school. R.H. was having no medical instability at the time of admission. She was not at a dangerously low body weight. She had a recent onset of self-harming behaviors, but there was no documentation of acute risk issues that warranted placement in 24-hour care. As to criterion 5, Dr. Center testified that the records showed no indication that R.H.’s family and support system was unsupportive or unable to take her to treatment and participate in her care. There was no documentation that R.H. could not progress in a less intensive level of care. Dr. Center noted that R.H.’s prior treatment for eating disorders had been at varying levels of care and that R.H. had not had multiple brief acute inpatient stays. Criterion 3 is a diagnosis of exclusion, meaning that if there is no apparent medical necessity for the residential placement, then the reason must be “primarily social, custodial, interpersonal or respite care.” Dr. Center found in the records no support for a 24-hour residential placement. She noted that R.H.’s self-injury was of a recent onset and that McLean Hospital had ruled out any immediate prospect of self-injury or serious threat to other people. Cutting is not uncommon among adolescents and does not rise to the level of requiring residential care. Mental health providers distinguish between self-injurious behaviors and suicidal ideation, and McLean Hospital did not describe R.H. as suicidal. Dr. Center testified that, at the request of Mr. Shaw, she also reviewed R.H.’s admission in terms of the New Directions eating disorder residential criteria. Dr. Center noted that R.H. was not at a dangerous body weight (122 pounds, with a BMI of 22.2) at the time of her admission on September 9. There was no indication of medical instability or of out-of- control eating disorders requiring 24-hour care. Dr. Center testified that DBT is routinely taught on an outpatient basis and that she recommended outpatient treatment for the stay beginning on September 9. She opined that R.H. did not meet numbers 3 through 7 of the New Directions eating disorder residential criteria. As to the McLean Hospital admission beginning on October 15, 2015, Dr. Center recommended intensive outpatient treatment. Dr. Center knew that R.H. had been transitioned from McLean Hospital to the Cambridge Center to address the eating disorder as her primary symptom. Dr. Center felt that continuing R.H. in an intensive outpatient setting would help her stabilize and maintain the progress she had made at the Cambridge Center. Dr. Center stated that a basic tenet of medical care, and especially psychiatric care, is that the patient be treated in the least restrictive setting possible under the circumstances. She stated that it is always best to treat people in the environment they live in. Treatment in the 24- hour residential setting removes the patient from the stressors she will have to deal with when she goes home. Upon her readmission to the McLean Hospital from Cambridge Center, R.H. denied suicidal ideation and homicidal ideation, and the record disclosed nothing to indicate suicidal thoughts. R.H. denied auditory or visual hallucinations and her mood was described as “euthymic,” i.e., essentially normal. Dr. Center acknowledged that the medical record showed that R.H. had been in intensive outpatient treatment for her eating disorder at the Renfrew Center in Florida from July 23 through August 21, 2015, with limited success. Dr. Center stated that the issue for R.H. had recently changed from her eating disorder to her self-harming behavior and believed that an intensive outpatient program focusing on skills to deal with self-injurious behaviors would be the appropriate placement under the circumstances. Dr. Center also acknowledged that her review did not include the records of R.H.’s treating psychiatrist and therapist during her stay at Renfrew, and that their notes indicated that R.H.’s condition had regressed while in intensive outpatient care. Dr. Center testified that these records might have persuaded her to recommend a higher level of care, such as a partial hospital program, but that she still would not have recommended residential placement. After Dr. Center rendered her opinion that R.H.’s residential stays at McLean Hospital were not medically necessary, the claim was reviewed by Dr. Frank Santamaria, Florida Blue’s care management medical director. In rendering his opinion, Dr. Santamaria reviewed the medical records sent by Petitioner and McLean Hospital, the log of contact notes kept by New Directions, and Dr. Center’s report.7/ He testified that the available records were adequate to allow him to render an opinion as to medical necessity. Dr. Santamaria concluded that, as to the New Directions criteria for psychiatric residential admissions, R.H. failed to meet criteria 3, 4, and 5. He opined generally that when assessing the need for a residential stay, he is looking for someone who is at risk of self-harm or harming others or who has an acute severe psychiatric condition such as a psychotic disorder that requires confinement. Dr. Santamaria noted that R.H.’s eating disorder was not the primary concern at the time of her admissions to McLean Hospital; however, because the eating disorder was occurring at the same time as the psychiatric problem, he was also looking for medical manifestations of the eating disorder, such as severe weight loss affecting blood chemistry. Criterion 4 requires documented symptoms and/or behaviors that are a significant deterioration from baseline functioning and create a significant functional impairment in at least three of five listed areas. Under area 4a, “primary support,” Dr. Santamaria noted that R.H. had good support from her mother and grandmother. He did not believe that primary support was a problem.8/ As to area 4b, “social/interpersonal,” the notes indicated that R.H. recently had an altercation with a friend. Dr. Santamaria did not find such an altercation out of the ordinary for a 15-year-old and thus found no functional impairment under 4b. Area 4c, “occupational/educational,” appeared to pose no problem because the records indicated that R.H. was an A-B student, despite her rocky first week of high school. As to area 4d, “health/medical compliance,” Dr. Santamaria noted that R.H. had been compliant with medical instructions and her family had been good about seeking care for her. As to area 4e, “ability to maintain safety for either self or others,” Dr. Santamaria acknowledged that R.H. had hit her hand with a hammer and acted in other self-injurious ways, chiefly superficial cutting. He testified that such behaviors are not uncommon in younger populations and do not necessarily make the person a candidate for residential care. Self-injury alone does not satisfy the criterion, unless there is a concern for suicide or homicide. The hammer incident occurred in August, at least one week before R.H.’s admission to McLean Hospital. The McLean Hospital admission note of September 9, 2015, indicates no reported history of suicidal thinking. Dr. Santamaria found no documentation to indicate R.H. was aggressive against herself or others. She had no acute conditions such as psychotic disorders. Dr. Santamaria noted that even if area 4e were deemed to have been met, criterion 4 requires significant functional impairment and degradation from baseline functioning in at least three of the listed areas, and that R.H. at most satisfied one area of the criterion. Criterion 5 of the New Directions psychiatric residential criteria requires that one of three conditions relating to the patient’s support system or treatment history be met. Dr. Santamaria concluded that none of the three conditions were met. Condition 5c requires a recent history of multiple brief acute inpatient stays without a successful transition to a lower level of care. Dr. Santamaria conceded that the record he examined disclosed little information about prior therapies that had been tried with R.H., but he concluded that the record was sufficient to confirm that R.H. did not have multiple brief inpatient stays. He was reasonably confident that McLean Hospital would have documented such stays had they occurred because they would be a very significant part of her history. Dr. Santamaria also noted that R.H. had been able to transition to an intensive outpatient program from her inpatient admission to the Renfrew Center in May 2015. Condition 5a requires that family members or the patient’s support system demonstrate behaviors that are likely to undermine the goals of treatment, such that treatment at a lower level of care is unlikely to be successful. The record disclosed that R.H.’s mother, who was her custodial guardian, had a history of substance abuse but had gone through a rehabilitation program, attended Narcotics Anonymous regularly, and had been sober for one year at the time of R.H.’s October 15, 2015, admission to McLean Hospital. Dr. Santamaria testified that if R.H.’s mother were currently using drugs and R.H. had nowhere else to go, then condition 5a might be met. However, the actual situation presented by the medical record did not establish that R.H. was living in an unsafe environment that could undermine her treatment. As to condition 5b, a documented history of an inability to be managed at an intensive lower level of care, Dr. Santamaria concluded that R.H. had responded to various therapies in the past. As noted above, criterion 3 of the New Directions psychiatric residential criteria is exclusionary, i.e., if the placement appears not to be medically necessary, then one begins to seek another motivation, such as the desire for a change of pace or a respite for the family. Dr. Santamaria noted that DBT does not require placement at the residential level. It can be done at an intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization level, both of which are lower levels of care than residential.9/ This fact made Dr. Santamaria suspect that the prime motive for R.H.’s placement may have been custodial. Dr. Santamaria testified that he also analyzed R.H.’s admission under the New Directions eating disorder residential criteria. He stated that he could not be certain from the record whether McLean Hospital was treating R.H.’s eating disorder, as well as providing DBT, but he knew that McLean Hospital was mindful of the eating disorder. He also knew that R.H.’s transfer to the Cambridge Center was partly because her eating disorder was becoming worse. Dr. Santamaria concluded that R.H. did not satisfy criteria 3 through 7 for an eating disorder residential admission. Dr. Santamaria testified that R.H. did not meet eating disorder residential criteria 3 through 5 for the same reasons she did not meet the identical criteria 3 through 5 of the psychiatric residential criteria. Criterion 6 concerns biomedical complications of an eating disorder. Dr. Santamaria reviewed the medical records and concluded that R.H. presented none of the complications that would require 24-hour care at the time of her admission on September 9, 2015. Dr. Santamaria likewise found that R.H. satisfied neither factor 7a nor 7b of Criterion 7. As to 7a, R.H. did not present with a low body weight and there was no documentation that she had lost 10 percent of her body weight in the last 30 days. As to 7b, there was no evidence that R.H.’s “compensatory behaviors,” i.e., binging and purging, had caused “significant physiological complications” or that such behaviors occurred multiple times daily and did not respond to treatment “at an intensive lower level of care.” Dr. Santamaria testified that his analysis as to the October 15, 2015, admission was identical to that for the September 9, 2015, admission. As to both admissions, he believed that intensive outpatient was the appropriate level of care. Dr. Santamaria defined “intensive outpatient” as three hours of intensive therapy for at least three days per week. He believed that this level of care could address all of R.H.’s issues, including her self-injurious behavior. Dr. Santamaria concluded that if R.H. tried the intensive outpatient level of care and failed, then a higher level could be considered. Like Dr. Center, he stated that he might have recommended a partial hospitalization setting had he known that intensive outpatient had been tried and failed, but he still would not have recommended a 24-hour residential admission. Petitioner’s presentation implied that Florida Blue and/or Prest & Associates base their coverage decisions on financial considerations rather than strictly on the merits of the claims. Dr. Center and Dr. Santamaria both testified that they had no incentive, financial or otherwise, to deny a claim for reimbursement. Their testimony on this point is credible. Petitioner offered no direct evidence that Florida Blue or Prest & Associates directly pressure their physician employees to reject meritorious claims, and there is no evidence that Dr. Santamaria or Dr. Center based their recommendations on anything other than their assessment of R.H.’s medical records in light of the relevant medical necessity criteria. Petitioner raised questions about the completeness of the records examined by Dr. Santamaria and Dr. Center and sounded a skeptical note as to the diligence of the physicians’ efforts to obtain additional documentation. As found above, both Dr. Santamaria and Dr. Center testified that they had adequate documentation to render an opinion as to medical necessity in this case. Both physicians stated that in other cases they have taken additional steps to obtain missing information, including making peer-to-peer calls to the treating physicians or reaching out to the case managers, but that no such steps were necessary in this case. Both physicians conceded that not all of the medical records were available to them at the time of their reviews. They did not have records from R.H.’s stays at the Renfrew Center and the Cambridge Center or the notes of R.H.’s treating physicians in Florida. Both Dr. Center and Dr. Santamaria credibly testified that nothing in these additional records would have changed their opinion as to the medical necessity of residential treatment for R.H. Section 12 of the Plan, which sets forth the appeal process for a denied claim, expressly states: “Your appeal may include any additional documentation, information, evidence or testimony that you would like reviewed and considered during the appeal process.” This language is included in the explanations for both the Level I and Level II appeals. Nothing prevents the member from providing any documentation whatsoever during the appeal process. Dr. Center and Dr. Santamaria are physician reviewers, not medical investigators. If something Petitioner asserted to be relevant to the decision was missing from the files, it was not the fault of the reviewing physicians. It is ultimately the member’s responsibility to provide appropriate documentation for review. By letter dated April 5, 2016, Florida Blue notified Petitioner that it “remains unable to approve additional coverage and/or payment for the Residential Treatment.” The letter set forth the following rationale for the denial: Per the State Employees’ PPO Plan Booklet and Benefits Document page 5-5: “Services or supplies that are not Medically Necessary, as determined by Florida Blue and/or CVS Caremark clinical staff and Division of State Group Insurance, are non- covered.” Specifically, coverage for the Mental Health (Eating Disorder) Residential stays is denied as it does not meet the definition of medical necessity. This is for hospital stay on and after 09/09/2015 and 10/15/2015. The final decision to proceed with the requested services is between the provider and the member. Records show that the member was not deemed to be a present risk to self or to others. Though the member had a preoccupation with weight sand [sic] eating, there was no evidence of inability to adequately care for self with functioning in multiple sphere areas, including stabilization of the eating disorder issues. There was no report of medical instability or psychosis. The member was in a body weight range. The member was described as having her eating disorder symptoms under control. From the clinical evidence, this member could have been safely treated at each occasion at a lesser level of care such as in an eating disorder intensive outpatient setting. This review was done using New Directions Clinical Care criteria and is based on the opinion of a board certified psychiatrist. Services that are not medically necessary are not covered under your health benefit plan. The denial letter provided Petitioner with information regarding the Level II appeal process to DSGI, including a reference to the pertinent section of the Plan. The denial letter reiterated that Petitioner could submit any information or documentation that Petitioner believed could assist in DSGI’s review of the appeal. Petitioner submitted a request for a Level II appeal to DSGI on May 23, 2016. The Level II appeal was reviewed by DSGI’s legal nurse coordinator, Kathy Flippo. Ms. Flippo reviewed all of the documents reviewed by Dr. Center and Dr. Santamaria, plus additional records submitted by Petitioner with the Level II appeal request. Ms. Flippo determined that the stays at issue were non-emergency admissions that required pre-certification and that the pre-certification requirements of the Plan were not met. Ms. Flippo reached the same conclusions as Dr. Center and Dr. Santamaria regarding the New Directions psychiatric residential criteria. Ms. Flippo concluded that R.H. did not meet criteria 3, 4, or 5. Ms. Flippo testified that she did not review the case pursuant to the New Directions eating disorder residential criteria because Petitioner’s Level II appeal addressed only the psychiatric issues and because R.H.’s eating disorder stay at the Cambridge Center was covered by Florida Blue. By letter dated July 29, 2016, signed by Tami Fillyaw, director of DSGI, Petitioner was informed that the Level II appeal had been denied. The letter informed Petitioner of his rights under the Plan to file a petition for a formal or an informal hearing contesting the denial of the appeal and/or to request a binding external review from an Independent Review Organization (“IRO”).10/ Petitioner requested both an administrative hearing and an external review.11/ The external review was conducted under the auspices of the Medical Review Institute of America, Inc. (“MRIoA”), a URAC-accredited external review network. The MRIoA assigned a physician whom it stated is board-certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology in the specialties of General Psychiatry and Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.12/ The external review upheld the adverse determinations regarding coverage for the McLean Hospital stays. In its decision letter dated November 11, 2016, the MRIoA provided the following relevant clinical summary and findings: At the time in question, the patient was a 15 year old female with a variety of difficulties related to depression, anxiety, eating disorder symptoms, and symptoms of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) with self-harming behaviors. This review has to do with a question of whether residential treatment center (RTC) level of care (LOC) for two episodes of service 9/9/15-9/22/15 and 10/15/15-12/11/15 met the plan criteria for medical necessity. It is noted that the patient was treated in a special eating disorders program on the dates between these two episodes. * * * The patient’s presentation did not meet the plan criteria for medical necessity for the dates in question. Specifically, the patient did not meet criteria #5 of the Admission Criteria. The patient is noted to have a caring and effective support system that would have supported a less intensive level of care. There was no recent history of inability to be effectively treated at an intensive level of service below residential treatment center (RTC) level of care (LOC), and there was no recent history of inability to transition from inpatient treatment into a less intensive level of care. At the time of admission to residential treatment, it is clear that the patient struggled with mood dysregulation along with episodes of food restriction and self- harming behaviors. She was not responding to attempts at outpatient treatment. The residential program in question was sought out specifically due to its approach to the utilization of DBT (dialectical behavior therapy). However, there is no indication that the patient could not have responded to attempts to escalate her treatment in the outpatient setting through the use of either intensive outpatient or partial hospitalization services. In particular, the patient could have been involved in a formal DBT program without utilization of residential treatment. Her symptom severity for the dates in question was not of a severity to require the use of round the clock observation and treatment. As a result, there was no medical necessity for residential treatment center (RTC) level of care (LOC). * * * The appeal letters from the patient’s family, outpatient providers, and residential facility discuss the need for residential treatment due to the patient’s symptoms severity, particularly the patient’s episodes of self-harming behavior and the need for her to participate in the immersive DBT program utilized at the residential program in question. The patient’s need for more intensive treatment is acknowledged. However, the patient’s recent treatment history was one of outpatient treatment with a previous history of residential treatment for eating disorder symptoms. For the DOS in question, the patient could have obtained appropriate and effective DBT in a less restrictive setting, such as either a partial hospitalization program (PHP) or an intensive outpatient program (IOP). Based on the above, the previous determination has been upheld. At the hearing, Petitioner complained that, prior to receiving the letter denying the Level II appeal, he had no inkling that medical necessity determinations were based on criteria produced by New Directions. The Plan’s definition of “medically necessary” does not reference the fact that Florida Blue relies on the New Directions criteria for medical necessity determinations in psychiatric and eating disorder admissions. Petitioner basically argues that not having the precise language of the New Directions medical necessity criteria deprived him and the medical providers of the ability to frame the coverage requests in such a way as to satisfy the criteria. The record evidence shows Florida Blue does not make the New Directions medical necessity criteria directly available to its members. In fact, New Directions is nowhere mentioned in the Plan. Witnesses for DSGI correctly stated that anyone can download the criteria from the New Directions website, but Petitioner pointed out that one must be aware the criteria exist before one can download them. If this case is typical, it appears that a Florida Blue member must be denied coverage and go through the appeal process before Florida Blue makes him aware of precisely how the determination of medical necessity is made. Dr. Santamaria testified that Florida Blue does not expect its members to have any knowledge of the New Directions criteria or to “understand all the medical jargon.” The member is expected to present Florida Blue with the best and most accurate medical information available (preferably before the services are rendered) and rely on Florida Blue to make the decision. Dr. Santamaria stated, “Your role is not to do the utilization management. That’s my role. Your role is, if you disagree with a coverage determination, to appeal it and to even have your doctor speak on your behalf or write a letter or do whatever. It’s not your role to access the documents and to use them on your own. That--that’s not what they were created for.” Dr. Santamaria emphasized that the member’s “role” is not to “meet criteria” but to provide Florida Blue with information sufficient to allow its experts to apply the criteria. While his phrasing may be condescending, Dr. Santamaria’s statement is basically accurate: the medical records determine whether the criteria have been met. Petitioner’s awareness of the particulars of the criteria would not change the substance of the medical record. The undersigned tends to agree with Petitioner that Florida Blue’s process could be more transparent. However, Petitioner failed to show how the outcome would have been different if the New Directions medical necessity criteria had been available to him or McLean Hospital. Every expert who examined the medical records agreed that R.H. did not meet the criteria for medical necessity. Their opinions are credited. Ms. Flippo emphasized that Florida Blue did not deny coverage merely because McLean Hospital’s 3 East DBT program was self-pay. If the member had been able to obtain pre- certification for hospitalization and a proper bill had been presented to Florida Blue, it would have been covered at the allowable non-network coverage amount. Ms. Flippo also stated that even if pre-certification had been obtained, Florida Blue would certainly not have covered the 70 days that R.H. spent in McLean Hospital. Ms. Flippo had never seen more than 15 days at a time approved, even for members who were floridly psychotic and admitted under the Baker Act. With modern treatments and medications, it is seldom necessary to keep patients at a residential level of care for months at a time. All of the experts agreed that DBT is more commonly provided on an outpatient basis. Additionally, Mr. Shaw pointed out that the ability of the insurer to pay the non-contracted, non-network rate to the hospital is contingent on the hospital’s willingness to accept insurance payments. McLean Hospital’s 3 East DBT program did not accept insurance. Mr. Shaw succinctly stated, “We’re not obligated to pay you back because you made the choice to go to a facility that takes your money but not ours.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, issue a final order denying Petitioner’s claim for coverage under the State Employees’ PPO Plan for R.H.’s residential treatment at McLean Hospital from September 9, 2015, to September 30, 2015, and October 15, 2015, to December 11, 2015. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2017.
Findings Of Fact A not for profit 520-bed acute care hospital in Pensacola, Baptist primarily serves not only residents of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, within Florida's HRS Service District I, but also patients from Escambia and Baldwin Counties in Alabama. The other two counties in District I, Okaloosa and Walton, lie outside Baptist's primary service area, but within a secondary service area, as does Covington County, Alabama. Baptist proposes to convert twelve medical/ surgical beds to a children's psychiatric service, to complement an existing 38-bed psychiatric service housed in the Behavioral Medical Center across the street from Baptist's main campus. On average, eighty percent of Baptist's existing psychiatric beds are occupied at any one time. Of four separate, psychiatric treatment programs Baptist now offers, all accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation for Health Care Organizations, none is designed for children below the age of 13. Seldom, and only in an emergency, has a child below this age been accepted into Baptist's program for adolescents, which is operated separately from any adult treatment program. Baptist has treated indigent and medicaid patients in its psychiatric programs, as well as patients for whose treatment it has received greater remuneration. Hospital-wide, Baptist has had "medicaid utilization" of between six and nine percent. "Baptist was willing to do Baker Act patients." Farr deposition, p. 17. Rollins deposition, p. 30. Other Resources Pensacola and Escambia County have extensive outpatient psychiatric services for children, offering a broad range of options, short of inpatient care in a treatment facility. Rollins deposition, pp. 15-16. Lakeview Community Health Center offers outpatients treatment, as do a number of private providers. The Children's Intervention Project System conducts home visits. Day care and therapeutic foster homes are also available. Professionals distinguish between "crisis stabilization" which does not "focus on treatment" and even short-term psychiatric care. Lakeview Community Health Center has a 31-bed crisis stabilization unit, which was full as of the week before the hearing. Ten of the 31 beds are reserved for children, aged 9- 17, but children's beds are not segregated from beds for adolescents. Treating children and adolescents together (if not stabilizing their crises in the same facility) is inappropriate. They have different needs and require different structures. Adolescents require more autonomy; children need more supervision. See deposition of Cruz. Farr deposition, p. 21. Rollins deposition, p. 22. Only Harbor Oaks, a free-standing facility more than 45 minutes from Pensacola and Gulf Breeze, accepts children as psychiatric patients. Harbor Oaks has 19 children's beds but does not accept medicaid patients. The children's unit at Harbor Oaks experienced an occupancy rate of approximately 74 percent in 1988. Occasionally, girls were put on waiting lists. University hospital does not accept children as psychiatric patients. It rarely accepts adolescents. West Florida Hospital, which has a program for adolescents, refuses child psychiatric patients admission. West Florida Community Center accepts no children. Nor does Humana Hospital in Ft. Walton. Play Therapy Rather than convert a part of an existing medical or surgical ward to a children's psychiatric ward, Baptist proposes to spend $565,660 to construct a facility abutting but distinct from its Behavioral Medical Center. Lakeview Medical Health Center is nearby. Farr deposition, p. 32. The parties have stipulated that "the costs and method of proposed construction, including ... energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly or more effective methods of construction" are not in dispute, and that "the facility design schematic is reasonable and appropriate." Baptist would hire a child psychiatrist to head up to the children's psychiatric unit. Treatment teams for existing programs also include psychologists, psychiatric social workers, occupational therapists, certified recreational therapists, and nursing staff. Dr. DeMaria recommends that "somebody in the creative arts therapy," (T.99) be hired for the children's unit, as well. The parties agree that "the availability of resources, including health manpower, management personnel, and funds ... are not at issue." The plan is to create a homelike environment where children will sleep two to a room and eat together family style in a dining room. A living room, at least one classroom, a playroom and a playground out of doors are to be the situs of art, dance, music and play therapy, individual, group, and family, all in a "therapeutic milieu." Baptist intends that the children's psychiatric unit be the least restrictive inpatient facility for children possible and has given assurances that the same rigorous review now taking place in its existing psychiatric programs would see to it that children are discharged to a still less restrictive environment as soon as their conditions permitted. In large part, Baptist is counting on medical staff at the Lakeview Community Health Center, all of whom have admitting privileges at Baptist, to identify children who will need inpatient care but cannot afford to pay. Baptist has committed to reserve two beds in the proposed unit for patients who are indigent, or eligible for medicaid benefits. Baptist has also undertaken "not [to] turn away patients," Farr deposition, p. 49, needing psychiatric care. Baptist has agreed to accept a requirement that it honor this commitment, as a condition to any certificate of need it obtains. Less than 20 percent of the children seen by 19 of the 55 child psychologists practicing within Baptist's service area who responded to a survey seemed to require inpatient care, but only 60 percent of this group actually received such care. Baptist's Exhibit No. 30. A survey of referral agencies indicated some 80 children in Baptist's service area needing inpatient psychiatric care in 1988 did not receive it. Projected daily charges of $390 in Baptist's second year of operating the children's psychiatric unit are less than the $450 a day now charged by Harbor Oaks. The parties stipulated that "the pro forma income and expense statement relating to the children's short-term psychiatric beds is reasonable and requires no further proof except for validation of the number of patients days." Assuming admission rates comparable to elsewhere in the South, children in Baptist's service area would keep ten children's psychiatric beds at 70 percent average occupancy. Baptist's Exhibit No. 26. Twelve beds would make it economically feasible to serve the medically indigent as well as other children needing inpatient care. The first seven days following a child's admission staff would devote to evaluating the child. Children not discharged to a less restrictive situation by the end of the evaluation period, Baptist projects, would have an average stay totalling 28 days, as compared to the 35- to 40-day average length of stay harbor Oaks has reported. Not Normal District I has a total of 240 short-term psychiatric beds. According to the state agency action report, short-term psychiatric bed utilization was 88.9 percent at Harbor Oaks for 1987, 73.5 percent at Ft. Walton's Humana Hospital, 59.4 percent at University Hospital and 58.1 percent at West Florida. Baptist's recent experience of psychiatric bed utilization in excess of 80 percent dates to January of 1988, and is a substantial increase over the 55.8 percent reported for the period July 1986 to June 1987. Baptist's Exhibit No. 9. Projected 1993 population for District I is 601,559. Baptist's Exhibit No. 23. The parties agree that the formula set out in Rule 10- 5.011(1)(o), Florida Administrative Code, for determining "numeric need" for acute care, short-term, general psychiatric beds does not indicate a need for additional acute care short-term general psychiatric beds in District I. But 53 percent of the District's population resides in Escambia County where no treatment facility has any children's psychiatric beds. A significant number (compare Baptist's Exhibit No. 23 with T. 133) of Baptist's psychiatric admissions are patients who reside in Alabama. Although Escambia County has 52 percent of the District I population, between ages 1-12, it has none of the children's psychiatric beds. More than half the District's population lives more than 45 minutes travel time from Harbor Oaks, complicating arrangements for family therapy, often essential in these cases, Rollins deposition, pp. 28-29, and for other conferences, including discharge conferences, where parents and community-based professionals work out details necessary to effect a smooth transition from inpatient to something less restrictive. The District I Health Plan, approved on June 1, 1988, provides: The following policies and priorities are to be used in CON review in tandem with the bed need numbers on the preceding pages. POLICIES AND PRIORITIES FOR PSYCHIATRIC AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE BEDS Psychiatric or substance abuse beds which are not used by residents of the District shall not be included in the resource inventory count of the District. [NOTE: There have in the past, been facilities in another district treating patients originating solely from outside of that district. The facility's intake policies precluded the treatment of "local" district residents. In addition, the facility's marketing effort was directed entirely out- of-state. A local marketing effort plus treatment of patients originating within the district can easily be demonstrated.] Priority will be given to applicants who can demonstrate that all existing short term inpatient psychiatric beds in the subdistrict have had an average annual occupancy rate equal to or greater than 70% for the preceding year. Priority will be given to applicants who can demonstrate that all existing short term inpatient substance abuse beds in the subdistrict have had an average annual occupancy rate equal to or greater than 80% for the preceding year. Proposals for new facilities, expansions, conversions and additional services will be given priority for applicants who agree to continue or enter into Baker Act, Medicaid, Medicare and other medically indigent contracts for the provision of services to qualifying patients. Among the goals, objectives, and recommended actions set out in the 1985-1987 State Health Plan, now expired but not replaced, is a goal that short-term inpatient hospital psychiatric beds not exceed .35 per thousand population. HRS Exhibit No. 1. In requiring that .15 (of a total of .35) short-term psychiatric beds per 1,000 population be located in general hospitals eligible for medicaid reimbursement, HRS's rules do not distinguish between children and adults. But no children's psychiatric beds in Distract I are located in a facility that accepts medicaid patients. If the ratio prescribed for psychiatric beds generally applied specifically to children's psychiatric beds, District I would already have at least eight such beds: Multiplying the 19 existing beds by .15/.35 yields 8.14. Applying the rule's .15 beds per 1,000 population methodology to the 111,211 children projected to be in District I by 1993, see Baptist's Exhibit No. 23, yields a need for 16.68 children's psychiatric beds in facilities that accept medicaid patients.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That HRS grant Baptist's application for certificate of need No. 5669, on condition that Baptist honor its commitments to care for medically indigent and medicaid-eligible children in need of inpatient psychiatric care. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 2nd day of November, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 6, 8 through 21, 28 through 35, 40, 44, 45, 47 through 50, 60, 61, 64, 69, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81 and 82 have been adopted in substance as fare as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, either a music therapist or an art therapist is contemplated. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 22, children in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties can go to Harbor Oaks. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 23 through 26 here not established by the evidence. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 27 at least one eleven-year-old was also admitted. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 36 and 37 are immaterial. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 37, 39, 42, 43, 46, 51 through 59, 62, 63, 65, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77 and 80 relate to subordinate matters. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 41, the evidence did not show that everybody living in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties was more than 45 minutes from Harbor Oaks. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 66 is properly a proposed conclusion of law. Respondent's proposed findings oil fact Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 8, 11, 14 and 15 have been adopted in substance insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 3, the petitioner's stipulation further narrowed the issues. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 4 and 17 are properly proposed conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 9, 10, 21, and 23 have been reject in whole or in part as unsupported by the evidence. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 12, 13, 16, 18, 20 and 22 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 19, whether institutionalizing of children is ever a good idea is not at issue in this proceeding. The question is whether services available to others should also be available to indigent patients. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Gregory Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Stephen A. Ecenia Roberts, Baggett, LaFace, and Richard 101 East College Avenue Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Richard A. Patterson Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 103 Tallahassee, FL 32308 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulation of facts entered into by the parties, the following relevant facts are found: Humana of Florida, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Humana, Inc., is the owner of Women's Hospital in Tampa. Women's Hospital presently has 192 licensed beds, of which 96 are used for obstetrical patients and 96 are used for gynecological patients. It is dedicated to meeting the physical, psychological, educational, social and environmental needs of women and newborns and offers a total program of obstetrical, neonatal and gynecological care. Although not designated by the State as a Level III facility, Women's Hospital in Tampa has the personnel and equipment necessary to provide Level III care. It treats many high-risk obstetrical patients and their newborns, as well as premature infants. High-risk infants do not require transfer to another hospital with Level III capabilities. Every practicing obstetrical/gynecological physician in Tampa is on the staff of Women's Hospital. Petitioner submitted an application for a Certificate of Need to add a fifth floor to its existing facility and to increase its licensed obstetrical bed complement from 96 beds to 130 beds. Of the 34 additional obstetrical beds requested, 12 are to be allocated to an antepartum unit. These 12 beds would be organized as a separate self-contained unit to care for obstetrical patients experiencing or likely to experience a complicated pregnancy and/or delivery. The types of obstetrical patients who would utilize a separate antepartum unit would include diabetics, patients who experience difficulties with blood pressure, kidney disorders and conditions associated with the heart and thyroid. In many instances, the antepartum patient is ambulatory or quasi-ambulatory and is thus able to meet many of her own needs. As a result, the intensity of nursing care in an antepartum unit is lower than that which would be expected in a postpartum obstetrical unit, resulting in a cost-savings to the antepartum patient. The total proposed capital expenditure for the addition of a fifth floor and 34 obstetrical beds is approximately $2.8 million. While petitioner is licensed for 96 obstetrical beds, only 62 of those beds were in operation at the time of the final hearing in this proceeding. Based on the 62 beds in operation, the average obstetrical bed occupancy rate was 112 percent from September, 1982 through August, 1983. Due primarily to the temporary discontinuance of obstetrical services at St. Joseph's Hospital located across the street from petitioner, occupancy levels have reached 130 percent since January of 1983. Such occupancy levels create significant problems in terms of patient care and facility, physician and nursing efficiency. The difficulties associated with scheduling surgery and infection control are exacerbated with overcrowded conditions. Because newborns and postpartum mothers are more susceptible to infection, it is medically necessary to separate and segregate postpartum and gynecological patients. Petitioner had 4,600 deliveries last year and projects it will have 5,800 deliveries this year. If all 96 obstetrical beds were currently in operation, petitioner's occupancy levels would be approximately 70 percent. An indication of adequate utilization of obstetrical beds is an average annual occupancy level of 75 percent. Petitioner expects to reach the 75 percent occupancy level of its existing licensed 96 beds within the next year and a half to two years. Petitioner presently has no private obstetrical rooms at its facility. When a patient requires isolation from other patients, one of the beds in the semiprivate room is not available for use. Due to high occupancy levels, petitioner is unable to offer a private room to any of its obstetrical patients when it is not medically necessary to do so. Thus, even without the addition of 34 beds, petitioner desires to construct a fifth floor to allow it to reconfigure its units and convert a number of semiprivate rooms into private rooms by transferring existing licensed beds to the fifth floor. This would enhance the hospital's ability to utilize its bed complement in a more efficient manner. Even without additional beds, petitioner's Executive Director believes that by amortizing construction costs over a period of 20 to 25 years and reducing its operating margin, there would not be a significant impact upon patient charges as a result of the fifth floor addition. Should petitioner be granted a Certificate of Need allowing it to construct a fifth floor with no new beds, petitioner would be willing to accept conditions concerning the conversion of existing semiprivate rooms to private, such as capping over medical gas outlets, deactivating wall outlets and light fixtures for a second bed and furnishing the new rooms on the exclusive basis of a private room. The conversion of semiprivate rooms to private rooms could be a less costly alternative to the addition of new beds in some instances. To the extent that the addition of private beds provides a potentiality for greater utilization of existing services, additional patient revenues can be generated. It is not the policy if the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to grant approval for "shelled in" or "banking" space due to the potential competitive advantage it affords by allowing a future increase of beds without significant cost. Petitioner has the ability to adequately staff its proposed project with all necessary technical, nursing, and medical personnel, and will provide an acceptable level of patient care. Sufficient funds are available to construct and operate the project and the project has immediate and long-term financial feasibility. Its costs and methods for the proposed construction are reasonable, appropriate, and cost-efficient. The respondent HRS has promulgated Rule 10-5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code which establishes a uniform methodology for determining the number of acute care hospital beds needed five years into the future within the eleven HRS service districts throughout the State. The Rule addresses the need for general medical and surgical, intensive care, pediatric and obstetrical acute care services in hospitals and the Department will not normally approve applications for additional beds if the new beds would cause the number of beds in a particular district to exceed the number calculated to be needed under the Rule's methodology. Rule 10-5.11(23) calculates need through a series of formulas by considering the need for the various types of individual services and then adding these figures together to produce a figure indicating the total number of acute care beds which would be needed in a particular District within a five-year time frame. Then, after certain adjustments, all existing licensed and approved acute care beds are subtracted from the total bed need to determine the net bed need within the District. Subdistrict allocations by type of service are to be made by the individual Local Health Councils consistent with the District total acute care bed allocations, with certain adjustments permitted. As of the date of the hearing in this cause, the Sixth District's Local Health Council's plan for the allocation of beds on a service specific or subdistrict basis had not been adopted. The acute care bed need methodology set forth in Rule 10-5.11(23) takes into account the population for the service area projected five years into the future, the historic utilization rate for particular types of service, average lengths of stay, optimal occupancy rates for the various types of services, and, with regard to obstetrical bed projections, the fertility rate of women between the ages of 15 and 44. The Rule sets forth the manner in which the figures for these various components are to be derived. Utilizing the methodology for determining acute care bed need as set forth in the Rule, District VI presently has 950 acute care beds in excess of the beds projected to be needed in the year 1988. By applying the subportion of the Rule relating to obstetrical beds to Hillsborough County, there are presently 47 obstetrical beds in excess of the number needed for 1988. While the petitioner agrees with the basic generic form of the methodology contained in Rule 10-5.11(23), petitioner would substitute different data than that mandated under the Rule and perform certain adjustments. For example, petitioner would adjust the numbers used in the formula by increasing the statewide fertility rate for the years 1979-81 by 5 percent, by factoring in a number of 2 percent to 3 percent to represent the in-migration of obstetrical patients, by increasing the statewide average length of stay from 3.5 to 3.8 days so as to reflect the actual experience at petitioner's facility, by making an adjustment for hospital stays by an obstetrical patient which do not result in a delivery and by making a downward adjustment for those births which do not occur in a hospital setting. Petitioner would also subtract from the number of existing and/or approved beds the 15 obstetrical beds at St. Joseph's Hospital which were taken out of service on an interim basis as of December 31, 1982, pending the development of a comprehensive plan for the delivery of obstetrical services on a decentralized basis. The parties to this proceeding have stipulated that St. Joseph's Hospital contemplates that its future obstetrical service will be centered around birthing rooms, rather than actual labor, delivery and recovery rooms, and that it is reasonable to expect that, once the service is resumed, approximately 360 deliveries will occur with this number increasing over time. After making all these adjustments and utilizing different data in the formula for determining need, petitioner concludes there is a 1988 need in District VI for 26 or 27 additional obstetrical beds. Petitioner's analysis of bed need based both on an institution-specific analysis and a trend analysis resulted in a finding of from 32 to 36 additional beds needed at petitioner's facility by the year 1988.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need in its entirety be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. French, Jr., Esquire & James C. Hauser, Esquire Messer, Rhodes & Vickers P.O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Claire D. Dryfuss Assistant General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Bldg. 1, Room 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Introduction Orlando General Hospital applied in April, 1987, for a certificate of need to allow it to convert 24 existing medical-surgical beds to short term psychiatric beds. O.G. Ex. 2, p. 1. It did not explicitly apply for beds limited to serve adults. It did, however, state that adolescent care would not be provided "at this time," leaving open the use of the 24 beds in the future for possible adolescent use. Id. at p. 5. Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc., applied for a certificate of need for a 50 bed short term psychiatric specialty hospital. It explicitly applied for a specialty hospital having 50 beds of "short term adult psychiatric care." C.M. Ex. 1, application, section I. In the executive summary, it characterized its proposal as a specialty hospital "for adults." Id. at p. 1. Charter does not intend to treat child or adolescent short term psychiatric patients. T. 23. The applications were filed in early 1987 to meet need in the January, 1992, planning horizon. The rule that applies in this case is the one contained in the prehearing stipulation. T. 392. It is rule 10-5.011(1)(o), Fla. Admin. Code. A copy of the rule is contained in O.G. Ex. 7, p. 33. The provisions of the local health plan at issue in this case are accurately reproduced in the State Agency Action Report (SAAR) which is C.M. Ex. 5. Net Short Term Psychiatric Bed Need (Numeric Need) Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4a-c, Fla. Admin. Code, provides that the projected number of beds shall be based on a bed need ratio of .35 beds per 1,000 population projected five years into the future and based, in this case, on the January, 1987, projections for January, 1992. That 1992 population for District VII is projected to be 1,505,564, and thus the gross short term psychiatric bed need is 527 beds. For this batching cycle, the inventory of licensed and approved short term psychiatric beds was 410. These were: General Hospitals Florida Hospital-Altamonte 20 Florida Hospital-Orlando 85 Orlando Regional Med. Center 32 Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital 25 Subtotal 162 Specialty Hospitals Brevard Mental Health Center 52 CPC Palm Bay (began 10/86) 40 Laurel Oaks (began 10/86) 60 Lynnhaven (approved only) 39 Park Place (approved only) 17 West Lake 40 Subtotal 248 TOTAL (Licensed and approved) 410 TOTAL (Licensed only) 354 Thus, there is a net need for 117 short term psychiatric beds In District VII by 1992. The rule further specifies that a minimum of .15 per 1,000 population should be allocated to hospitals holding a general license, and that .20 per 1,000 of the beds may be located in either speciality hospitals or hospitals holding a general license. HRS interprets the word "should" in the rule with respect to .15 per 1,000 allocated to hospitals with a general license as being mandatory. C.M. Ex. 5, pp. 13-14. This is a reasonable construction of the rule. By 1992 there must be 226 short term psychiatric beds located in hospitals holding a general license. Since currently there are 162 beds in such hospitals, there is a net need by January, 1992, for 64 short term psychiatric beds to be opened in hospitals holding a general license. The remainder of the net bed need, 53 beds, may be located in either a specialty hospital or a hospital holding a general license. T. 500-02. The Occupancy Rate for "All Existing Adult Short Term Inpatient Psychiatric Beds" Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4e, Fla. Admin. Code, provides in part that "no additional short term inpatient hospital adult psychiatric beds shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing adult short term inpatient psychiatric beds in a service district is at or exceeds 75 percent for the preceding 12 month period." (E.S.). Calendar year 1986 is the period of time accepted by all parties as the "preceding 12 month period" as specified by the rule, that is, the period of time to calculate the occupancy rate for this batching cycle. See, e.g., T. 285; C.M. Ex. 5. The State Agency Action Report Occupancy Rate The State Agency Action Report computed the occupancy rate for all licensed short term psychiatric beds in District VII in calendar year 1986 at 70.13 percent. C.M. Ex. 5, p. 10. This figure was based upon data as to patient days as reported by District hospitals to the District VII local health council and was based upon 354 licensed beds in the District during the full calendar year, but excluded 56 beds the re approved but not opened. O.G. Ex. 7, p. 6. Exclusion of CPC Palm Bay and Laurel Oaks CPC Palm Bay and Laurel Oaks have been designated by certificate of need issued by HRS to serve only children and adolescents. T. 507. Since those facilities by law cannot serve adults, their beds are not "adult beds," their patient days are not adult patient days, and their occupancy rate is not an adult occupancy rate. T. 1128. If CPC Palm Bay and Laurel Oaks were excluded from the calculation of the occupancy rate in the SAAR, the occupancy rate would be 73.7 percent. This rate is a weighted average based upon a 86,779 patient days that were possible at 100 percent occupancy of all licensed short term psychiatric beds in District VII in 1986, excluding Palm Bay and Laurel Oaks. C.M. Ex. 17, p. 11, fn. 9. How Many Adult Patient Days and Beds? HRS often issues certificates of need without age restrictions, allowing the facility to provide short term psychiatric treatment to everyone, regardless of age. Such hospitals can and do serve all ages, and their licensed short term psychiatric beds are not designated as, or restricted to, adults. T. 1128-29. With the exception of Palm Bay and Laurel Oaks, none of the other licensed short term psychiatric hospitals in the District are restricted by HRS by patient age. HRS does not have data to enable it to determine which short term psychiatric beds were used by adult patients in the District in 1986. T. 1169. Use of beds for age cohorts can dramatically and continuously change during a calendar year, and 41 has no reliable means to know about such changes. T. 1229-30. Hospitals issued certificates of need without limitation as to the age of the patient are not required by HRS to report the number of patient days served by the hospital by age or age group of the patient. See T. 1218-19; HRS Ex. 2. HRS Ex. 2. Consequently, the reported short term psychiatric patient days for District VII for calendar year 1986 mix adult patient days with patient days for children and adolescents. Thus, with the exception of Laurel Oaks and Palm Bay, it is impossible in this case for the applicants and other parties in this batching cycle to untangle pure adult psychiatric patient days from the available data. T. 392, 353, 287, 291, 371, 1169-71. It is impossible on this record to make a finding of fact as to what would happen to the mixed occupancy rate all patient days attributable to adolescents and children could be excluded from the adult patient days. The only bit of evidence is found in C.M. Ex. 17, the data from Florida Hospital, which shows for that hospital that the 16 adolescent unit in 1986 had an occupancy rate of 60.92 percent, and the open adult unit had an occupancy rate of 82.42 percent. C.M. Ex. 17, p. 3. But that percentage is more a reflection of Florida Hospital's choice in how it set up the beds in the two programs than it is a reflection of need. For example, had Florida Hospital chosen to allocate only 12 beds to its adolescent program, instead of 16, the 1986 occupancy rate for that unit, based on 3,558 patients a day, would have been 81.23 percent. One wonders why Florida Hospital did not simply allocate a lower number of beds to the adolescent unit, since it had only 13 admissions to that unit in 1986. In any event, since a hospital like Florida Hospital has discretion as to how it sets up its beds with respect to the ages of patients. In those beds, the fact that it had an occupancy rate of 60.92 percent in the subunit it called the adolescent unit in 1986 is relatively meaningless when trying to predict which way a pure adult occupancy rate might change if adolescent and child patient days could be excluded. In summary, there is no accurate count of beds licensed only as adult beds, there is no accurate count of beds used only as adult beds, and there is no accurate count of adult patient days. The Problem of West Lake Hospital The record has an additional data problem with respect to calculation of the occupancy rate of adult short term psychiatric beds. West Lake Hospital is licensed for 40 short term beds (not restricted by age), and 30 long term psychiatric beds. Data for calendar year 1986, the only year relevant in this case, is a mixture of short term and long term patient days. C.M. Ex. 17. As will be discussed ahead, additional evidence as to the patient days at West Lake Hospital was excluded from evidence for failure to comply with the prehearing order. The Problem of Short Term Psychiatric Patient Days Occurring in General Hospitals Without Licensed Short Term Psychiatric Beds A general hospital with no licensed short term psychiatric care can lawfully provide temporary and sporadic short term psychiatric care in its medical-surgical beds. T. 1191. In calendar year 1986, Orlando General Hospital reported to the Hospital Cost Containment Board that it provided 4,969 psychiatric (MDC 19) patient days of care. O.G. Ex. 7, p. 11. By 1988, it had over 30 psychiatric patients in the hospital at any given time. T. 753. Orlando General Hospital does not have any beds licensed for short term psychiatric care, or for long term psychiatric care, for that matter. Orlando General Hospital's psychiatric patients are currently receiving inpatient psychiatric care that is substantially the same as would be provided in a licensed short term psychiatric bed, with the exception that the care is osteopathic in nature. See T. 797, 1355-58, 1360-62, 788-90, 792-93. HRS Policy as to the Data Problems HRS stated that it "... would not attempt to fix a specific occupancy for a specific age cohort" in this case, T. 1220. A good faith attempt was made, however. Following a new policy, HRS argued that the adult bed occupancy rate should exclude the beds and patient days of hospitals having certificates of need explicitly limited to service of the needs of children and adolescents (Palm Bay and Laurel Oaks), but should include all of the licensed short term psychiatric beds at any other facility that is not restricted by patient age. T. 1127-29. It was acknowledged that the information is faulty, but the Department urges that it is the best that it can do under the circumstances. T. 1174. With respect to patient days, HRS also urges that only the patient days reported to the local health council by hospitals having licensed adult short term psychiatric beds should be counted in the mixed rate. In particular, HRS argues that it should not use patient day data reported to the Hospital Cost Containment Board because such data is not limited to hospitals having "designated" psychiatric units. T. 1126-27. This argument is not reasonable. Hospitals that are legally authorized to provide short term psychiatric care to adults (i.e., having a certificate of need and a license) can provide such care in any licensed bed in the hospital, even though the bed is not licensed as a psychiatric bed. Moreover, a general hospital with no licensed short term psychiatric care, according to HRS witnesses, can lawfully provide temporary and sporadic short term psychiatric care in its medical-surgical beds. It may even provide such care on a continuous, ongoing basis, as in the case of Orlando General Hospital, although the legality of doing so is questioned by HRS. The critical question is not whether these licensed hospitals have legal authority to provide short term psychiatric care, but whether the care in fact given results in a short term psychiatric patient day in the District. If the care given is essentially the same as if the patient had been in a licensed short term psychiatric bed, it would be unreasonable not to treat the resulting statistic as a short term psychiatric patient day. What is at stake is a true measurement of District capacity. If tomorrow all of the District short term psychiatric patients and the patient days generated by such patients transferred to the District licensed short term psychiatric beds, these short term psychiatric patient days would certainly be counted in the occupancy rate. When trying to assess the real extent of availability of District capacity, a false picture of excess and unused capacity would be shown if real short term psychiatric patient days are occurring somewhere in the District, but are not counted in determining the occupancy rate. On the other hand, if the facility is not even a licensed hospital, it is presumptively providing an alternative kind of inpatient psychiatric care that is different from a licensed psychiatric hospital. Thus, its patient days are irrelevant absent some specific proof that the care given in such a bed is essentially the same as a short term psychiatric patient day in a licensed general or specialty hospital. What is an "Existing" Adult Short Term Bed? Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4e, Fla. Admin. Code, calls for the occupancy rate for "all existing" adult short term psychiatric beds in the service district, and does not define the word "existing." Petitioners assert that "existing" adult beds of the facility for purposes of determining occupancy rate is the number of beds characterized by the facility as having been in fact used for psychiatric care during the year, but only if that number is less than the number of licensed short term psychiatric beds. T. 391, 354-55. The Respondent and the Intervenor argue that "existing" adult beds is fixed by the number of licensed short term psychiatric beds granted to the facility by the state if available to serve adult patients. Normally, to be licensed a bed must be available within 24 hours. T. 1121. Orlando Regional Medical Center In calendar year 1986, Orlando Regional Medical Center had 32 licensed short term psychiatric beds. T. 348. These 32 beds were not restricted by patient age. In calendar year 1986, Orlando Regional Medical Center characterized as "in service" 32 beds for the first 7 months of 1986, 22 beds for the month of August, 18 beds for the month of September, and 12 beds for the remaining 3 months of the year. The figure of 25 beds used by the Petitioners is the weighted average. T. 348. These licensed short term psychiatric beds at Orlando Regional Medical Center were temporarily not in service because of the construction of new facilities at the hospital. Orlando Regional Medical Facility intended to reopen those beds in the future because the hospital reminded the party seeking discovery that it had 32 licensed beds, and characterized the missing beds as having been "warehoused," that is, saved for future use. T. 509-10; O.G. Ex. 7, appendix 3. Thus, all 32 of Orlando Regional Medical Center's licensed beds would be available and would be used for adult short term psychiatric care if demand existed. Florida Hospital Florida Hospital has two facilities relevant to this case, one in Orlando, in Orange County, and one in Altamonte Springs, in Seminole County. In calendar year 1986, Florida Hospital had 105 beds licensed as short term psychiatric beds. Florida Hospital would serve patients of any age in these 105 beds. C.M. Ex. 18 is a document which was obtained from Florida Hospital through discovery. T. 286. The document is entitled "Florida Hospital Center for Psychiatry Monthly Operating Statistics," and thus was assumed by Charter's expert to be Florida Hospital's characterization of its data as psychiatric data. T. 289. C.M. Ex. 18 could not have been obtained by Charter at the time it made application. It was obtainable only through the discovery process after commencement of section 120.57(1), Fla. Stat., proceedings. T. 314-16, 386-87. Florida Hospital reported in discovery that in calendar year 1986, it had 113 beds operating in its "Center for Psychiatry." Of these, 16 were substance abuse beds, 13 were beds in an eating disorders unit, and 16 were adolescent beds. That left 24 beds in the intensive care unit, 24 beds in an open unit, and 20 beds at a unit at Altamonte Springs. C.M. Ex. 18. The 16 substance abuse beds clearly were not psychiatric beds. If the 13 eating disorders beds were short term psychiatric beds, Florida Hospital had 97 of its 105 licensed short term psychiatric beds in actual operation in 1986. If they were not, Florida Hospital had 84 of its 105 licensed short term psychiatric beds in actual operation in 1986. There is no evidence in this record that Florida Hospital could not and would not have readily opened 8 more short term psychiatric beds during 1986 if demand for those beds had existed, thus having "open" all 105 of its licensed beds. There is no evidence in this record that in 1986, Florida Hospital could not have closed its 16 bed adolescent unit and devoted all of those beds to adult short term psychiatric care, had there been a need. Indeed, it appears that generally speaking, that is how Florida Hospital operates: by shifting beds to other uses within its licensed authority according to demand. See T. 1322-26. Thus, all 105 of Florida Hospital's licensed beds would have been available and would have been used for adult short term psychiatric patients if the demand existed. Counting Patient Days - Are Eating Disorder Patient Days Psychiatric Patient Days? Florida Hospital reported in discovery that it had 2,982 patient days in its eating disorder unit, and that the unit operated with 13 beds. C.M. Ex. 18, P. 3, lines 8 and 26. The eating disorder unit reports to the administrative director of the Florida Hospital Center for Psychiatry. T. 977. The administrative director could not explain why the unit reported to the Center for Psychiatry. T. 977. The unit has co-directors, one a psychiatrist, and the other a specialist in internal medicine. Id. The administrative director of the Center for Psychiatry characterizes the 13 eating disorders beds as medical-surgical beds, and classifies patients in those beds as primarily having a medical problem, T. 976, but the psychiatrist co-director of the program hedged, and would not say whether the primary diagnosis is medical or psychiatric. T. 1315. The patients typically are, however, very ill from a medical point of view. T. 1314. Florida Hospital's characterization of the nature of the care given in its eating disorders unit, as summarized in the preceding paragraph, in view of the manner in which the witnesses were unclear as to how to characterize the eating disorder unit, is not evidence that the care given in that unit is not psychiatric care in view of Florida Hospital's interest in these cases in opposition to the applications. Charter's expert concluded from C.M. Ex. 18 that Florida Hospital was serving short term psychiatric patients in its eating disorders unit at Altamonte Springs. T. 287. He characterized this as a short term psychiatric service in medical-surgical beds. T. 289. But he also characterized the 13 beds as psychiatric beds. T. 287-88. HRS has issued a certificate of need to a short term psychiatric hospital limiting that certificate of need to treatment of eating disorders, thereby recognizing treatment of eating disorders in that case as a form of psychiatric treatment. T. 1191. From testimony at the hearing, it would appear that HRS's expert would view the eating disorder unit at Altamonte Springs as a short term psychiatric program. T. 1191-1192, 1194. It is concluded that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the care rendered to patients in the eating disorders unit was psychiatric care. The unit is administratively a part of the hospital's Center for Psychiatry. While the patients are very ill, medically speaking, they also have substantial mental health problems. Finally, and most persuasive, HRS has previously characterized such care as short term psychiatric care. If these 2,982 eating disorder patient days are counted as psychiatric patient days in 1986 for District VII, and if the number of beds at Florida Hospital remains as it was in the SAAR calculation (105 licensed beds), then the total patient days for the District changes from 63,976 to 66,958. The result is that the occupancy rate for District VII for 1986 for adult and mixed short term psychiatric beds changes from 73.72 percent to 77.16 percent. C.M. Ex. 17, p. 13. This calculation is the result of a weighted average discussed above. Psychiatric Patient Days Reported to the Hospital Cost Containment Board Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital report patient days by Medicare major diagnostic categories (MDC). MDC 19 is the category for psychiatric care. T. 512; O.G. Ex. 7. The data collected in this record was for calendar year 1986. T. 603-604. Relying upon MDC 19 statistics for calendar year 1986, Florida Hospital (Orlando and Altamonte Springs combined) had 28,372 MDC 19 patient days, and Orlando Regional Medical Center had 7,328 MDC 19 patient days. The Florida Hospital MDC 19 patient days shown in table 6, O.G. Ex. 7, are very close to the number of patient days shown on C.M. Ex. 18, the operating statistics from the "Center for Psychiatry" obtained from Florida Hospital in discovery. The MDC 19 patient days, 28,372, exceed the "Center for Psychiatry" reported data by only 452. The Orlando Regional Medical Center's MDO 19 patient days, 7,328, is 618 patient days greater than the patient days reported by Orlando Regional Medical Center to the local health council. If these MDC 19 patient days are assumed to be short term adult psychiatric patient days, following the same mathematical calculation used by HRS both in the SAAR and in testimony during the hearing (with the same weighted averages), the occupancy rate for adult and mixed short term psychiatric care in District VII, using licensed beds, was 78.39 percent in calendar year 1986. O.G. Ex. 7, table 6. This calculation uses the same weighted average (86,779 patient days at 100 percent occupancy) as used by all the other parties. C.M. Ex. 17, p. 11, fn. 9. There is no evidence in the record that the foregoing MDC 19 patient days are limited to short term psychiatric days, or the extent to which the data considers long term patient days as well. Of course, there is also no evidence available to separate the MDC 19 patient days into adult patient days and patient days attributable to children and adolescents. Westlake Hospital Data as to Short Term Psychiatric Patient Days in 1986 The Intervenor, Florida Hospital, has renewed its effort to have F.H. Ex. 3, and testimony based upon that exhibit admitted, into evidence. The exhibit and testimony involves data as to short term psychiatric patient days for 1986 at Westlake Hospital, located in Seminole County. Florida Hospital argues that the ruling excluding F.H. Ex. 3 from evidence, as well as testimony related to that exhibit, is inconsistent with the ruling that allowed Charter Medical to introduce C.M. Ex. 19. It is argued that the only difference is that in the case of Charter Medical, the witness first testified as to the contents of the exhibit, whereas in Florida Hospital's case, the exhibit was admitted, the witness testified, and then the exhibit was excluded. Florida Hospital argues that as a result of this sequence of events, its witness was not afforded an opportunity to present the same evidence from memory without the exhibit. From a review of the sequence of events, it is apparent that there is a substantial difference between the two exhibits, as well as a substantial difference in the procedures used by counsel, and that difference necessitates the two rulings. C.M. Ex. 19 is nearly identical to C.M. Ex. 17, with three exceptions. In C.M. Ex. 19 the patient days at the Florida Hospital eating disorder unit were moved from the Orlando facility to the Altamonte Springs facility. C.M. Ex. 19 also excluded adolescent patient days from the Florida Hospital count changed the number of "existing" beds at Orlando Regional Medical Center to 25 instead of 32. T. 295. C.M. Ex. 19 made no other changes to C.M. Ex. 17 with respect to patient days or number of beds. Two objections were made by Florida Hospital to the admission of C.M. Ex. 19, that C.M. Ex. 19 had not been provided to opposing counsel at the exchange of exhibits, in violation of the prehearing order, and that C.M. Ex. 19 was an impermissible amendment to Charter Medical's application for certificate of need. T. 295-296. Only the first objection is the subject of Florida Hospital's renewed argument. The Hearing Officer at the time overruled the first objection because it was determined that C.M. Ex. 19 merely summarized the testimony of Dr. Luke as to changes he would make to C.M. Ex. 17. That ruling was correct, and should not be changed at this time. All of the underlying data for the expert analysis in C.M. Ex. 19 came into evidence without objection that it had not been exchanged among the parties. C.M. Ex. 18 contained the data as to adolescent patient days and eating disorder patient days at Florida Hospital in 196. That data came into evidence without objection that it had not been exchanged. T. 316. Dr. Luke's testimony that Orlando Regional Medical Center had only 25 beds operational in 1986 came into evidence without objection. T. 292. Dr. Luke's testimony concerning the location of the eating disorders unit at Altamonte Springs came into evidence without objection. T. 287, 291. Both of these latter evidentiary matters were of a type that easily could have been known to Dr. Luke without reference to a document to refresh his memory. Additionally, the parties were well aware of the argument that Orlando Regional Medical Center had only 25 operational beds in 1986, and that Florida Hospital had only 48 adult beds in operation in 1986, since that evidence and argument was a fundamental part of Orlando General Hospital's basic bed need exhibit, O.G. Ex. 7, and the testimony of Ms. Horowitz. Moreover, the type of analysis of the data contained in C.M. Ex. 19 is the same as that of Ms. Horowitz in O.G. Ex. 7. Thus, Florida Hospital was not caught by surprise by C.M. Ex. 19. The exhibit did not contain new data or new modes of analysis. Florida Hospital's attempt to introduce data as to the actual number of short term psychiatric patient days at Westlake Hospital in 1986 was quite different. The data as to patient days at Westlake had not been produced during the deposition of Florida Hospital's witness, although similar data for 1987 and 1988 was produced. T. 867. Had it been made available in discovery, the failure to exchange the data as an exhibit as required by the prehearing order would have been less serious. But the exhibit had not been given by Florida Hospital to opposing parties, in violation of the prehearing order. T. 869. F.H. Ex. 3 did not reorganize data that otherwise was exchanged between the parties. It attempted to introduce new raw statistical data that had not been furnished opposing counsel as required by the prehearing order. The Hearing Officer initially ruled that F.H. Ex. 3 should be admitted into evidence and allowed the witness to testify concerning the data contained in the document. T. 870-871. That initial ruling was in error. The data contained in F.H. Ex. 3 is not at all simple. The document consists of four pages of numbers representing monthly statistics in 1986 at Westlake Hospital for each of its units. It is highly unlikely that a witness could have remembered all of that data presented the data in testimony without reliance upon the exhibit. Indeed, the witness testified that all of his testimony was based upon F.H. Ex. 3. T. 907. The witness had apparently given a different impression as to Westlake's occupancy rate in 1986 during his deposition, and did so without the benefit of F.H. Ex. 3. T. 910. Florida Hospital could have asked the witness if he could have presented his testimony without reference to F.H. Ex. 3, but it did not ask the witness that critical question. In sum, the witness could not have presented his analysis from memory. He had to have F.H. Ex. 3 in front of him as he testified. On December 2, 1987, an order was entered setting this case for formal administrative hearing beginning on July 11, 1988. That order established prehearing procedures. Paragraph 3 of that order requires counsel to meet no later than 10 days before the hearing to, among other things, "examine and number all exhibits and documents proposed to be introduced into evidence at the hearing." Later in the same paragraph is the requirement that the parties file a prehearing stipulation containing a list of all exhibits to be offered at the hearing. Paragraph 3D of the prehearing order states in part that failure to comply with the requirements of the order "may result in the exclusion of testimony or exhibits." The first time that opposing counsel were given the opportunity to see the data in F.H. Ex. 3 was in the middle of the formal administrative hearing. The exhibit contained detailed raw statistical data. C.M. Ex. 19 did not try to present new raw statistical data. For these reasons, F.H. Ex. 3 and all testimony related to that exhibit by Mr. Menard was excluded from evidence. Later in the hearing, Florida Hospital sought to introduce the same data through the testimony of Wendy Thomas, the planning director and data manager for the local health council. T. 1050. Counsel for Florida Hospital first attempted to show the witness the document that had been excluded from evidence, and counsel for the other parties objected. T. 1047-1049. The Hearing Officer suggested to counsel that counsel should first ask the witness whether she had made a computation and then ask what was the basis of the computation, rather than show the witness the document. T. 1049. Counsel then attempted to do that. But when counsel asked the witness for her computation, it was still unclear whether the witness based her calculation upon data in the excluded document. T. 1053. After a number of other questions, it still was unclear whether the data in the excluded document was the basis for the calculation. T. 1053-1055. The Hearing Officer then asked the witness if she could identify F.H. Ex. 3. The witness said that F.H. Ex. 3 contained the exact type of information that she had in her own files, and that her document looked like F.H. Ex. 3, except it was photocopied smaller. T. 1056. During all of this exchange, the witness was never asked by counsel for Florida Hospital if she ever had an independent memory of the details of the underlying data, or whether, if that memory now had faded, looking at F.H. Ex. 3 would refresh her memory. Since it was apparent that the basis for the witness's calculation was the same raw statistical data as contained in F.H. Ex. 3, the Hearing Officer granted the motion to exclude the testimony. Later, in cross examination of the proffered testimony, the witness testified that the basis for her calculation was the use of a document containing the same data as F.H. Ex. 3. T. 1087-1088, 1091. Thus, counsel for Florida Hospital did not lay a proper predicate for attempting to use F.H. Ex. 3 to refresh the memory of either witness. As discussed above, had it done so, it is unlikely that either witness could have testified from memory as to the statistics because the data contained in F.H. Ex. 3 was too detailed to have ever been in the memory of either witness. Florida Hospital argued that Ms. Thomas's calculation should be admitted because the raw data had been in her possession for over a year. That argument is unpersuasive. The raw data was in the possession of Westlake Hospital as well. The issue is not whether opposing parties might have discovered the data on their own, but compliance with the prehearing order requiring exchange of important exhibits. For these reasons, the Hearing Officer's rulings as to exclusion of the foregoing evidence will remain unchanged. The Local Health Plan Applicability No part of the District VII local health plan was adopted by HRS as a rule when these applications were and reviewed. T. 1214. Several years ago, with respect to applications for certificates of need for short term psychiatric beds, HRS considered need and occupancy rates only on a district-wide basis. T. 1184. See e.g. C.M. Ex. 20, where HRS did not refer to the local health plan as to these issues in District VII. HRS has now changed that policy, however, and considers need and occupancy at the district level and by portions of the District if those issues are effectively required by the local health plan. T. 1184. For purposes of planning for short term psychiatric services, the local health plan divides District VII into county "planning areas." Orange County is thus a local health plan planning area. The local health plan does not use planning areas for substance abuse planning, and it does not explain why there is a difference in planning. Orlando General and Charter both propose to locate their proposed short term adult psychiatric beds in Orange County if granted certificates of need. Counties are convenient units for health planning purposes because population data exists by county. T. 1180. Census tracts and zip code areas are also convenient geographical units for health planning. T. 1180-81. If a proposed facility is to be located very close to the county line, it would make no difference which side of the line it was on with respect to the ability of the facility to serve patients originating in either county. T. 1181. Allocation of Net Need to Orange County The local health plan, policy 3, provides that if the application of rule 10-5.011(1)(o) indicates a need (at the District level), the need is to be allocated among the counties in the district using the state numeric need method by county. T. 1027-29; C.M. Ex. 5. Applying all of the age calculations for the projected populations and bed inventory of Orange County only, the local health plan allocates 55 new short term psychiatric beds to Orange County by 1992. However, applying the allocation ratios of the rule, there is an excess of 18 short term psychiatric beds in general hospitals, and thus none of the 55 beds would be mainly allocable to a general hospital. There is, nonetheless, a potential allocation of need of 73 beds in either a specialty or a general hospital, and the net need of 55 beds could be allocated to either a specialty hospital or a general hospital. The Orange County Mixed Occupancy Rate The local health plan, policy 4, applies the 75 percent occupancy standard to the county level. The policy explicitly calls for an average annual occupancy rate for all existing facilities in the planning area with respect to adult short term psychiatric beds. C.M. Ex. 5. Relying upon the calculation in the SAAR, but deleting Laurel Oaks, the mixed occupancy rate for Grange County in 1986 was less than 58.4 percent. This calculation only includes the beds at Florida Hospital (Orlando) and Orlando Regional Medical Center. The calculation is based upon 18,696 patient days at Florida Hospital (Orlando) in 85 beds, and 6,242 patient days in Orlando Regional Medical Center in 32 beds. There were 4,969 MDC 19 patient days occurring at Orlando General Hospital in 1986. There were 7,328 MDC 19 patient days occurring at Orlando Regional Medical Center in 1986. The eating disorder patient days occurred in Seminole County (Altamonte springs) and should not be counted in an Orlando occupancy rate. The only data as to patient days at Florida Hospital, Orlando only, is that found in C.M. Ex. 18, which is the same as the SAAR, which reports 18,696 patient days. (The MDC 19 data mixes the two units.) The number of licensed short term psychiatric beds in Orange County in 1986 was 117. All of these beds were licensed the entire year, and thus there was no need to do a weighted average of potential patient days for these beds. See C.M. Ex. 17, p. 11; O.G. Ex. 7, table 6. Using all of the foregoing patient days, the number of patient days was 30,993, the number of licensed short term psychiatric beds was 117, and the mixed occupancy rate for Orange County for 1986 was 72.6 percent. If it is not appropriate to count the 4,969 patient days at Orlando General Hospital in the Orange County occupancy rate, the 1986 Orange County occupancy rate was only 60.09 percent. Conversion of Existing Beds and Service to Indigent Patients Policy 5 of the local health plan states that excess bed capacity in, among other types of beds, medical/surgical beds, should be eliminated by reallocation of beds among the services, including psychiatric services. Policy 6 of the local health plan states that primary consideration should be given for project approval to applicants who satisfy to the greatest extent the following priorities: The first priority is to applicants who commit to serving "underserved client groups," including Medicaid, Baker Act, and medically indigent patients. The second priority is to applicants who convert underutilized existing beds. As will be discussed in the conclusions of law, Orlando General's application satisfies these priorities, and Charter Medical's application does not. Other Evidence as to Future Need Historically, health care providers have been reimbursed on a fee- for-service basis. The more services provided, the greater the payment. These insurance arrangements had little incentive to decrease the level of services. T. 720. In the last three or four years, the health insurance industry has changed its methods of providing insurance. A very large percentage of insured patient care is now managed by use of flat rates based upon a per person count (capitation). The rates do not increase related to utilization. Managed health care reimbursement uses a system whereby the health care provider is paid a flat rate annually for each insured person, and agrees to provide for the health care needs of all such persons generally without considering the degree of utilization during the year. T. 722-723. Under the capitation system, the provider has the incentive to provide only such care that, in intensity or duration, is the minimum that is clinically acceptable. T. 724. Psychiatric services have been included in the movement of the industry toward managed health care reimbursement rather than fee-for-service reimbursement. T. 722. The health care industry now offers competitive managed health care plans in central Florida, and the trend is for an increase in the availability of such methods of reimbursement in central Florida. T. 726-727. It is now 40 percent of the insurance market, and in the early 1990's, the percentage of managed health care may be twice that percentage. T. 727. The effect of the new reimbursement system is to substantially lower the length of stay, and to lower the rate of admission as well, at short term psychiatric hospitals. T. 724-725, 881-882, 1319-1320. Orlando General Hospital projected that its average length of stay would be 30 days in 1992. It has discovered from current experience that its average length of stay is about 15 days. T. 433, 464. District VII has recently experienced an increase in the availability of community based mental health facilities. These facilities provide a variety of mental health services, including brief inpatient care. The facilities do not require a certificate of need. T. 1046-1047, 1319. The Nature of the Proposed Programs Orlando General Hospital General Orlando General is a 197 bed acute care general osteopathic hospital located in Orlando, Florida, in Orange County. Orlando General proposes to convert a 35 bed medical-surgical unit to 24 short term psychiatric beds at a capital cost of $689,272. It would relocate 11 of its medical-surgical beds, and convert the remainder to short term psychiatric beds. Orlando General Hospital is located in the southeast portion of Orange County. T. 1107. It is the most eastward facility in Orange County with the exception of a long term psychiatric hospital now under construction. T. 1107. The primary service area of Orlando General by location of physicians offices is the southern half of Seminole County and the northern portion of Orange County. In particular, the hospital serves northeastern Orange County through the location of its physicians' offices. T. 412; O.G. Ex. 2, p. 27. The program of treatment described in Orlando General's application is no longer an accurate description of Orlando General's current program or of the intended program. T. 453. The treatment programs planned for the new short term psychiatric unit are comparable to the programs planned by Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc., and are adequate and appropriate programs for short term psychiatric care. Psychiatric Care for the Elderly Orlando General Hospital would provide adequate and appropriate specialized short term psychiatric care for elderly patients, but would not provide such care in a unit physically separated from other patients. There currently is a split of professional opinion as to whether or not geriatric patients should be treated in a psychiatric unit separated (physically as well as programmatically) from other patients. There are benefits from both approaches. T. 1315-1317, 68, 74-76, 43-45, 770. Various Charter Medical hospitals do it both ways. T. 70. Osteopathic Medicine at Orlando General Hospital Osteopathic medicine differs from allopathic medicine in its emphasis upon viewing the interaction of all parts of the body, rather than a single part, and the use of muscular and skeletal manipulation. T. 1349, 753-754. Orlando General Hospital is an osteopathic hospital and has been osteopathic in nature since the 1960's. It was founded by osteopathic physicians, and the hospital abides by osteopathic philosophies. The Board of Trustees at the hospital are all osteopathic physicians. Although it has medical doctors on staff, the majority are osteopathic physicians Orlando General Hospital is accredited by the American Osteopathic Association to train osteopathic physicians, and has such training programs, primarily in family medicine. T. 412-414, 755. There are about 80 osteopathic physicians in Orange County, and the vast majority are on the staff at Orlando General Hospital. T. 760. Patients who prefer osteopathy, and osteopathic physicians, prefer an osteopathic hospital. Osteopathic physicians believe that they deliver better care to their patients in an osteopathic facility rather than an allopathic facility. About 30 percent of the psychiatric patients treated by Dr. Greene at Orlando General Hospital receive manipulation as a therapy. T. 1351. There is a shortage of osteopathic psychiatrists. T. 756. Other than Randall Greene, D.O., there are no osteopathic psychiatrists in the Orange County area. Id. There is a shortage of places for psychiatric resident training. There is no osteopathic psychiatric residency in Florida, and only a few in the country. T. 764, 1349. Consequently, osteopaths seeking to become psychiatrists often have to go to allopathic hospitals for residencies. T. 1349 Residency in an allopathic hospital is often not approved by the American College of osteopathic psychiatrists. Thus the osteopath who has had his or her residency in an allopathic hospital and lacks such approval will not be readily accepted as an osteopathic psychiatrist on the staff of an osteopathic hospital. T. 1350. Orlando General Intends to have a residency program in osteopathic psychiatric for at least two positions if it is granted a certificate of need. T. 762, 415. The Evolution of Osteo-Psychiatric Care at Orlando General Hospital Dr. Randall Greene came to Orlando in 1982. He is an osteopathic physician and psychiatrist. He initially was on the staff at four hospitals but soon discovered that other osteopathic physicians were referring patients needing psychiatric care to Orlando General Hospital because it was an osteopathic hospital. These physicians frequently asked Dr. Greene to provide psychiatric care at Orlando General. T. 754. Osteopathic physicians who referred their patients to Dr. Greene and to Orlando General Hospital continued to treat the physical ailments of those patients at Orlando General Hospital. T. 760. Dr. Greene now limits his psychiatric practice to Orlando General Hospital because of the large number of psychiatric patients being treated at the hospital. T. 756. Thirty to forty percent of the psychiatric patients come to Orlando General via the emergency room. T. 421, 445. Additionally, patients admitted to the new substance abuse program often need psychiatric care. T. 407. Orlando General has difficulty transferring its psychiatric patients to other hospitals. A number of the patients have no insurance or have only Medicaid coverage. T. 420. Orlando General Hospital is located in a lower economic area, and thus attracts patients of this type. Id. Patients who prefer osteopathic treatment also prefer not to be transferred to an allopathic hospital. T. 759. The increase in numbers of psychiatric patients served at Orlando General Hospital in medical-surgical beds helped to offset the hospital's loss of medical-surgical patient days during the same period. T. 452 Due to the large number of psychiatric patients, and the decline in need for medical-surgical beds, Orlando General hospital decided to apply for the instant certificate of need. Due to the osteopathic nature of the hospital, physicians, patients and the hospital prefer to keep these patients at Orlando General Hospital rather than refer them to an allopathic hospital. It is HRS's position that if a hospital does not advertise itself as having a distinct psychiatric unit and does not organize within itself a distinct psychiatric unit, the admission and treatment of psychiatric patients to medical-surgical beds on an "random" and unplanned basis is proper even the hospital does not have licensed psychiatric beds. T. 1191. Orlando General hospital does not hold itself out to the public through advertising as having a separate psychiatric unit. T. 468. Patient Mix & Commitment to Charity Care Orlando General Hospital currently provides a large portion of charity care for Orange County. T. 1100. In its 26 bed chemical dependency unit, Orlando General reserves 2 beds for indigents. T. 785. The unit also sets aside, as needed, one bed for any Florida nurse whose license is in jeopardy due to chemical dependence and who has no financial means to pay for treatment. Id. Orlando General Hospital typically has a larger amount of bad debt and charity care (for people who do not pay) than other hospitals in the area. T. 423. In 1987, Orlando General Hospital reported to the Hospital Cost Containment Board that it had $141,404 in charity care, and that it had $3,244,530 in bad debt. T. 657, 660. Bad debt constituted 9.7 percent of gross revenue. T. 660. Since it is very difficult to determine at admission whether the patient realistically can pay for services, a lot of this bad debt is, in a functional sense, charity care. T. 659-660. It is concluded from the foregoing that Orlando General Hospital has a genuine commitment to providing health care to persons who cannot pay. T. 422, 662. Orlando General Hospital projects that it will in its proposed 24 bed short term psychiatric unit 5 percent indigent patients, 8 percent Medicaid patients, 20 percent Medicare patients, 50 percent insured patients, and 17 percent private pay patients. These projections are reasonable and are consistent with Orlando General Hospital's current experience. T. 662-664; O.G. Ex. 2, p. 16. Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc. General Charter Medical proposes to construct a 50 bed free standing short term psychiatric hospital in Orange County, Florida. The capital cost of the proposed project would $5,85,000. C.M. Ex. 1. Charter Medical would offer adult and geriatric short term psychiatric services in the proposed short term beds. As a free standing specialty hospital devoted entirely to short term psychiatric care, Charter Medical's proposal should be able to provide more space and additional therapies than would typically be found at a general hospital with a short term psychiatric unit. T. 47-50, 890-91. Charter Medical would provide adequate geriatric short term psychiatric care in a separate unit with separate programs consisting of the latest techniques for caring for the mentally ill elderly patient. Charter Medical's proposed facility would not be able to treat short term psychiatric patients who also have serious medical problems, which undoubtedly will include elderly patients. Charter Medical would have adequate transfer arrangements with a general hospital to serve the medical needs of its patients, and would have adequate staffing and equipment within the free standing specialty hospital to meet the routine and emergency medical needs of its patients. Staffing Orlando General and Charter Medical would be able to recruit, train, and retain adequate staff to operate its proposed short term psychiatric unit. T. 635-648, 849-852, T. 137-143. Lone Term Financial Feasibility Orlando General Hospital Charges When these applications were filed, HRS did not have standards for the contents of a pro forma of income and expenses. Orlando General Hospital initially projected a charge rate of $350 in 1987 and $375 in 1988. This charge rate was based upon the charge rate for Orlando General's substance abuse unit at that time, compared with a survey of five other hospitals having short term psychiatric beds. T. 425; O.G. Ex. 2, p. 24, 49. As of the summer of 1988, the Medicaid program reimbursed Orlando General Hospital for its MDC 19 (psychiatric) patients at the rate of $418 per day. T. 585. Charter Medical proposes to charge $475 per day during 1988. Florida Hospital currently charges between $425 and $445 per short term psychiatric patient day, and these charges do not include ancillary charges. T. 992. Westlake Hospital currently charges about $550 per short term psychiatric patient day. T. 888. Winter Park Pavilion is a freestanding psychiatric hospital with 39 adult psychiatric beds. The record does not indicate whether it is licensed for short or long term care. The facility charges about $500 per patient day, which does not include ancillary costs. T. 913, 918. Crossroads University Behavioral Center is a freestanding 100 bed long term psychiatric hospital that is under construction. T. 808. Crossroads has considered charges in the range of $500 to $600 per day, but has not definitely settled on the rate. T. 832-833. The charges proposed by Orlando General Hospital in its application are very reasonable, if not very conservative. Projected Utilization Orlando General Hospital's MDC 19 patient days (psychiatric patient days) have increased steadily from 1986. In 1986, the hospital had 4,969 MDC 19 patient days; in 1987, it had 7,779 MDC 19 patient days; and extrapolating (multiplying by 4) from the data for the first three months of 196, Orlando General could reasonably expect 11,804 MDC 19 patient days in 1988. O.G. Ex. 2, p. 11; T. 516. Since a 24 bed unit at 100 percent occupancy would only generate 8,760 patient days, it is unreasonable to use 11,804 as the estimate of patient days in 1988. However, it is concluded that Orlando General Hospital would have no difficulty at all in very quickly filling its proposed 24 bed unit to capacity. Expenses Orlando General Hospital's application estimated that direct expenses of the proposed 24 bed short term psychiatric unit would be $801,505 in 1987, $839,080. In 1988, and $887,030 in 1989. O.G. Ex. 2. These are reasonable projections of direct expenses. The pro forma filed by Orlando General Hospital in its application did not include an estimate of allocated expenses. The allocated expenses would typically have been 60 percent of total expenses, and the direct expenses only 40 percent of total expenses. T. 698. The projected direct expenses for 1988 in Orlando General Hospital's application were $839,080. Since that is only 40 percent of the total expense, the total projected expense (including 60 percent for indirect allocated expense) would be $2,097,700. Long Term Financial Feasibility If Orlando General Hospital charged $375 per patient day in 1988, and had 8,760 patient days, as is reasonable to expect, given its actual experience, Orlando General would have $3,285,000 in gross revenue for 1988. Assuming that net revenue, after additions and after accounting for contractuals and bad debt, will be the same percentage of gross revenue as shown in Orlando General's application, which was 76.74 percent, this would generate a net revenue of $2,520,909. This net revenue would entirely cover not only the direct expenses but also the allocated expenses, and would leave profit of $423,209. All of the remaining issues raised by the parties as to the accuracy of Orlando General's estimates of nursing expense or bad debt are irrelevant given the large amount of leeway Orlando General would have, if necessary, to raise its charges from $375 to something closer to the charges of other area hospitals. In summary, Orlando General Hospital's proposal is financially feasible in the long term. Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc. Charter Medical's proposed charges include charges for physicians who admit patients, perform histories and physicals, and make daily medical rounds. The proposed charges are reasonable. If there were need, Charter Medical's proposal would be financially feasible in the long term. The need for Charter Medical's proposed facility has not been proven by a preponderance of the evidence, however. See the Conclusions of Law herein. While the numerical need rule as applied to Orange County shows a need for 55 beds, in actual practice that need is a need for osteopathic psychiatric care. The thirty or so patients currently treated on a daily basis at Orlando General Hospital ended up at that hospital, rather than Orlando Regional Medical Center or Florida Hospital, primarily because the patients preferred osteopathic care and were admitted to Orlando General Hospital by osteopathic physicians. Absent action by HRS to stop Orlando General Hospital from treating these patients, the patients would not be available to Charter Medical in its proposed facility. This would leave Charter Medical in a situation of opening a new 50 bed facility when the county occupancy rate in 1986 was 60 percent in the only two licensed facilities in the area. It would also leave Charter Medical in a situation of opening a new facility in the face of the trend to managed health care and the certainty that the average length of stay for short term psychiatric care by 1992 will decrease from current levels. For these reasons, Charter Medical has not proven financially feasibility in the long term by a preponderance of the evidence. Quality of Care Orlando General Hospital Orlando General Hospital would provide care of good quality comparable to care that would be provided by Charter Medical. Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc. Charter Medical Corporation is a large corporation that has experience in the operation of a large number of psychiatric hospitals. That expertise would be available to insure that the care provided in Orange County would be of good quality. Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc., would provide care of good quality comparable to care that would be provided by Orlando General. Comparative Review as to Important Differences The Orlando General Hospital Application Orlando General Hospital intends to convert 24 underutilized medical and surgical beds to 24 short term psychiatric beds. T. 517. Since the project calls for conversion of existing facilities, the capital cost is $700,000, and does not include the construction of new buildings. T. 517. Since the capital cost is relatively low, the project will not drain away a large amount of reimbursement from reimbursement funding sources, thus making those funds available to other health care facilities. T. 1223. As a licensed general hospital, Orlando General Hospital's patients including the patients that would be served by the proposed short term psychiatric unit, would be eligible for Medicaid reimbursement T. 1224. Orlando General Hospital has a good record in Orange County of serving indigent patients, and currently is providing care to a large portion of the indigents cared for by Orange County. T. 1099-1100. As discussed in the section concerning osteopathic care, Orlando General Hospital's proposal for a short term psychiatric unit would have a number of benefits to the practice of osteopathic medicine in the region, and the availability of osteopathic care to patients desiring that form of care. Patients in the short term psychiatric unit at Orlando General Hospital could be transferred to a medical bed when a medical need arises without having to be transported by an ambulance. The Charter Medical Application Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Charter Medical Corporation. Charter Medical Corporation has been in existence for 20 years and has 81 hospitals. Of these, 68 are psychiatric or substance abuse facilities. Charter Medical thus has extensive resources and experience to provide very good psychiatric care at the proposed facility. As a free standing hospital dedicated solely to short term psychiatric care, it is reasonable to expect that Charter Medical's facility will tend to provide more space, more varied programs, and more intensive patient care than a general hospital. This would occur because in a general hospital, the psychiatric unit must compete with medical units for allocation of resources, and in some hospitals, the psychiatric unit is given a lower priority due to the tendency of such hospitals to emphasize the medical aspect of their services. T. 47-49. Charter Medical's facility would not treat Medicaid patients, and it proposes to serve a very small percentage of indigent patients. Charter proposes in future years after the second year to provide 1.5 percent of gross revenue as charity care, and 5 percent as bad debt. T. 377-79, 197. Charter Medical's facility would serve primarily private pay and insured patients, thus draining away these paying patients from other hospitals, to the detriment of other hospitals. T. 971. The Substantial Interest of Florida Hospital If a certificate of need were granted to Charter Medical, Florida Hospital would suffer an adverse impact by loss of patients and additional competition for staff. T. 971-972, 1318-1321, 1327.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended in case number 87-4748 that a final order be entered denying the application of Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc., to construct and operate a new 50 bed short term psychiatric hospital, and in case number 87-4753 that a final order be entered granting the application of Orlando General Hospital to convert 24 medical-surgical beds to short term psychiatric beds. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX 1 TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-4748 and 87-4753 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact which have either been rejected or which have been adopted by reference. The numbers used are the numbers used by the parties. Statements of fact in this appendix or proposed findings of fact adopted by reference in this appendix are additional findings of fact. Findings of fact proposed by Charter Medical: 3-5. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The need is for beds in either a specialty or a general hospital. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The operational use of the beds is not relevant to the occupancy rate. Had the beds been restricted as a matter of licensure to children, like Palm Bay or Laurel Oaks, the beds would not have been potentially available for adults. Only in that case would exclusion of these beds have been proper. The operational use of the beds is not relevant to the occupancy rate. The testimony regarding the use of the word "existing" in the health planning field has been rejected as not persuasive. The context of such use was not explained, and thus a finding cannot be made that the use of the word is properly applicable to the way HRS intends the word to be used in its occupancy rule. The equation of "existing" with "operational" confuses capacity and need as discussed elsewhere in this recommended order. The HRS interpretation is the most reasonable construction of the word, and leads to a meaning far more consistent with the purposes of the certificate of need regulatory law than does the equation of "existing" with merely being operational. The certificate of need law is aimed at determining need five years into the future. How a hospital may temporarily operate its licensed beds during that period to respond to fluctuations in demand and operational idiosyncrasies at the particular hospital is irrelevant to the question of whether HRS should grant certificates of need and additional licensed capacity within the District. Dr. Luke's calculation was conservative and correct, but a better calculation is the one by Orlando General's expert (78 percent) that uses MDC 19 patient days. The only relevant count is 105 licensed beds at the two facilities. The last sentence is rejected for lack of credible evidence from which to draw that inference, as explained elsewhere in this recommended order. 20-21. The only relevant count is licensed beds. 22. Orlando General's average daily census was 13.6 based upon 4,969 MDC 19 patient days in 1986. 23-24. The only relevant count is licensed beds. 28. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 30. It is true that the health care needs of the metropolitan Orlando impact counties adjacent to Orange County due to the sprawl of that urban area across several county lines. But there is sufficient expert evidence in this record to conclude that generally speaking, the local health council has not acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its choices of counties as health planning areas for purposes of allocation of bed need and for purposes of applying occupancy rates. Nonetheless, the that the urban extent of the metropolitan Orlando area is important has been accepted in this recommended order with respect to the conclusion that the factor that the Orange County occupancy rate is only slightly below 75 percent is entitled to less weight in this case. 32, 33, 35, 37-63. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 64 (first sentence). It is realistically expected that Charter Medical will devote 1.5 percent of its gross patient revenue to barity care. T. 377- 379. 65-70. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 71-72. Financial feasibility has not been shown due to lack of need. Lack of need will result in insufficient occupancy and revenue. 73-74. The extrapolation from the actual trend of increase in patient days in District VII for the years 1983-1987 to create a projection of patient days in 1988 through 1992 would have been a valid and important way to show need, and would have been accepted had the projection accounted for the trend in the industry toward shorter lengths of stay due to changes in methods of payments for mental health care. The extrapolation simply assumes that the past will continue. In this case, there is substantial reason to believe that the past will not continue, that the base data, 1983-1987, is not valid for predicting patient days in 1992 because the patient days in 1992 will largely be paid for under a new system, a system that discourages inpatient stays beyond that which is absolutely necessary from a clinical point of view. Charter Medical projects that it will rely upon insurance for payment 67 percent of the time, so the changes in insurance payments will substantially affect patient days in 1992 at its proposed facility. 75-85. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 89. While osteopathic psychiatric care is essentially the same as allopathic psychiatric care, there are two critical differences. Osteopathic medicine in general emphasizes consideration of the functioning of the body as a whole; allopathic medicine does not. Secondly, osteopathic medicine utilizes muscular and skeletal manipulation in treatment, including psychiatric treatment, and allopathic medicine does not. These two differences are sufficiently marked for patients to have a preference for one or the other approach. 91-92. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 93-94. These proposed findings are true and are adopted by reference, but the findings do not prove that the quality of care at Orlando General Hospital would not be adequate in 1992. It was apparent that Dr. Greene's heavy caseload was not an optimum circumstance. However, at the time of the , Orlando General had four staff psychiatrists. T. 1355. Dr. Greene testified that the care was "basically" the same, but his testimony clearly reflected his opinion that the "deeper" differences were significant. T. 756, 1350-1354. The record cited does not support a finding that the majority of the patients transferred were indigent. That question was not asked. This proposed finding places the cart before the horse. Osteopathic physicians gravitate to Orlando General Hospital to practice osteopathy. In the practice of osteopathy, they achieve many job satisfactions, including care of patients and making money. 98-99. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant because based upon the past, not upon a future having more staff psychiatrists. Moreover, it is clinically acceptable for other professionals to provide therapy and counseling. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. The program description in the application was superseded by evidence during the formal administrative hearing. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. Orlando General Hospital is an existing hospital that already has these functions. It may need some augmentation of staff in these areas, but if it does, it would be an unreasonable conclusion to make that it would fail to add such 103-106. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The only exception is the last sentence in proposed finding 106. The number 18 is not supported by the record cited. This method has not been shown to be unreasonable. It is true that it was the method used. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. There was an accounting for bad debt. O.G. Ex. 2, p. 48. The point is essentially irrelevant. A 10 percent increase based upon 1987 salaries would be only about 20,000. Moreover, Charter Medical stipulated in the prehearing stipulation that the salaries of all personnel are reasonable. The proposed finding of fact is true but irrelevant. A pro forma does not have to comport with generally accepted accounting principles. Even with the addition of these charges, the resultant charge is comparable to charges of other area hospitals, including. Charter Medical's proposed charge of $475, which with inflation would increase rapidly to $500. 113-122, 124. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 125-127. Proof that an existing health care program is in sound financial condition is essentially irrelevant to the question of whether that program has a substantial interest sufficient to permit intervention into a section 120.57(1), Fla. Stat., formal proceeding. Proof of competition for the same patients in the same service area is sufficient to show that the existing program will be "substantially affected" to entitle it to intervene. Section 381.709(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (1987). Florida Hospital has proven its substantial interest by showing that the addition of new short term psychiatric beds, particularily a new facility like proposed by Charter Medical, will increase competition in Orange County for patients and staff. T. 881, 883, 649, 855-856. 128-129. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference 130. Mr. Holton's testimony was not only based upon consideration of the data mentioned in this proposed finding of fact, but also his experience in general with managed health care plans and the effect such plans have had upon the market place. The proposed finding that his testimony was not credible is rejected. 131 (first two sentences), 132-133. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. Findings of Fact proposed by Orlando General Hospital: 7-12, 17, 19, 29. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The statement is true only from the perspective of the osteopathic psychiatrist and with respect to osteopathic care. Allopathic physicians disagree. The second sentence is subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. It is true, however, and is adopted by reference. 34. The second sentence is subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. It is true, however, and is adopted by reference. 38-49, 51-60. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The proposition that separate geriatric units offer no benefits to geriatric patients is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. The proposition that there is no problem in mixing the elderly with younger patients, or that an elderly patient does much better in a mixed population, is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. The second and third sentences are contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. 67-71, 73-80. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 86-87. While these proposed findings of fact are true, they are only marginally relevant since the ratio is measured as of 1992, not 1988. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. It is unclear when Dr. Greene meant when he testified that his census was 35 to 40 patients. For the first 90 days of 1988, the hospital had 2,951 MDC 19 patient days, or 32.8 patients per day. The analysis with respect to "existing" beds and the county analysis have been rejected as explained in this recommended order. The last sentence is subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. It is true, however, and is adopted by reference. 97-102. The legal argument that beds temporarily not in operation are not "existing" has been rejected as explained in this recommended order. Thus, these findings are not relevant. 105, 107 (last sentence). These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 109. The second sentence is rejected as a finding of fact because the health planning context was not adequately explained. 110-111. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 114-115. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 117. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 118-120. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. 122. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 123, 124, 126, 127, 129-131, 133. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The proposed finding of fact is true, but has not been shown to impact the financial feasibility of the Charter Medical proposal. The indirect costs within a single hospital are more relevant to long term financial feasibility of the proposed project than the indirect costs to a single hospital from a parent corporation that has over 60 such hospitals. 136, 147, 151, 152. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The patient body count for the first three months of 1988 was 32.8. O.G. Ex. 2, p. 11. The "consciousness" of a corporation is difficult . Orlando General Hospital was well aware that its medical-surgical census was decreasing and its psychiatric population was increasing. It is true that the increase of its psychiatric population was largely due to causes outside the control of the hospital, however, and not due to marketing efforts by the hospital. 161 (last sentence), 162. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. This proposed finding of fact is only marginally relevant because the result could be an average caused a minority of states who do things differently. Moreover, there Is no evidence that Florida is like this. The third sentence is subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. It is true, however, and is adopted by reference. 167. The statement is true only if HRS allows Orlando General Hospital to continue to serve this large number of psychiatric patients without having a certificate of need. If the practice were discontinued, some of the patients would be served by other hospitals in the District, including Florida Hospital. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 174, 176. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 177. The current state of access to short term psychiatric services in eastern Orange County was not credibly proven. 179. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. Findings of fact proposed by HRS: 1, 2, 3, 4. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 5, 6. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 13. The number should be 64, not 63. 22. The occupancy rate is a mathematical attempt to measure the degree to which the District VII capacity to serve adult short term psychiatric patients has been used up. The theory implicit in the rule is that, with respect to adult capacity, the decision to add new capacity should be delayed until the old capacity is at least 75 percent or more used up. The rate has a numerator (patient days) and a denominator (the real capacity). Any argument that tries to ignore real patient days occurring in the District, or real capacity to serve those patients, is unreasonable. Findings of fact proposed by Florida Hospital: The second sentence is true, but the issue is not she license of the beds is, but what type of patient day is generated by that service. The preponderance of the evidence is that those were short term psychiatric patient days. The first sentence is rejected for the reasons stated above. 19-21. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 20-27. F.H. Ex. 3 was excluded from evidence, and the testimony related to that exhibit was also excluded from evidence for the reasons stated elsewhere in this recommended order. 28. This proposed finding fails to consider the MDC 19 evidence of patient days at Florida Hospital and Orlando Regional Medical Center. 29-30. These proposed findings of fact are true, and the reasoning therein is part of the reason why the denominator of the fraction that is the occupancy rate must be licensed beds. 31. A correction to the number of patient days at Westlake Hospital is legally appropriate, but the evidence for such a correction has been excluded from the record for reasons having nothing to do with the legal propriety of such a correction. 33. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 34-39. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The fact that existing facilities may have beds available to treat future patients is not inconsistent with a decision to grant a certificate of need for additional licensed beds. The occupancy rate threshold in the rule is 75 percent occupancy, not 100 percent occupancy. It is to be expected that the District will have 25 percent or less of its beds unoccupied when new beds are approved. 41, 43-44, 46-47. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. This proposed finding of fact is contrary to the credible evidence. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. See section 381.705(1)(g) and (h), Fla. Stat. (1987). This proposed finding of fact is contrary to the credible evidence. This proposed finding of fact is contrary to the credible evidence. To the contrary, where need exists, these are grounds for determining which of the competing applicants should be approved. 60. A conclusion that the occupancy rates are "stable" cannot be made from data based only upon calendar year 1986, which was two years ago, and six years from 1992, the time when need is projected. 61-69. These findings of fact are true. Even where there is need, the opening of the new facility normally lures some patients away from existing facilities. But if need exists sufficient to grant a certificate of need, this short term harm to existing providers is irrelevant. Finally, health care costs would not increase if there is need. While it is true that the Charter Medical utilization projections were initially prepared without a close analysis of District VII, the projections are nonetheless reasonable as discussed elsewhere in this recommenced order. Inflation of expenses without projection of inflation in revenues is an incomplete and unreasonable mode of projection. T. 229-230. Given the size of the Charter Medical Corporation and the number of hospitals it owns and operates, the condition of one more hospital will not Increase home office expenses. Those expenses will exist whether this project exists or not. The financial feasibility of the project in Orlando, therefor, need not consider home office expenses. T. 242-244. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The quantitative relevancy of this proposed finding of fact has not been shown. The proposed finding of fact is otherwise true. Orlando General Hospital's current patient census is a sufficient basis for a finding that its projected occupancy rate is reasonable. Charges proposed in an application for a certificate of need are not promises binding upon the applicant. In future years, the applicant is reasonably expected to make substantial changes in its charge structure based upon market conditions. Proposed charges, as well as proposed changes to charges to meet altered contingencies beyond the control of the applicant, is entirely appropriate for analysis in a certificate of need case. The only relevant question is whether the altered charge compares favorably with competing applicants. 81-83. Florida Hospital proved that the market for staff is competitive and that hiring staff is difficult at the moment. But it did not prove that the applicants would fail to hire adequate staff to operate their proposed facilities. T. 1327. 92-102. These proposed findings of fact summarize proposed findings of fact which have previously been addressed. APPENDIX 2 TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-4748 and 87-4753 Rule 10-5.008(3), Fla. Admin. Code, provides that "[s]ubsequent to an application being deemed complete by the Office of Health Planning and Development, no further information or amendment will be accepted by the Department." (E.S.) The rule states that the Department will accept no information after the application is deemed complete. The words used are not ambiguous or unclear. Thus, if normal rules of construction were to be followed, the conclusion would be drawn $ha the Department is bound by its own clear rule, and cannot, by interpretation, add exceptions. But an equally valid rule of construction is that absurd results must be avoided. Certificate of need cases, particular ones like the case at bar, are highly competitive and complicated. It would be unreasonable to require the applicants to prove applications that have become erroneous due to the passage of time. While the question is a close one, the Hearing Officer has concluded that it would be better to ignore the clear words of the rule, and attempt to apply the evolving interpretative policy of the Department to avoid an absurd result. The following appear to be the existing final orders of the Department interpreting rule 10-5.008(3), and its predecessor, published in the Florida Administrative Law Reports. Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Palm Beach, 8 F.A.L.R. 4650 (September 24, 1986); Arbor Health Care Company, Inc., d/b/a Martin Health Center, Inc., v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 709 (October 13, 1986); Mease Hospital and Clinic v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 159 (October 13, 1986); Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Collier County v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 8 F.A.L.R. 5883 (December 8, 1986); Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Nursing Center of Highlands County, v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1081 (December, 1986); Manatee Mental Health Center, Inc. d/b/a Manatee Crisis Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 1430 (February 2, 1987); Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Hillsborouh, v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1630 (February 5, 1987); Manor Care, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1628 (March 2, 1987); Psychiatric Institutes of America, Inc., d/b/a Psychiatric Institute of Orlando v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 1626a (March 5, 1987) ; Manor Care, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 2139 (March 24, 1987); Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 2110 (April 17, 1987); Hialeah Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 2363 (May 1, 1987); Palms Residential Treatment Center, Inc., d/b/a Manatee Palms Residential Treatment Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 10 F.A.L.R. 1425 (February 15, 1988). These final orders contain the following statements concerning the Department's interpretation of rule 10-5.008(3) and its evolving policy with respect to changes to applications for certificates of need during section proceedings and admissibility of new information not contained in the original applications: Health Care and Retirement, supra, 8 F.A.L.R. 1081: During 120.57 proceedings, an application may be updated to address facts extrinsic to the application such as interest rates, inflation of construction costs, current occupancies, compliance with new state or local health plans, and changes in bed or service inventories. An applicant is not allowed to update by adding additional services, beds, construction, or other concepts not initially reviewed by HRS. Manatee Mental Health Center, supra, 9 F.A.L.R. at 1431: ... HRS has authority by statute to issue a CON for an identifiable portion of . Section 381.4C4(8), Florida Statutes. MMHC's "amended" proposal reduced the number of beds sought, and was properly considered during the 120.57 proceedings. Manor Care. Inc., supra, 9 F.A.L.R. at 1628: The amended applications [amended to address needs of Alzheimer's disease patients] changed the scope and character of the proposed facilities and services and thus, must be reviewed initially at HRS... [ limited the denovo concept by requiring that evidence of changed circumstances be considered only if relevant to the application. Hialeah Hospital, Inc., 9 F.A.L.R. at 2366: It is recognized that more than a year may pass between the free form decision by HRS and the final 120.57 hearing and this passage of time may require updating an application by evidence of changed circumstances such as the' effect of inflation on interest and construction costs. For the sake of clarity HRS would avoid the use of the word "amendment" to describe such updating. Such evidence of changed circumstances beyond the control of the applicant is relevant to the original application and is admissible at the 120.57 hearing. Taking the easiest first, those items explicitly listed by the Department in the first Health Care and Retirement case, "interest rates, inflation of construction costs, current occupancies, compliance with new state or local health plans, and changes in bed or service inventories," which change after the application is initially filed, are permitted. Not permitted are "additional services, beds, construction, or other concepts not initially reviewed by HRS." The remainder of the Department's incipient policy, as presently articulated, is obscure. The word "extrinsic" without the list of examples is of little guidance. The application is only an idea on paper. Anything new, other than the bare words on the paper as originally filed, is literally "extrinsic" thereto. The concept of whether the new information changes the "scope and character of the facilities and services" originally reviewed in free form action by the Department is similarly of little guidance because the phrase "scope and character" can mean practically anything. Of fundamental difficulty is whether this phrase is intended to select substantial changes to the original application, or all changes. For example, if the original application proposes separate shower stalls and tubs for double rooms, but the amended application proposes a combination shower and tub, has the "scope and character" of the "facilities and services" changed? The phrase "additional services, beds, construction, or other concepts not initially reviewed by HRS" is similarly vague. What is a service or construction or a concept not originally reviewed? Would this include the change in bathing equipment discussed above? The concept of "control" of the applicant over the information that goes into the original application is the only phrase that gives applicants any guidance. The word "control" probably is intended as a "knew or reasonably should have "known" standard. If the applicant reasonably should have known about the information and should have provided the Department with the information as a part of its original application, then the new information cannot be considered during the formal administrative hearing. The Hearing Officer will be guided, thus, by the explicit list of items provided by the Department in the Health Care and Retirement case, and by the concept of "control" provided by the Hialeah case. COPIES FURNISHED: For Agency HRS Theodore D. Mack. Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Building Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (904) 488-8673 Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc. Fred W. Baggett, Esquire Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard 101 East College Avenue Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 222-6891 William D. Hoffman, Jr., Esquire Deborah J. Winegard, Esquire King & Spalding 2500 Trust Company Tower Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 572-4600 Orlando Regional Medical Center, Inc. Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire Mateer, Harbert & Bates, P. A. 100 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 2854 Orlando, Florida 32802 (305) 425-9044 Orlando General Hospital, Inc. Eric J. Haugdahl, Esquire 1363 East Lafayette Street Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 878-0215 Florida Hospital Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Robert P. Mudge, Esquire Boone, Boone, Klingbeil & Boone, P. A. 1001 Avenida del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 (813) 488-6716 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
